A method for empirically validating FMEA RPN scores in a radiation oncology clinic using physics QC data.

In failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), the components of the risk priority number (RPN) for a failure mode (FM) are often chosen by consensus. We describe an empirical method for estimating the occurrence (O) and detectability (D) components of a RPN. The method requires for a given FM that its associated quality control measure be performed twice as is the case when a FM is checked for in an initial physics check and again during a weekly physics check. If instances of the FM caught by these checks are recorded, O and D can be computed. Incorporation of the remaining RPN component, Severity, is discussed. This method can be used as part of quality management design ahead of an anticipated FMEA or afterwards to validate consensus values.

Technical recommendations for implementation of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Helical Tomotherapy Total Body Irradiation.

As a component of myeloablative conditioning before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), Total Body Irradiation (TBI) is employed in radiotherapy centers all over the world. In recent and coming years, many centers are changing their technical setup from a conventional TBI technique to multi-isocenter conformal arc therapy techniques such as Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) or Helical Tomotherapy (HT). These techniques allow better homogeneity and control of the target prescription dose, and provide more freedom for individualized organ-at-risk sparing. The technical design of multi-isocenter/multi-plan conformal TBI is complex and should be developed carefully. A group of early adopters with conformal TBI experience using different treatment machines and treatment planning systems came together to develop technical recommendations and share experiences, in order to assist departments wishing to implement conformal TBI, and to provide ideas for standardization of practices.

A joint ESTRO and AAPM guideline for development, clinical validation and reporting of artificial intelligence models in radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Artificial Intelligence (AI) models in radiation therapy are being developed with increasing pace. Despite this, the radiation therapy community has not widely adopted these models in clinical practice. A cohesive guideline on how to develop, report and clinically validate AI algorithms might help bridge this gap. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Delphi process with all co-authors was followed to determine which topics should be addressed in this comprehensive guideline. Separate sections of the guideline, including Statements, were written by subgroups of the authors and discussed with the whole group at several meetings. Statements were formulated and scored as highly recommended or recommended. RESULTS: The following topics were found most relevant: Decision making, image analysis, volume segmentation, treatment planning, patient specific quality assurance of treatment delivery, adaptive treatment, outcome prediction, training, validation and testing of AI model parameters, model availability for others to verify, model quality assurance/updates and upgrades, ethics. Key references were given together with an outlook on current hurdles and possibilities to overcome these. 19 Statements were formulated. CONCLUSION: A cohesive guideline has been written which addresses main topics regarding AI in radiation therapy. It will help to guide development, as well as transparent and consistent reporting and validation of new AI tools and facilitate adoption.

Establishing Updated Safety Standards for Independent 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT Treatment Planning in Radioembolization.

PURPOSE: Significant improvements within radioembolization imaging and dosimetry permit the development of an accurate and personalized pretreatment plan using technetium 99m-labeled macroaggregated albumin (99mTc-MAA) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) combined with anatomical CT (SPECT/CT). Despite these potential advantages, the clinical transition to pretreatment protocols with SPECT/CT is hindered by their unknown safety constraints. This study aimed to address this issue by establishing novel dose limits for 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT to enable quantitative pretreatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Stratification criteria to determine images most viable for dosimetry analysis were created from a cohort of 85 patients. SPECT/CT, cone beam CT, and activity calculations derived from the local deposition method were used to create an accurate pretreatment protocol. Planar and SPECT/CT images were compared using linear regression and modified Bland-Altman analyses to convert accepted planar dose limits to SPECT/CT. To validate these new dose limits, activity calculations based on SPECT/CT were compared with those calculated with the body surface area and planar methods for three treatment plans. RESULTS: A total of 38 of 85 patients were deemed viable for dosimetry analysis. SPECT yielded greater lung shunt fractions (LSFs) than planar imaging when LSFs were <4.89%, whereas SPECT yielded lower LSFs than planar imaging when LSFs were >4.89%. Planar to SPECT/CT dose conversions were 0.76×, 0.70×, and 0.55× for the whole liver, normal liver, and lungs, respectively. Patients with SPECT LSFs ≤4.89% were safely treated with the direct application of planar lung dose limits. Activity calculations with the newly established SPECT/CT dose limits were greater than those of the body surface area method by a median range of 33.1% to 61.9% and were lower than planar-based activity calculations by a median range of 12.5% to 13.7% for the whole liver and by 29.4% to 32.2% for the normal liver. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a safe method for translating dose limits from 99mTc-MAA planar imaging to SPECT/CT. A robust pretreatment protocol was further developed guided by the current knowledge in the field. Established SPECT/CT dose limits safely treated 97.5% of patients and permitted the application of independent pretreatment planning with 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT.

