Current External Beam Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Guidance: Does It Meet the Challenges of Emerging Image-Guided Technologies?

A novel EPID-based MLC QA method with log files achieving submillimeter accuracy

The purpose of this study is to develop an electronic portal imaging device-based multi-leaf collimator calibration procedure using log files. Picket fence fields with 2-14 mm nominal strip widths were performed and normalized by open field. Normalized pixel intensity profiles along the direction of leaf motion for each leaf pair were taken. Three independent algorithms and an integration method derived from them were developed according to the valley value, valley area, full-width half-maximum (FWHM) of the profile, and the abutment width of the leaf pairs obtained from the log files. Three data processing schemes (Scheme A, Scheme B, and Scheme C) were performed based on different data processing methods. To test the usefulness and robustness of the algorithm, the known leaf position errors along the direction of perpendicular leaf motion via the treatment planning system were introduced in the picket fence field with nominal 5, 8, and 11 mm. Algorithm tests were performed every 2 weeks over 4 months. According to the log files, about 17.628% and 1.060% of the leaves had position errors beyond ± 0.1 and ± 0.2 mm, respectively. The absolute position errors of the algorithm tests for different data schemes were 0.062 ± 0.067 (Scheme A), 0.041 ± 0.045 (Scheme B), and 0.037 ± 0.043 (Scheme C). The absolute position errors of the algorithms developed by Scheme C were 0.054 ± 0.063 (valley depth method), 0.040 ± 0.038 (valley area method), 0.031 ± 0.031 (FWHM method), and 0.021 ± 0.024 (integrated method). For the efficiency and robustness test of the algorithm, the absolute position errors of the integration method of Scheme C were 0.020 ± 0.024 (5 mm), 0.024 ± 0.026 (8 mm), and 0.018 ± 0.024 (11 mm). Different data processing schemes could affect the accuracy of the developed algorithms. The integration method could integrate the benefits of each algorithm, which improved the level of robustness and accuracy of the algorithm. The integration method can perform multi-leaf collimator (MLC) quality assurance with an accuracy of 0.1 mm. This method is simple, effective, robust, quantitative, and can detect a wide range of MLC leaf position errors.

Multi-institutional dose audit in radiotherapy facilities using in-house developed optically stimulated luminescence disc dosimeters

Aim

The aim of this study was to carried out the audit of radiotherapy centers practicing conformal radiotherapy techniques and demonstrate the suitability of this indigenous optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) disc dosimeters in beam quality audit and verification of patient-specific dosimetry in conventional and conformal treatments in radiotherapy.

Materials and Methods

Dose audit in conventional and conformal (intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy) radiotherapy techniques was conducted using in-house developed Al2O3:C-based OSL disc dosimeter and commercially available Gafchromic EBT3 film in 6 MV (flat and unflat) photon and 6 and 15 MeV electron beams. OSL disc dosimeter and Gafchromic EBT3 film measured dose values were verified using the ionization chamber measurements.

Results

Percentage variations of doses measured by OSL disc dosimeters and EBT3 Gafchromic film for conventional radiotherapy technique were in the range of 0.15%-4.6% and 0.40%-5.45%, respectively, with respect to the treatment planning system calculated dose values. For conformal radiotherapy techniques, the percentage variations of OSL disc and EBT3 film measured doses were in the range of 0.1%-4.9% and 0.3%-5.0%, respectively.

Conclusion

The results of this study supported by statistical evidence provided the confidence that indigenously developed Al2O3:C-based OSL disc dosimeters are suitable for dose audit in conventional and advanced radiotherapy techniques.

Comprehensive radiation and imaging isocenter verification using NIPAM kV-CBCT dosimetry

PURPOSE

To develop and demonstrate a comprehensive method to directly measure radiation isocenter uncertainty and coincidence with the cone-beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) imaging coordinate system that can be carried out within a typical quality assurance (QA) time slot.

