G Kim

A quality assurance program for the on-board imager ®

To develop a quality assurance (QA) program for the On-Board Imager (OBI) system and to summarize the results of these QA tests over extended periods from multiple institutions. Both the radiographic and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) mode of operation have been evaluated. The QA programs from four institutions have been combined to generate a series of tests for evaluating the performance of the On-Board Imager. The combined QA program consists of three parts: (1) safety and functionality, (2) geometry, and (3) image quality. Safety and functionality tests evaluate the functionality of safety features and the clinical operation of the entire system during the tube warm-up. Geometry QA verifies the geometric accuracy and stability of the OBI/CBCT hardware/software. Image quality QA monitors spatial resolution and contrast sensitivity of the radiographic images. Image quality QA for CBCT includes tests for Hounsfield Unit (HU) linearity, HU uniformity, spatial linearity, and scan slice geometry, in addition. All safety and functionality tests passed on a daily basis. The average accuracy of the OBI isocenter was better than 1.5mm with a range of variation of less than 1mm over 8 months. The average accuracy of arm positions in the mechanical geometry QA was better than 1mm, with a range of variation of less than 1mm over 8 months. Measurements of other geometry QA tests showed stable results within tolerance throughout the test periods. Radiographic contrast sensitivity ranged between 2.2% and 3.2% and spatial resolution ranged between 1.25 and 1.6lp∕mm. Over four months the CBCT images showed stable spatial linearity, scan slice geometry, contrast resolution (1%; <7mm disk) and spatial resolution (>6lp∕cm). The HU linearity was within ±40HU for all measurements. By combining test methods from multiple institutions, we have developed a comprehensive, yet practical, set of QA tests for the OBI system. Use of the tests over extended periods show that the OBI system has reliable mechanical accuracy and stable image quality. Nevertheless, the tests have been useful in detecting performance deficits in the OBI system that needed recalibration. It is important that all tests are performed on a regular basis.

Linac-based on-board imaging feasibility and the dosimetric consequences of head roll in head-and-neck IMRT plans

Kilovoltage imaging systems on linear accelerators are used for patient localization in many clinics. The purpose of this work is to assess on-board imaging (OBI) detection of systematic setup errors and in particular, the dosimetric consequences of undetected head roll in head-and-neck intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans when using these systems. The system used in this study was the Trilogy linear accelerator and associated software (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Accuracy of OBI localization was evaluated using an anthropomorphic head phantom. The head phantom is rigidly attached to a specially designed positioning device with 5 degrees of freedom, 3 translational and 2 rotational in the axial and coronal planes. Simulated setup errors were 3 degrees and 5 degrees rotations in the axial plane and displacements of 5 mm in the left-right, anterior-posterior, and superior-inferior directions. The coordinates set by the positioning device were compared with the coordinates obtained as measured by using the image matching tools of paired 2-dimensional (2D) orthogonal image matching, and 3D cone-beam computed tomography (CT) volume matching. In addition, 6 physician-approved IMRT plans of nasopharynx and tonsil carcinoma were recalculated to evaluate the impact of undetected 3 degrees and 5 degrees head roll. Application of cone-beam CT (CBCT) for patient localization was superior to 2D matching techniques for detecting rotational setup errors. The use of CBCT allowed the determination of translational errors to within 0.5 mm, whereas kV planar was within 1 to 2 mm. Head roll in the axial plane was not easily detected with orthogonal image sets. Compared to the IMRT plans with no head roll, dose-volume histogram analysis demonstrated an average increase in the maximal spinal cord dose of 3.1% and 6.4% for 3 degrees and 5 degrees angles of rotation, respectively. Dose to the contralateral parotid was unchanged with 3 degrees roll and increased by 2.7% with 5 degrees roll. The results of this study show that volumetric setup verification using CBCT can improve bony anatomy setup detection to millimeter accuracy, and is a reliable method to detect head roll. However, the magnitude of possible dose errors due to undetected head roll suggests that CBCT does not need to be performed on a daily basis but rather weekly or bi-weekly to ensure fidelity of the head position with the immobilization system.