A comprehensive pre-clinical treatment quality assurance program using unique spot patterns for proton pencil beam scanning FLASH radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Quality assurance (QA) for ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiation is a crucial aspect in the emerging field of FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT). This innovative treatment approach delivers radiation at UHDR, demanding careful adoption of QA protocols and procedures. A comprehensive understanding of beam properties and dosimetry consistency is vital to ensure the safe and effective delivery of FLASH-RT. PURPOSE: To develop a comprehensive pre-treatment QA program for cyclotron-based proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) FLASH-RT. Establish appropriate tolerances for QA items based on this study's outcomes and TG-224 recommendations. METHODS: A 250 MeV proton spot pattern was designed and implemented using UHDR with a 215nA nozzle beam current. The QA pattern that covers a central uniform field area, various spot spacings, spot delivery modes and scanning directions, and enabling the assessment of absolute, relative and temporal dosimetry QA parameters. A strip ionization chamber array (SICA) and an Advanced Markus chamber were utilized in conjunction with a 2 cm polyethylene slab and a range (R80) verification wedge. The data have been monitored for over 3 months. RESULTS: The relative dosimetries were compliant with TG-224. The variations of temporal dosimetry for scanning speed, spot dwell time, and spot transition time were within ± 1 mm/ms, ± 0.2 ms, and ± 0.2 ms, respectively. While the beam-to-beam absolute output on the same day reached up to 2.14%, the day-to-day variation was as high as 9.69%. High correlation between the absolute dose and dose rate fluctuations were identified. The dose rate of the central 5 × 5 cm2 field exhibited variations within 5% of the baseline value (155 Gy/s) during an experimental session. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive QA program for FLASH-RT was developed and effectively assesses the performance of a UHDR delivery system. Establishing tolerances to unify standards and offering direction for future advancements in the evolving FLASH-RT field.

Dosimetric Validation of Treatment Planning System for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Using AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.b.

AIM: To assess the precision of dose calculations for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) using megavoltage (MV) photon beams, we validated the accuracy of two algorithms: AUROS XB and Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA). This validation will encompass both flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter-free beam (FFF) modes, using AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG 5b). MATERIALS AND METHODS: VMAT validation tests were generated for 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFF beams using the AAA and AXB algorithms in the Eclipse V.15.1 treatment planning system (TPS). Corresponding measurements were performed on a linear accelerator using a diode detector and a radiation field analyzer. Point dose (PD) and in-vivo measurements were conducted using an A1SL ion chamber and (TLD) from Thermofisher, respectively. The Rando Phantom was employed for end-to-end (E2E) tests. RESULTS: The mean difference (MD) between the TPS-calculated values and the measured values for the PDD and output factors were within 1% and 0.5%, respectively, for both 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFF. In the TG 119 sets, the MD for PD with both AAA and AXB was <0.9%. For the TG 244 sets, the minimum, maximum, and mean deviations in PD for both 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFF beams were 0.3%, 1.4% and 0.8% respectively. In the E2E test, using the Rando Phantom, the MD between the TLD dose and the TPS dose was within 0.08% for both 6 MV FF (p=1.0) and 6 MV FFF (0.018) beams. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of the TPS and its algorithms (AAA and AXB) has been successfully validated. The recommended tests included in the VMAT/IMRT validation section proved invaluable for verifying the PDD, output factors, and the feasibility of complex clinical cases. E2E tests were instrumental in validating the entire workflow from CT simulation to treatment delivery.

Perceptions on and roadblocks to implementation of standardized nomenclature in radiation oncology: A survey from TG-263U1.