METHODS

An N-isopropylacrylamide (NIPAM) three-dimensional (3D) dosimeter for which dose is observed as increased electron density in kV-CBCT is irradiated at eight couch/gantry combinations which enter the dosimeter at unique orientations. One to three CBCTs are immediately acquired, radiation profile is detected per beam, and displacement from imaging isocenter is quantified. We performed this test using a 5 mm diameter MLC field, and 7.5 and 4 mm diameter cones, delivering approximately 16 Gy per beam. CBCT settings were 1035-4050 mAs, 80-125 kVs, smooth filter, 1 mm slice thickness. The two-dimensional (2D) displacement of each beam from the imaging isocenter was measured within the planning system, and Matlab code developed in house was used to quantify relevant parameters based on the actual beam geometry. Detectability of the dose profile in the CBCT was quantified as the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the irradiated high-dose regions relative to the surrounding background signal. Our results were compared to results determined by the traditional Winston-Lutz test, film-based "star shots," and the vendor provided machine performance check (MPC). The ability to detect alignment errors was demonstrated by repeating the test after applying a 0.5 mm shift to the MLCs in the direction of leaf travel. In addition to radiation isocenter and coincidence with CBCT origin, the analysis also calculated the actual gantry and couch angles per beam.

RESULTS

Setup, MV irradiation, and CBCT readout were carried out within 38 min. After subtracting the background signal from the pre-CBCT, the CNR of the dosimeter signal from the irradiation with the MLCs (125 kVp, 1035 mAs, n = 3), 7.5 mm cone (125 kVp, 1035 mAs, n = 3), and 4 mm cone (80 kVp, 4050 mAs, n = 1) was 5.4, 5.9, and 2.9, respectively. The minimum radius that encompassed all beams calculated using the automated analysis was 0.38, 0.48, and 0.44 mm for the MLCs, 7.5 mm cone, and 4 mm cone, respectively. When determined manually, these values were slightly decreased at 0.28, 0.41, and 0.40 mm. For comparison, traditional Winston-Lutz test with MLCs and MPC measured the 3D isocenter radius to be 0.24 mm. Lastly, when a 0.5 mm shift to the MLCs was applied, the smallest radius that intersected all beams increased from 0.38 to 0.90 mm. The mean difference from expected value for gantry angle was 0.19 ± 0.29°, 0.17 ± 0.23°, and 0.12 ± 0.14° for the MLCs, 7.5 mm cone, and 4 mm cone, respectively. The mean difference from expected for couch angle was -0.07 ± 0.28°, -0.08 ± 0.66°, and 0.04 ± 0.25°.

CONCLUSIONS

This work demonstrated the feasibility of a comprehensive isocenter verification using a NIPAM dosimeter with sub-mm accuracy which incorporates evaluation of coincidence with imaging coordinate system, and may be applicable to all SRS cones as well as MLCs.

Production, review, and impact of technical quality control guidelines in a national context

A close partnership between the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR) and the Canadian Organization of Medical Physicist's (COMP) Quality Assurance and Radiation Safety Advisory Committee (QARSAC) has resulted in the development of a suite of Technical Quality Control (TQC) guidelines for radiation treatment equipment; they outline specific performance objectives and criteria that equipment should meet in order to assure an acceptable level of radiation treatment quality. The adopted framework for the development and maintenance of the TQCs ensures the guidelines incorporate input from the medical physics community during development, measures the workload required to perform the QC tests outlined in each TQC, and remain relevant (i.e., “living documents”) through subsequent planned reviews and updates. The framework includes consolidation of existing guidelines and/or literature by expert reviewers, structured stages of public review, external field‐testing, and ratification by COMP. This TQC development framework is a cross‐country initiative that allows for rapid development of robust, community‐driven living guideline documents that are owned by the community and reviewed to keep relevant in a rapidly evolving technical environment. Community engagement and uptake survey data shows 70% of Canadian centers are part of this process and that the data in the guideline documents reflect, and are influencing, the way Canadian radiation treatment centers run their technical quality control programs. For a medium‐sized center comprising six linear accelerators and a comprehensive brachytherapy program, we evaluate the physics workload to 1.5 full‐time equivalent physicists per year to complete all QC tests listed in this suite.

PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.56.‐v

Technological advancements and error rates in radiation therapy delivery

PURPOSE

Technological advances in radiation therapy (RT) delivery have the potential to reduce errors via increased automation and built-in quality assurance (QA) safeguards, yet may also introduce new types of errors. Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) is an increasingly used technology that is more technically complex than three-dimensional (3D)-conformal RT and conventional RT. We determined the rate of reported errors in RT delivery among IMRT and 3D/conventional RT treatments and characterized the errors associated with the respective techniques to improve existing QA processes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

