Robin L. Stern

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning

In recent years, the sophistication and complexity of clinical treatment planning and treatment planning systems has increased significantly, particularly including three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning systems, and the use of conformal treatment planning and delivery techniques. This has led to the need for a comprehensive set of quality assurance (QA) guidelines that can be applied to clinical treatment planning. This document is the report of Task Group 53 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a comprehensive but viable program of quality assurance for modern radiotherapy treatment planning. The scope of the QA needs for treatment planning is quite broad, encompassing image-based definition of patient anatomy, 3D beam descriptions for complex beams including multileaf collimator apertures, 3D dose calculation algorithms, and complex plan evaluation tools including dose volume histograms. The Task Group recommends an organizational framework for the task of creating a QA program which is individualized to the needs of each institution and addresses the issues of acceptance testing, commissioning the planning system and planning process, routine quality assurance, and ongoing QA of the planning process. This report, while not prescribing specific QA tests, provides the framework and guidance to allow radiation oncology physicists to design comprehensive and practical treatment planning QA programs for their clinics.

Immobilization improves the reproducibility of patient positioning during six-field conformal radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma☆

PURPOSE To determine the magnitude of patient positioning errors associated with six field conformal therapy for carcinoma of the prostate, and to assess the impact of alpha-cradle immobilization on these errors. METHODS AND MATERIALS The records of 22 patients, treated at two of the treatment facilities within our department, using computed tomography-planned conformal six field therapy for carcinoma of the prostate, were reviewed. At one facility (UCD), patients were routinely treated with immobilization, while at the other (UCSF) no rigid immobilization was used. Portal films of patients treated at both facilities were subsequently reviewed, and the deviation of each portal from the simulation film was determined (simulation-to-treatment variability). In addition, for each patient, the average deviation of each portal film from the average portal film (treatment-to-treatment variability) was determined. RESULTS The mean and median simulation-to-treatment variability was 0.4 cm for those patients treated with immobilization, versus 0.6 cm for those treated without immobilization. The 90th percentile of simulation-to-treatment variability was 0.7 cm for those patients treated with immobilization, versus 1.1 cm for those not immobilized. There was a significant reduction in the number of portals observed with errors of > or = 0.50 cm (132/201 vs. 37/87, 66% vs. 43%; p < 0.001), 0.75 cm (184/201 vs. 59/87, 92% vs. 68%; p < 0.001), and 1.0 cm (196/201 vs. 74/87, 98% vs. 85%; p < 0.001) for patients treated with immobilization. There was also a significant reduction in the number of patients with treatment-to-treatment variability > or = 0.5 cm (1/10 vs. 8/12; p = 0.01) for patients treated with immobilization. CONCLUSION The use of immobilization devices significantly reduces errors in patient positioning, potentially permitting the use of smaller treatment volumes. Immobilization should be a component of conformal radiation therapy programs for prostate carcinoma.

Intracranial stereotactic positioning systems: Report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 68

Intracranial stereotactic positioning systems (ISPSs) are used to position patients prior to precise radiation treatment of localized lesions of the brain. Often, the lesion is located in close proximity to critical anatomic features whose functions should be maintained. Many types of ISPSs have been described in the literature and are commercially available. These are briefly reviewed. ISPS systems provide two critical functions. The first is to establish a coordinate system upon which a guided therapy can be applied. The second is to provide a method to reapply the coordinate system to the patient such that the coordinates assigned to the patients anatomy are identical from application to application. Without limiting this study to any particular approach to ISPSs, this report introduces nomenclature and suggests performance tests to quantify both the stability of the ISPS to map diagnostic data to a coordinate system, as well as the ISPSs ability to be realigned to the patients anatomy. For users who desire to develop a new ISPS system, it may be necessary for the clinical team to establish the accuracy and precision of each of these functions. For commercially available systems that have demonstrated an acceptable level of accuracy and precision, the clinical team may need to demonstrate local ability to apply the system in a manner consistent with that employed during the published testing. The level of accuracy and precision required of an individual ISPS system is dependent upon the clinical protocol (e.g., fractionation, margin, pathology, etc.). Each clinical team should provide routine quality assurance procedures that are sufficient to support the assumptions of accuracy and precision used during the planning process. The testing of ISPS systems can be grouped into two broad categories, type testing, which occurs prior to general commercialization, and site testing, performed when a commercial system is installed at a clinic. Guidelines to help select the appropriate tests as well as recommendations to help establish the required frequency of testing are provided. Because of the broad scope of different systems, it is important that both the manufacturer and user rigorously critique the system and set QA tests appropriate to the particular device and its possible weaknesses. Major recommendations of the Task Group include: introduction of a new nomenclature for reporting repositioning accuracy; comprehensive analysis of patient characteristics that might adversely affect positioning accuracy; performance of testing immediately before each treatment to establish that there are no gross positioning errors; a general request to the Medical Physics community for improved QA tools; implementation of weekly portal imaging (perhaps cone beam CT in the future) as a method of tracking fractionated patients (as per TG 40); and periodic routine reviews of positioning accuracy.