PURPOSE: AAPM Task Group No. 263U1 (Update to Report No. 263 - Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology) disseminated a survey to receive feedback on utilization, gaps, and means to facilitate further adoption. METHODS: The survey was created by TG-263U1 members to solicit feedback from physicists, dosimetrists, and physicians working in radiation oncology. Questions on the adoption of the TG-263 standard were coupled with demographic information, such as clinical role, place of primary employment (e.g., private hospital, academic center), and size of institution. The survey was emailed to all AAPM, AAMD, and ASTRO members. RESULTS: The survey received 463 responses with 310 completed survey responses used for analysis, of whom most had the clinical role of medical physicist (73%) and the majority were from the United States (83%). There were 83% of respondents who indicated that they believe that having a nomenclature standard is important or very important and 61% had adopted all or portions of TG-263 in their clinics. For those yet to adopt TG-263, the staffing and implementation efforts were the main cause for delaying adoption. Fewer respondents had trouble adopting TG-263 for organs at risk (29%) versus target (44%) nomenclature. Common themes in written feedback were lack of physician support and available resources, especially in vendor systems, to facilitate adoption. CONCLUSIONS: While there is strong support and belief in the benefit of standardized nomenclature, the widespread adoption of TG-263 has been hindered by the effort needed by staff for implementation.  Feedback from the survey is being utilized to drive the focus of the update efforts and create tools to facilitate easier adoption of TG-263.

Repurposing DailyQA3 for an efficient and spot position sensitive daily quality assurance tool for proton therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Daily quality assurance is an integral part of a radiotherapy workflow to ensure the dose is delivered safely and accurately to the patient. It is performed before the first treatment of the day and needs to be time and cost efficient for a multiple gantries proton center. In this study, we introduced an efficient method to perform QA for output constancy, range verification, spot positioning accuracy and imaging and proton beam isocenter coincidence with DailyQA3. METHODS: A stepped acrylic block of specific dimensions is fabricated and placed on top of the DailyQA3 device. Treatment plans comprising of two different spread-out Bragg peaks and five individual spots of 1.0 MU each are designed to be delivered to the device. A mathematical framework to measure the 2D distance between the detectors and individual spot is introduced and play an important role in realizing the spot positioning and centering QA. Lastly, a 5 months trends of the QA for two gantries are presented. RESULTS: The outputs are monitored by two ion chambers in the DailyQA3 and a tolerance of ± 3 % $ \pm 3\% $ are used. The range of the SOBPs are monitored by the ratio of ion chamber signals and a tolerance of ± 1 mm $ \pm 1\ {\mathrm{mm}}$ is used. Four diodes at ± 10 cm $ \pm 10\ {\mathrm{cm}}$ from the central ion chambers are used for spot positioning QA, while the central ion chamber is used for imaging and proton beam isocenter coincidence QA. Using the framework, we determined the absolute signal threshold corresponding to the offset tolerance between the individual proton spot and the detector. A 1.5 mm $1.5\ {\mathrm{mm}}$ tolerances are used for both the positioning and centering QA. No violation of the tolerances is observed in the 5 months trends for both gantries. CONCLUSION: With the proposed approach, we can perform four QA items in the TG224 within 10 min.

The impact of advancing the standard of care in radiotherapy on operational treatment resources.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the impact of implementing hypofractionated prescription regimens and advanced treatment techniques on institutional operational hours and radiotherapy personnel resources in a multi-institutional setting. The study may be used to describe the impact of advancing the standard of care with modern radiotherapy techniques on patient and staff resources. METHODS: This study uses radiation therapy data extracted from the radiotherapy information system from two tertiary care, university-affiliated cancer centers from 2012 to 2021. Across all patients in the analysis, the average fraction number for curative and palliative patients was reported each year in the decade. Also, the institutional operational treatment hours are reported for both centers. A sub-analysis for curative intent breast and lung radiotherapy patients was performed to contextualize the impact of changes to imaging, motion management, and treatment technique. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2021, Center 1 had 42 214 patient plans and Center 2 had 43 252 patient plans included in the analysis. Averaged over both centers across the decade, the average fraction number per patient decreased from 6.9 to 5.2 (25%) and 21.8 to 17.2 (21%) for palliative and curative patients, respectively. The operational treatment hours for both institutions increased from 8 h 15 min to 9 h 45 min (18%), despite a patient population increase of 45%. CONCLUSION: The clinical implementation of hypofractionated treatment regimens has successfully reduced the radiotherapy workload and operational treatment hours required to treat patients. This analysis describes the impact of changes to the standard of care on institutional resources.

Dosimetric Systems in Pre-Treatment QA for Stereotactic Treatments: Correlation Agreements and Target Volume Dependency.