Failure mode and effects analysis and fault tree analysis of surface image guided cranial radiosurgery

PURPOSE Surface image guided, Linac-based radiosurgery (SIG-RS) is a modern approach for delivering radiosurgery that utilizes optical stereoscopic imaging to monitor the surface of the patient during treatment in lieu of using a head frame for patient immobilization. Considering the novelty of the SIG-RS approach and the severity of errors associated with delivery of large doses per fraction, a risk assessment should be conducted to identify potential hazards, determine their causes, and formulate mitigation strategies. The purpose of this work is to investigate SIG-RS using the combined application of failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) and fault tree analysis (FTA), report on the effort required to complete the analysis, and evaluate the use of FTA in conjunction with FMEA. METHODS A multidisciplinary team was assembled to conduct the FMEA on the SIG-RS process. A process map detailing the steps of the SIG-RS was created to guide the FMEA. Failure modes were determined for each step in the SIG-RS process, and risk priority numbers (RPNs) were estimated for each failure mode to facilitate risk stratification. The failure modes were ranked by RPN, and FTA was used to determine the root factors contributing to the riskiest failure modes. Using the FTA, mitigation strategies were formulated to address the root factors and reduce the risk of the process. The RPNs were re-estimated based on the mitigation strategies to determine the margin of risk reduction. RESULTS The FMEA and FTAs for the top two failure modes required an effort of 36 person-hours (30 person-hours for the FMEA and 6 person-hours for two FTAs). The SIG-RS process consisted of 13 major subprocesses and 91 steps, which amounted to 167 failure modes. Of the 91 steps, 16 were directly related to surface imaging. Twenty-five failure modes resulted in a RPN of 100 or greater. Only one of these top 25 failure modes was specific to surface imaging. The riskiest surface imaging failure mode had an overall RPN-rank of eighth. Mitigation strategies for the top failure mode decreased the RPN from 288 to 72. CONCLUSIONS Based on the FMEA performed in this work, the use of surface imaging for monitoring intrafraction position in Linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) did not greatly increase the risk of the Linac-based SRS process. In some cases, SIG helped to reduce the risk of Linac-based RS. The FMEA was augmented by the use of FTA since it divided the failure modes into their fundamental components, which simplified the task of developing mitigation strategies.

A Real-Time Safety and Quality Reporting System: Assessment of Clinical Data and Staff Participation

PURPOSE To report on the use of an incident learning system in a radiation oncology clinic, along with a review of staff participation. METHODS AND MATERIALS On September 24, 2010, our department initiated an online real-time voluntary reporting system for safety issues, called the Radiation Oncology Quality Reporting System (ROQRS). We reviewed these reports from the programs inception through January 18, 2013 (2 years, 3 months, 25 days) to assess error reports (defined as both near-misses and incidents of inaccurate treatment). RESULTS During the study interval, there were 60,168 fractions of external beam radiation therapy and 955 brachytherapy procedures. There were 298 entries in the ROQRS system, among which 108 errors were reported. There were 31 patients with near-misses reported and 27 patients with incidents of inaccurate treatment reported. These incidents of inaccurate treatment occurred in 68 total treatment fractions (0.11% of treatments delivered during the study interval). None of these incidents of inaccurate treatment resulted in deviation from the prescription by 5% or more. A solution to the errors was documented in ROQRS in 65% of the cases. Errors occurred as repeated errors in 22% of the cases. A disproportionate number of the incidents of inaccurate treatment were due to improper patient setup at the linear accelerator (P<.001). Physician participation in ROQRS was nonexistent initially, but improved after an education program. CONCLUSIONS Incident learning systems are a useful and practical means of improving safety and quality in patient care.

Single-Isocenter Frameless Volumetric Modulated Arc Radiosurgery for Multiple Intracranial Metastases.