Accuracy of a photogrammetry-based patient positioning and monitoring system for radiation therapy

A photogrammetry system designed to reduce simulator-to-treatment and treatment-to-treatment patient positioning errors has been developed. Two complete systems have been installed in our department: one in the simulator room and one in a treatment room. Each system consists of three charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras; a ring of infrared LEDs around the lens of each camera; and several small, circular, retroreflective markers that are applied to the patient. The markers reflect infrared light directly back to the cameras, producing a binary image of oval hot spots when the image is thresholded. The three-dimensional position of each marker is calculated by conventional photogrammetry methods. At simulation, marker positions are measured, then transferred to the treatment room system. The system may be used to actively position patients, and to passively monitor a patients position and motion during treatment. Studies have focused on measuring the systems temporal stability, precision, and accuracy; on optimal positioning of markers and cameras; and on assessing the systems capability to reduce the positioning error. The repeatability of measuring a markers position is <0.1 mm in each orthogonal direction. The accuracy is approximately 0.5 mm over a 40 X 40 X 40 cm3 field of view. The system drift over four hours is approximately +/-0.2 mm. The photogrammetry system has been used to actively position a lead BB, embedded within a head phantom, at the isocenter; repeatability was +/-0.3 mm, as determined radiographically. The system has also been used to passively monitor the positioning of several head and neck patients that were set up by a therapist; setup errors of up to 10 mm in each orthogonal direction were measured, as well as the motion of the patient during treatment.

Intracranial stereotactic positioning systems

Intracranial stereotactic positioning systems (ISPSs) are used to position patients prior to precise radiation treatment of localized lesions of the brain. Often, the lesion is located in close proximity to critical anatomic features whose functions should be maintained. Many types of ISPSs have been described in the literature and are commercially available. These are briefly reviewed. ISPS systems provide two critical functions. The first is to establish a coordinate system upon which a guided therapy can be applied. The second is to provide a method to reapply the coordinate system to the patient such that the coordinates assigned to the patients anatomy are identical from application to application. Without limiting this study to any particular approach to ISPSs, this report introduces nomenclature and suggests performance tests to quantify both the stability of the ISPS to map diagnostic data to a coordinate system, as well as the ISPSs ability to be realigned to the patients anatomy. For users who desire to develop a new ISPS system, it may be necessary for the clinical team to establish the accuracy and precision of each of these functions. For commercially available systems that have demonstrated an acceptable level of accuracy and precision, the clinical team may need to demonstrate local ability to apply the system in a manner consistent with that employed during the published testing. The level of accuracy and precision required of an individual ISPS system is dependent upon the clinical protocol (e.g., fractionation, margin, pathology, etc.). Each clinical team should provide routine quality assurance procedures that are sufficient to support the assumptions of accuracy and precision used during the planning process. The testing of ISPS systems can be grouped into two broad categories, type testing, which occurs prior to general commercialization, and site testing, performed when a commercial system is installed at a clinic. Guidelines to help select the appropriate tests as well as recommendations to help establish the required frequency of testing are provided. Because of the broad scope of different systems, it is important that both the manufacturer and user rigorously critique the system and set QA tests appropriate to the particular device and its possible weaknesses. Major recommendations of the Task Group include: introduction of a new nomenclature for reporting repositioning accuracy; comprehensive analysis of patient characteristics that might adversely affect positioning accuracy; performance of testing immediately before each treatment to establish that there are no gross positioning errors; a general request to the Medical Physics community for improved QA tools; implementation of weekly portal imaging (perhaps cone beam CT in the future) as a method of tracking fractionated patients (as per TG 40); and periodic routine reviews of positioning accuracy.