AIM: This study comprehensively investigated pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) for 100 cancer patients undergoing stereotactic treatments (SRS/SRT) using various detectors. METHODS: The study conducted QA for SRS/SRT treatments planned with a 6MV SRS beam at a dose rate of 1,000 MU/min, utilizing Eclipse v13.6 Treatment Planning System (TPS). Point dose measurements employed 0.01cm3 and 0.13cm3 cylindrical ionization chambers, while planar dose verification utilized Gafchromic EBT-XD Film and Portal Imager (aS1000). Plans were categorized by target volume, and a thorough analysis compared point dose agreements, planar dose gamma pass rates, and their correlations with chamber volume mean dose, detector type, and point dose agreement. Additionally, the consistency between different ionization chambers was assessed. RESULTS: Point dose agreement generally improved with increasing target volume, except for volumes over 10cm3 with 0.01cm3 chambers, showing a contrary trend. Significant differences (p<0.05) were observed between TPS and measured doses for both chambers. Gamma pass rate improved with increasing target volume in EBT XD and aS1000 analyses, except for the >10cm3 group in EBT XD. EBT XD demonstrated better agreement with TPS for target volumes up to 10cm3 compared to aS1000, with a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between the detectors. Strong correlations were found between chamber point dose and chamber volume mean dose agreement, as well as between the two gamma criteria analyses of the same detector type in the planar dose correlation analysis. However, weak correlations were discovered for other analyses. CONCLUSION: This study found weak correlation between different detector types in pre-treatment QA for point dose and planar dose evaluation. However, within a specific detector type, strong correlation was observed for different point dose evaluation methods and gamma criteria. This highlights the importance of cautious interpretation of QA results, particularly for SRS QA, due to the lack of correlation between detector types.

Assessment of bias in scoring of AI-based radiotherapy segmentation and planning studies using modified TRIPOD and PROBAST guidelines as an example.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Studies investigating the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the field of radiotherapy exhibit substantial variations in terms of quality. The goal of this study was to assess the amount of transparency and bias in scoring articles with a specific focus on AI based segmentation and treatment planning, using modified PROBAST and TRIPOD checklists, in order to provide recommendations for future guideline developers and reviewers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The TRIPOD and PROBAST checklist items were discussed and modified using a Delphi process. After consensus was reached, 2 groups of 3 co-authors scored 2 articles to evaluate usability and further optimize the adapted checklists. Finally, 10 articles were scored by all co-authors. Fleiss' kappa was calculated to assess the reliability of agreement between observers. RESULTS: Three of the 37 TRIPOD items and 5 of the 32 PROBAST items were deemed irrelevant. General terminology in the items (e.g., multivariable prediction model, predictors) was modified to align with AI-specific terms. After the first scoring round, further improvements of the items were formulated, e.g., by preventing the use of sub-questions or subjective words and adding clarifications on how to score an item. Using the final consensus list to score the 10 articles, only 2 out of the 61 items resulted in a statistically significant kappa of 0.4 or more demonstrating substantial agreement. For 41 items no statistically significant kappa was obtained indicating that the level of agreement among multiple observers is due to chance alone. CONCLUSION: Our study showed low reliability scores with the adapted TRIPOD and PROBAST checklists. Although such checklists have shown great value during development and reporting, this raises concerns about the applicability of such checklists to objectively score scientific articles for AI applications. When developing or revising guidelines, it is essential to consider their applicability to score articles without introducing bias.

Systematic Implementation of Effective Quality Assurance Processes for the Assessment of Radiation Target Volumes in Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: Significant heterogeneity exists in clinical quality assurance (QA) practices within radiation oncology departments, with most chart rounds lacking prospective peer-reviewed contour evaluation. This has the potential to significantly affect patient outcomes, particularly for head and neck cancers (HNC) given the large variance in target volume delineation. With this understanding, we incorporated a prospective systematic peer contour-review process into our workflow for all patients with HNC. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of implementing prospective peer review into practice for our National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Center and to report factors associated with contour modifications. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Starting in November 2020, our department adopted a systematic QA process with real-time metrics, in which contours for all patients with HNC treated with radiation therapy were prospectively peer reviewed and graded. Contours were graded with green (unnecessary), yellow (minor), or red (major) colors based on the degree of peer-recommended modifications. Contours from November 2020 through September 2021 were included for analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty contours were included. Contour grades were made up of 89.7% green, 8.9% yellow, and 1.4% red grades. Physicians with >12 months of clinical experience were less likely to have contour changes requested than those with <12 months (8.3% vs 40.9%; P < .001). Contour grades were significantly associated with physician case load, with physicians presenting more than the median number of 50 cases having significantly less modifications requested than those presenting <50 (6.7% vs 13.3%; P = .013). Physicians working with a resident or fellow were less likely to have contour changes requested than those without a trainee (5.2% vs 12.6%; P = .039). Frequency of major modification requests significantly decreased over time after adoption of prospective peer contour review, with no red grades occurring >6 months after adoption. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of prospective peer contour-review implementation into systematic clinical QA processes for HNC. Physician experience proved to be the highest predictor of approved contours. A growth curve was demonstrated, with major modifications declining after prospective contour review implementation. Even within a high-volume academic practice with subspecialist attendings, >10% of patients had contour changes made as a direct result of prospective peer review.