All errors in external beam RT delivery were prospectively recorded via a nonpunitive error-reporting system at Brigham & Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Errors are defined as any unplanned deviation from the intended RT treatment and are reviewed during monthly departmental quality improvement meetings. We analyzed all reported errors since the routine use of IMRT in our department, from January 2004 to July 2009. Fisher's exact test was used to determine the association between treatment technique (IMRT vs. 3D/conventional) and specific error types. Effect estimates were computed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 155 errors in RT delivery among 241,546 fractions (0.06%), and none were clinically significant. IMRT was commonly associated with errors in machine parameters (nine of 19 errors) and data entry and interpretation (six of 19 errors). IMRT was associated with a lower rate of reported errors compared with 3D/conventional RT (0.03% vs. 0.07%, p = 0.001) and specifically fewer accessory errors (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.78) and setup errors (odds ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of errors in RT delivery is low. The types of errors differ significantly between IMRT and 3D/conventional RT, suggesting that QA processes must be uniquely adapted for each technique. There was a lower error rate with IMRT compared with 3D/conventional RT, highlighting the need for sustained vigilance against errors common to more traditional treatment techniques.

Quality assurance of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: toward improvement of patient safety and quality of care

The process of radiotherapy (RT) is complex and involves understanding of the principles of medical physics, radiobiology, radiation safety, dosimetry, radiation treatment planning, simulation and interaction of radiation with other treatment modalities. Each step in the integrated process of RT needs quality control and quality assurance (QA) to prevent errors and to give high confidence that patients will receive the prescribed treatment correctly. Recent advances in RT, including intensity-modulated and image-guided RT, focus on the need for a systematic RTQA program that balances patient safety and quality with available resources. It is necessary to develop more formal error mitigation and process analysis methods, such as failure mode and effect analysis, to focus available QA resources optimally on process components. External audit programs are also effective. The International Atomic Energy Agency has operated both an on-site and off-site postal dosimetry audit to improve practice and to assure the dose from RT equipment. Several countries have adopted a similar approach for national clinical auditing. In addition, clinical trial QA has a significant role in enhancing the quality of care. The Advanced Technology Consortium has pioneered the development of an infrastructure and QA method for advanced technology clinical trials, including credentialing and individual case review. These activities have an impact not only on the treatment received by patients enrolled in clinical trials, but also on the quality of treatment administered to all patients treated in each institution, and have been adopted globally; by the USA, Europe and Japan also.

Quality assurance needs for modern image-based radiotherapy: recommendations from 2007 interorganizational symposium on "quality assurance of radiation therapy: challenges of advanced technology"

This report summarizes the consensus findings and recommendations emerging from 2007 Symposium, "Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy: Challenges of Advanced Technology." The Symposium was held in Dallas February 20-22, 2007. The 3-day program, which was sponsored jointly by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO), American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), and National Cancer Institute (NCI), included >40 invited speakers from the radiation oncology and industrial engineering/human factor communities and attracted nearly 350 attendees, mostly medical physicists. A summary of the major findings follows. The current process of developing consensus recommendations for prescriptive quality assurance (QA) tests remains valid for many of the devices and software systems used in modern radiotherapy (RT), although for some technologies, QA guidance is incomplete or out of date. The current approach to QA does not seem feasible for image-based planning, image-guided therapies, or computer-controlled therapy. In these areas, additional scientific investigation and innovative approaches are needed to manage risk and mitigate errors, including a better balance between mitigating the risk of catastrophic error and maintaining treatment quality, complimenting the current device-centered QA perspective by a more process-centered approach, and broadening community participation in QA guidance formulation and implementation. Industrial engineers and human factor experts can make significant contributions toward advancing a broader, more process-oriented, risk-based formulation of RT QA. Healthcare administrators need to appropriately increase personnel and ancillary equipment resources, as well as capital resources, when new advanced technology RT modalities are implemented. The pace of formalizing clinical physics training must rapidly increase to provide an adequately trained physics workforce for advanced technology RT. The specific recommendations of the Symposium included the following. First, the AAPM, in cooperation with other advisory bodies, should undertake a systematic program to update conventional QA guidance using available risk-assessment methods. Second, the AAPM advanced technology RT Task Groups should better balance clinical process vs. device operation aspects--encouraging greater levels of multidisciplinary participation such as industrial engineering consultants and use-risk assessment and process-flow techniques. Third, ASTRO should form a multidisciplinary subcommittee, consisting of physician, physicist, vendor, and industrial engineering representatives, to better address modern RT quality management and QA needs. Finally, government and private entities committed to improved healthcare quality and safety should support research directed toward addressing QA problems in image-guided therapies.