Peripheral dose from a linear accelerator equipped with multileaf collimation

In radiation therapy, knowledge of the peripheral dose is important when anatomical structures with very low dose tolerances might be involved. Two of the major sources of peripheral dose, leakage from the linac head, and scatter from secondary collimators, depend strongly on the configuration of the linac head and therefore might be affected by the presence of a multileaf collimator (MLC). In this study, peripheral dose was measured at two depths and two field sizes for 6 and 18 MV photons from a linac with a MLC. The MLC was configured both with leaves fully retracted and with leaves positioned at the field edges defined by the secondary collimator jaws. Comparative measurements were also made for 6 MV photons from a linac without MLC. Peripheral dose was determined as a percentage of the central axis dose for the same energy, field size, and depth using diode detectors in solid phantom material. The data for the 6 MV without MLC agreed with those for the beam with MLC leaves retracted. For both energies at all depths and distances from the field edge, configuring the MLC leaves at the field edge yielded a reduction in peripheral dose of 6%-50% compared to MLC leaves fully retracted.

Comparison of peripheral dose from image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) using kV cone beam CT to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)

PURPOSE The growing use of IMRT with volumetric kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) for IGRT has increased concerns over the additional (typically unaccounted) radiation dose associated with the procedures. Published data quantify the in-field dose of IGRT and the peripheral dose from IMRT. This study adds to the data on dose outside the target area by measuring peripheral CBCT dose and comparing it with out-of-field IMRT dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS Measurements of the CBCT peripheral dose were made in an anthropomorphic phantom with TLDs and were compared to peripheral dose measurements for prostate IMRT, determined with MOSFET detectors. RESULTS Doses above 1cGy (per scan) were found outside the CBCT imaged volume, with 0.2cGy at 25 cm from the central axis. IMRT peripheral dose was 1cGy at 20 cm and 0.4cGy at 25 cm (per fraction). CONCLUSIONS An appreciable dose can be found beyond the edge of the IGRT field; of similar order of magnitude as peripheral dose from IMRT (mGy), and approximately half the dose delivered to the same point from the IMRT treatment (0.2cGy c.f. 0.4cGy 25 cm from the isocenter). This shows that peripheral dose, as well as the in-field dose from CBCT, needs to be taken into account when considering long term care of radiation oncology patients.

Human in vivo dose-response to controlled, low-dose low linear energy transfer ionizing radiation exposure.