BACKGROUND Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a well-accepted treatment for patients with intracranial metastases, but outcomes with volumetric modulated arc radiosurgery (VMAR) are poorly described. OBJECTIVE To report our initial clinical experience applying a novel single-isocenter technique to frameless VMAR for simultaneous treatment of multiple intracranial metastases. METHODS We performed a retrospective analysis of 15 patients undergoing frameless VMAR for multiple intracranial metastases using a single, centrally located isocenter in the period 2009 and 2011. Of these, 3 patients were treated for progressive or recurrent intracranial disease. A total of 62 metastases (median, 3 per patient; range, 2-13) were treated to a median dose of 20 Gy (range, 15-30 Gy). Three patients were treated with fractionated SRS. Follow-up including clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) occurred every 3 months. RESULTS The median follow-up for all patients was 7.1 months (range, 1.1-24.3), with 11 patients (73.3%) followed until death. For the remaining 4 patients alive at the time of analysis, the median follow-up was 19.6 months (range, 9.2-24.3). Local control at 6 and 12 months was 91.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.6%-100.0%) and 81.5% (95% CI, 67.9%-100.0%), respectively. Regional failure was observed in 9 patients (60.0%), and 7 patients (46.7%) received salvage therapy. Overall survival at 6 months was 60.0% (95% CI, 40.3%-88.2%). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicity was not observed. The median total treatment time was 7.2 minutes (range, 2.8-13.2 minutes). CONCLUSION Single-isocenter, frameless VMAR for multiple intracranial metastases is a promising technique that may provide similar clinical outcomes compared with conventional radiosurgery.

A method of setting limits for the purpose of quality assurance

The result from any assurance measurement needs to be checked against some limits for acceptability. There are two types of limits; those that define clinical acceptability (action limits) and those that are meant to serve as a warning that the measurement is close to the action limits (tolerance limits). Currently, there is no standard procedure to set these limits. In this work, we propose an operational procedure to set tolerance limits and action limits. The approach to establish the limits is based on techniques of quality engineering using control charts and a process capability index. The method is different for tolerance limits and action limits with action limits being categorized into those that are specified and unspecified. The procedure is to first ensure process control using the I-MR control charts. Then, the tolerance limits are set equal to the control chart limits on the I chart. Action limits are determined using the Cpm process capability index with the requirements that the process must be in-control. The limits from the proposed procedure are compared to an existing or conventional method. Four examples are investigated: two of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) point dose quality assurance (QA) and two of routine linear accelerator output QA. The tolerance limits range from about 6% larger to 9% smaller than conventional action limits for VMAT QA cases. For the linac output QA, tolerance limits are about 60% smaller than conventional action limits. The operational procedure describe in this work is based on established quality management tools and will provide a systematic guide to set up tolerance and action limits for different equipment and processes.

Feasibility study on dosimetry verification of volumetric- modulated arc therapy-based total marrow irradiation

The purpose of this study was to develop dosimetry verification procedures for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT)‐based total marrow irradiation (TMI). The VMAT based TMI plans were generated for three patients: one child and two adults. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined as bony skeleton, from head to mid‐femur, with a 3 mm margin. The plan strategy similar to published studies was adopted. The PTV was divided into head and neck, chest, and pelvic regions, with separate plans each of which is composed of 2–3 arcs/fields. Multiple isocenters were evenly distributed along the patients axial direction. The focus of this study is to establish a dosimetry quality assurance procedure involving both two‐dimensional (2D) and three‐dimensional (3D) volumetric verifications, which is desirable for a large PTV treated with multiple isocenters. The 2D dose verification was performed with film for gamma evaluation and absolute point dose was measured with ion chamber, with attention to the junction between neighboring plans regarding hot/cold spots. The 3D volumetric dose verification used commercial dose reconstruction software to reconstruct dose from electronic portal imaging devices (EPID) images. The gamma evaluation criteria in both 2D and 3D verification were 5% absolute point dose difference and 3 mm of distance to agreement. With film dosimetry, the overall average gamma passing rate was 98.2% and absolute dose difference was 3.9% in junction areas among the test patients; with volumetric portal dosimetry, the corresponding numbers were 90.7% and 2.4%. A dosimetry verification procedure involving both 2D and 3D was developed for VMAT‐based TMI. The initial results are encouraging and warrant further investigation in clinical trials. PACS number: 87.55.Qr

