Comparison of failure modes and effects analyses and time for brachytherapy ring and tandem applicator digitization between manual and solid applicator source placement methods.

PURPOSE: Ring and tandem (R&T) applicator digitization is currently performed at our institution by manually defining the extent of the applicators. Digitization can also be achieved using solid applicators: predefined, 3D models with geometric constraints. This study compares R&T digitization using manual and solid applicator methods through Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs) and comparative time studies. We aim to assess the suitability of solid applicator method implementation for R&T cases METHODS: Six qualified medical physicists (QMPs) and two medical physics residents scored potential modes of failure of manual digitization in an FMEA as recommended by TG-100. Occurrence, severity, and detectability (OSD) values were averaged across respondents and then multiplied to form combined Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) for analysis. Participants were trained to perform treatment planning using a developed solid applicator protocol and asked to score a second FMEA on the distinct process steps from the manual method. For both methods, participant digitization was timed. FMEA and time data were analyzed across methods and participant samples RESULTS: QMPs rated the RPNs of the current, manual method of digitization statistically lower than residents did. When comparing the unique FMEA steps between the two digitization methods, QMP respondents found no significant difference in RPN means. Residents, however, rated the solid applicator method as higher risk. Further, after the solid applicator method was performed twice by participants, the time to digitize plans was not significantly different from manual digitization CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates the non-inferiority of the solid applicator method to manual digitization in terms of risk, according to QMPs, and time, across all participants. Differences were found in FMEA evaluation and solid applicator technique adoption based on years of brachytherapy experience. Further practice with the solid applicator protocol is recommended because familiarity is expected to lower FMEA occurrence ratings and further reduce digitization times.

Interpretation of intrafraction motion review data and method for verification.

The current clinical interface for Varian's intrafraction motion review (IMR) is limited, providing only qualitative data for review at the treatment console. This study provides a method of extracting and interpreting data from combined log files for quantitative evaluation. Combined log files acquired during patient treatment and a parsing code was developed to scan the combined log file looking for unique identifiers pertaining to the data of interest. We were able to extract clinically relevant parameters from the log files including date and time, gantry angle, expected marker position, found marker position, pixel size, and detection result. This study details how to compare IMR data to Calypso investigating dual-surrogates for intrafraction monitoring during treatment for other researchers to build on these methods. Understanding data recorded during treatment within the combined log files can be helpful in quality improvement of patient care by retrospectively reviewing intrafraction motion.

Prospective dual-surrogate validation study of periodic imaging during treatment for accurately monitoring intrafraction motion of prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The goal of this prospective study is to validate the use of periodic imaging during treatment with a fiducial marker detection algorithm using radiofrequency transponders for prostate cancer patients undergoing treatment for radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten male patients were enrolled in this study and treated for prostate cancer with implanted electromagnetic monitoring beacons. We evaluated the accuracy and limitations of Intrafraction Motion Review (IMR) by comparing the known locations of the beacons using the electromagnetic monitoring system to the position data reported from IMR images. RESULTS: A total of 4054 images were taken during treatment. The difference in vector magnitude of the two methods is centered around zero (mean: 0.03 cm, SD: 0.16 cm) and Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) is 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98, 1) overall. The Euclidean distance between the two methods was close to zero (median: 0.09 cm, IQR: 0.06, 0.14 cm). The difference in distance between any two markers was centered around zero (mean: 0.01 cm, SD: 0.12 cm) and Lin's CCC is 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98) overall. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of the algorithm for detected markers within the 2D images is comparable to electromagnetic monitoring for fiducial identification when detected. IMR could provide an alternate solution for patients with contraindications of use of an electromagnetic monitoring system and a cost effective alternative to the acquisition of an additional system for patient monitoring, but does not provide data for pre-treatment set-up verification and real-time 3D positioning during treatment.