Purpose: The effect of low doses of low–linear energy transfer (photon) ionizing radiation (LDIR, <10 cGy) on human tissue when exposure is under normal physiologic conditions is of significant interest to the medical and scientific community in therapeutic and other contexts. Although, to date, there has been no direct assessment of the response of human tissue to LDIR when exposure is under normal physiologic conditions of intact three-dimensional architecture, vasculature, and cell-cell contacts (between epithelial cells and between epithelial and stromal cells). Experimental Design: In this article, we present the first data on the response of human tissue exposed in vivo to LDIR with precisely controlled and calibrated doses. We evaluated transcriptomic responses to a single exposure of LDIR in the normal skin of men undergoing therapeutic radiation for prostate cancer (research protocol, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant, Institutional Review Board–approved). Using newly developed biostatistical tools that account for individual splice variants and the expected variability of temporal response between humans even when the outcome is measured at a single time, we show a dose-response pattern in gene expression in a number of pathways and gene groups that are biologically plausible responses to LDIR. Results: Examining genes and pathways identified as radiation-responsive in cell culture models, we found seven gene groups and five pathways that were altered in men in this experiment. These included the Akt/phosphoinositide-3-kinase pathway, the growth factor pathway, the stress/apoptosis pathway, and the pathway initiated by transforming growth factor-β signaling, whereas gene groups with altered expression included the keratins, the zinc finger proteins and signaling molecules in the mitogen-activated protein kinase gene group. We show that there is considerable individual variability in radiation response that makes the detection of effects difficult, but still feasible when analyzed according to gene group and pathway. Conclusions: These results show for the first time that low doses of radiation have an identifiable biosignature in human tissue, irradiated in vivo with normal intact three-dimensional architecture, vascular supply, and innervation. The genes and pathways show that the tissue (a) does detect the injury, (b) initiates a stress/inflammatory response, (c) undergoes DNA remodeling, as suggested by the significant increase in zinc finger protein gene expression, and (d) initiates a “pro-survival” response. The ability to detect a distinct radiation response pattern following LDIR exposure has important implications for risk assessment in both therapeutic and national defense contexts.

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis for Delivery of Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE To improve the quality and safety of our practice of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), we analyzed the process following the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) method. METHODS The FMEA was performed by a multidisciplinary team. For each step in the SBRT delivery process, a potential failure occurrence was derived and three factors were assessed: the probability of each occurrence, the severity if the event occurs, and the probability of detection by the treatment team. A rank of 1 to 10 was assigned to each factor, and then the multiplied ranks yielded the relative risks (risk priority numbers). The failure modes with the highest risk priority numbers were then considered to implement process improvement measures. RESULTS A total of 28 occurrences were derived, of which nine events scored with significantly high risk priority numbers. The risk priority numbers of the highest ranked events ranged from 20 to 80. These included transcription errors of the stereotactic coordinates and machine failures. CONCLUSION Several areas of our SBRT delivery were reconsidered in terms of process improvement, and safety measures, including treatment checklists and a surgical time-out, were added for our practice of gantry-based image-guided SBRT. This study serves as a guide for other users of SBRT to perform FMEA of their own practice.

Potency preservation after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary results.

We sought to assess potency preservation after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in prostate cancer patients eligible for radical prostatectomy, conventional radiotherapy, 3D-CRT, or transperineal prostate implantation. Patients with more advanced disease are commonly treated with hormonal therapy, which can cause impotence, and were consequently excluded from the analysis. Between December 1991 and June 1998, 198 prostate cancer patients were treated with 3D-CRT at the University of California, Davis Medical Center. Fifty-two of these patients had a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 10.0 ng/ml or less, a Gleason score of 6 or less, and a 1997 AJCC clinical stage T1bN0M0 to T2bN0M0. One patient was not evaluable. None of the 51 evaluable patients had diabetes mellitus. In 40 patients, the prostate gland only was irradiated to a total dose of 66 to 79.2 Gy by using daily 1.8-Gy fractions. In 11 patients, the prostate and seminal vesicles were treated to 44 to 55.8 Gy. Lymph nodes were not included in the clinical target volume. The median age was 68 years, and the median length of follow-up was 15 months. Potency in this study is defined as an erection sufficient for vaginal penetration. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to describe potency as a function of time after 3D-CRT. Of the 51 evaluable patients, 35 (69%) were potent, 15 were impotent, and 1 was sexually inactive before 3D-CRT. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the potency preservation rates 1, 2, and 3 years after 3D-CRT are 100%, 83%, and 63%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, age, total radiation dose, and a history of transurethral resection of the prostate did not significantly affect potency preservation rates. Three (43%) of 7 patients who became impotent after 3D-CRT and used sildenafil were subsequently able to achieve erections sufficient for vaginal penetration. The preliminary results reported herein suggest that approximately two thirds of prostate cancer patients will retain their potency 3 years after 3D-CRT. Further follow-up is necessary to assess long-term potency after 3D-CRT. Sildenafil should be considered in patients who develop radiation-induced impotence.