Automating linear accelerator quality assurance.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was 2-fold. One purpose was to develop an automated, streamlined quality assurance (QA) program for use by multiple centers. The second purpose was to evaluate machine performance over time for multiple centers using linear accelerator (Linac) log files and electronic portal images. The authors sought to evaluate variations in Linac performance to establish as a reference for other centers. METHODS The authors developed analytical software tools for a QA program using both log files and electronic portal imaging device (EPID) measurements. The first tool is a general analysis tool which can read and visually represent data in the log file. This tool, which can be used to automatically analyze patient treatment or QA log files, examines the files for Linac deviations which exceed thresholds. The second set of tools consists of a test suite of QA fields, a standard phantom, and software to collect information from the log files on deviations from the expected values. The test suite was designed to focus on the mechanical tests of the Linac to include jaw, MLC, and collimator positions during static, IMRT, and volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery. A consortium of eight institutions delivered the test suite at monthly or weekly intervals on each Linac using a standard phantom. The behavior of various components was analyzed for eight TrueBeam Linacs. RESULTS For the EPID and trajectory log file analysis, all observed deviations which exceeded established thresholds for Linac behavior resulted in a beam hold off. In the absence of an interlock-triggering event, the maximum observed log file deviations between the expected and actual component positions (such as MLC leaves) varied from less than 1% to 26% of published tolerance thresholds. The maximum and standard deviations of the variations due to gantry sag, collimator angle, jaw position, and MLC positions are presented. Gantry sag among Linacs was 0.336 ± 0.072 mm. The standard deviation in MLC position, as determined by EPID measurements, across the consortium was 0.33 mm for IMRT fields. With respect to the log files, the deviations between expected and actual positions for parameters were small (<0.12 mm) for all Linacs. Considering both log files and EPID measurements, all parameters were well within published tolerance values. Variations in collimator angle, MLC position, and gantry sag were also evaluated for all Linacs. CONCLUSIONS The performance of the TrueBeam Linac model was shown to be consistent based on automated analysis of trajectory log files and EPID images acquired during delivery of a standardized test suite. The results can be compared directly to tolerance thresholds. In addition, sharing of results from standard tests across institutions can facilitate the identification of QA process and Linac changes. These reference values are presented along with the standard deviation for common tests so that the test suite can be used by other centers to evaluate their Linac performance against those in this consortium.

SU‐GG‐T‐275: On Improving the Accuracy of EBT2 Film Dosimetry Using a Flatbed Scanner

Purpose: To investigate the effects of flatbed scanner red‐blue ratio and non‐uniformity corrections on the accuracy of EBT2 film dosimetry.Method and Materials: EBT2 film was exposed to a 40×40 6MV field with 10 cm buildup in a 30×30cm solid water phantom for a range of doses from 0.85 cGy to 400.16 cGy. The films were scanned on an Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner. The resulting images were first corrected using the ratio of the scanners red‐blue channel. The difference between the expected dose from a Varian Eclipse planning system and the measured dose distributions was then used to generate a correction in scanner space to compensate for the non‐uniform response of the scanner. The red‐blue ratio and the non‐uniformity corrections were applied to open‐field, MLC pattern, and patient RapidArc images. Uncorrected results were compared to the red‐blue ratio correction and to both red‐blue ratio and non‐uniformity corrections. Results: The effects of scanner non‐uniformity were found to vary with dose applied to the film. The maximum relative discrepancy for doses below 10 cGy was as high as 40% for areas close to the film edge. This non‐uniformity decreases rapidly with increasing dose and for scanning locations towards the center of the scanner. The effects of applying the red‐blue ratio correction reduced the high frequency noise observed on the raw images. The relative noise of the film was reduced from 0.96% to 0.65%. The red‐blue ratio correction was unable to compensate for low dose errors towards the film edges. Application of the non‐uniformity correction reduced the number of pixels failing 3%/3mm gamma by up to 75% depending on the dose level and complexity of the dose distribution in the image.Conclusions: The application of both a red‐blue density ratio correction and a non‐uniformity correction improves the accuracy of EBT2 film dosimetry.

Insight gained from responses to surveys on reference dosimetry practices

Purpose To present the results and discuss potential insights gained through surveys on reference dosimetry practices. Methods Two surveys were sent to medical physicists to learn about the current state of reference dosimetry practices at radiation oncology clinics worldwide. A short survey designed to maximize response rate was made publicly available and distributed via the AAPM website and a medical physics list server. Another, much more involved survey, was sent to a smaller group of physicists to gain insight on detailed dosimetry practices. The questions were diverse, covering reference dosimetry practices on topics like measurements required for beam quality specification, the actual measurement of absorbed dose and ancillary equipment required like electrometers and environment monitoring measurements. Results There were 190 respondents to the short survey and seven respondents to the detailed survey. The diversity of responses indicates nonuniformity in reference dosimetry practices and differences in interpretation of reference dosimetry protocols. Conclusions The results of these surveys offer insight on clinical reference dosimetry practices and will be useful in identifying current and future needs for reference dosimetry.