Stereotactic radiosurgery in India: A nationwide survey of technology and quality assurance practices.

PURPOSE: India is rapidly adopting advanced treatments like Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS). However, there is a paucity of data on SRS practice. The aim of study is to assess the current status of technology and practices of machine quality assurance (QA) and patient specific quality assurance for SRS in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey questionnaire was designed using Google Forms and sent to chief/senior medical physicists across 220 radiotherapy centers in India on July 15, 2022. It contained questions on infrastructure availability, treatment planning, and QA. RESULTS: SRS was found to be extensively used for the treatment of brain metastases (99.3%), followed by meningioma (50.3%), acoustic neuroma (45.5%), and pituitary tumours (33.1%). The most commonly used photon energy and treatment technique were 6MV FFF and VMAT, respectively. A prescription isodose line ranging from 70% to 100% was selected by linac users. Most linac institutes verify pretreatment doses. There was a lack of uniformity in the analysis metrics such as Low Dose Threshold, Dose Difference, and Distance to Agreement. A survey revealed that the variety of SRS QA programs being followed at Indian radiotherapy centers. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to report the physics practice of SRS in India. The survey shows a need to carry out a postal dose audit for small static photon fields in India.

Evaluating AAPM-TG-218 recommendations: Gamma index tolerance and action limits in IMRT and VMAT quality assurance using SunCHECK.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to improve the safety and accuracy of radiotherapy by establishing tolerance (TL) and action (AL) limits for the gamma index in patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using SunCHECK software, as per AAPM TG-218 report recommendations. METHODS: The study included 125 patients divided into six groups by treatment regions (H&N, thoracic and pelvic) and techniques (VMAT, IMRT). SunCHECK was used to calculate the gamma passing rate (%GP) and dose error (%DE) for each patient, for the planning target volume and organs at risk (OARs). The TL and AL were then determined for each group according to TG-218 recommendations. We conducted a comprehensive analysis to compare %DE among different groups and examined the relationship between %GP and %DE. RESULTS: The TL and AL of all groups were more stringent than the common standard as defined by the TG218 report. The TL and AL values of the groups differed significantly, and the values for the thoracic groups were lower for both VMAT and IMRT. The %DE of the parameters D95%, D90%, and Dmean in the planning target volume, and Dmean and Dmax in OARs were significantly different. The dose deviation of VMAT was larger than IMRT, especially in the thoracic group. A %GP and %DE correlation analysis showed a strong correlation for the planning target volume, but a weak correlation for the OARs. Additionally, a significant correlation existed between %GP of SunCHECK and Delta4. CONCLUSION: The study established TL and AL values tailored to various anatomical regions and treatment techniques at our institution. Establishing PSQA workflows for VMAT and IMRT offers valuable clinical insights and guidance. We also suggest developing a standard combining clinically relevant metrics with %GP to evaluate PSQA results comprehensively.

Overview and Recommendations for Prospective Multi-institutional Spatially Fractionated Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: The highly heterogeneous dose delivery of spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) is a profound departure from standard radiation planning and reporting approaches. Early SFRT studies have shown excellent clinical outcomes. However, prospective multi-institutional clinical trials of SFRT are still lacking. This NRG Oncology/American Association of Physicists in Medicine working group consensus aimed to develop recommendations on dosimetric planning, delivery, and SFRT dose reporting to address this current obstacle toward the design of SFRT clinical trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Working groups consisting of radiation oncologists, radiobiologists, and medical physicists with expertise in SFRT were formed in NRG Oncology and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine to investigate the needs and barriers in SFRT clinical trials. RESULTS: Upon reviewing the SFRT technologies and methods, this group identified challenges in several areas, including the availability of SFRT, the lack of treatment planning system support for SFRT, the lack of guidance in the physics and dosimetry of SFRT, the approximated radiobiological modeling of SFRT, and the prescription and combination of SFRT with conventional radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing these challenges, the group further recommended several areas of improvement for the application of SFRT in cancer treatment, including the creation of clinical practice guidance documents, the improvement of treatment planning system support, the generation of treatment planning and dosimetric index reporting templates, and the development of better radiobiological models through preclinical studies and through conducting multi-institution clinical trials.

Quality management in radiotherapy treatment delivery.

Radiation Oncology continues to rely on accurate delivery of radiation, in particular where patients can benefit from more modulated and hypofractioned treatments that can deliver higher dose to the target while optimising dose to normal structures. These deliveries are more complex, and the treatment units are more computerised, leading to a re-evaluation of quality assurance (QA) to test a larger range of options with more stringent criteria without becoming too time and resource consuming. This review explores how modern approaches of risk management and automation can be used to develop and maintain an effective and efficient QA programme. It considers various tools to control and guide radiation delivery including image guidance and motion management. Links with typical maintenance and repair activities are discussed, as well as patient-specific quality control activities. It is demonstrated that a quality management programme applied to treatment delivery can have an impact on individual patients but also on the quality of treatment techniques and future planning. Developing and customising a QA programme for treatment delivery is an important part of radiotherapy. Using modern multidisciplinary approaches can make this also a useful tool for department management.

Analysis of the Dose Drop at the Edge of the Target Area in Heavy Ion Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The dose distribution of heavy ions at the edge of the target region will have a steep decay during radiotherapy, which can better protect the surrounding organs at risk. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the dose decay gradient at the back edge of the target region during heavy ion radiotherapy. METHODS: Treatment planning system (TPS) was employed to analyze the dose decay at the edge of the beam under different incident modes and multiple dose segmentation conditions during fixed beam irradiation. The dose decay data of each plan was collected based on the position where the rear edge of the beam began to fall rapidly. Uniform scanning mode was selected in heavy ion TPS. Dose decay curves under different beam setup modes were drawn and compared. RESULTS: The dose decay data analysis showed that in the case of single beam irradiation, the posterior edge of the beam was 5 mm away, and the posterior dose could drop to about 20%. While irradiation in opposite direction, the posterior edge of the beam was 5 mm away, and the dose could drop to about 50%. In orthogonal irradiation of two beams, the posterior edge of the beam could drop to about 30-38% in a distance of 5 mm. Through the data analysis in the TPS, the sharpness of the dose at the back edge of the heavy ion beam is better than that at the lateral edge, but the generated X-ray contamination cannot be ignored. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of uneven CT value on the dose decay of heavy ion beam should also be considered in clinical treatment.

Influence of Modulation Factor on Treatment Plan Quality and Irradiation Time in Hippocampus-Sparing Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Using Tomotherapy.

Objectives: Hippocampus-sparing whole-brain radiotherapy (HS-WBRT) using tomotherapy is known to provide a better dose distribution than volumetric-modulated arc therapy but requires an extended irradiation time. The present study aimed to investigate whether irradiation time can be shortened by reducing the modulation factor (MF) without losing the target dose distribution. Methods: Using six tilted computed tomography images in the head area, the planning target volume (PTV) and hippocampal doses, and the irradiation time was investigated with a jaw width of 1 cm, a pitch of 0.200, and the MF changed from 3.0 to 2.6, 2.2, 1.8, and 1.4. Results: No significant changes in the PTV or hippocampus were found with MF in the range from 3.0 to 1.8, but marked deterioration was found with that of 1.4. The irradiation time showed a linear relationship with the MF within the range from 3.0 to 1.8, with 1334, 1158, 986, and 817 s at modulation factors of 3.0, 2.6, 2.2, and 1.8, respectively. However, when the MF was 1.4, the irradiation time was 808 s. Conclusions: When HS-WBRT is performed with a tilted body position and a jaw width of 1 cm, with a MF of 1.8, a favorable balance between dose parameters and irradiation time is achieved, whereas with a MF of 1.4, the quality of the radiotherapy plan deteriorates, and the irradiation time is approximately the same as that with a MF of 1.8.

Personalising treatment plan quality review with knowledge-based planning in the TROG 15.03 trial for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in primary kidney cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Quality assurance (QA) of treatment plans in clinical trials improves protocol compliance and patient outcomes. Retrospective use of knowledge-based-planning (KBP) in clinical trials has demonstrated improved treatment plan quality and consistency. We report the results of prospective use of KBP for real-time QA of treatment plan quality in the TROG 15.03 FASTRACK II trial, which evaluates efficacy of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for kidney cancer. METHODS: A KBP model was generated based on single institution data. For each patient in the KBP phase (open to the last 31 patients in the trial), the treating centre submitted treatment plans 7 days prior to treatment. A treatment plan was created by using the KBP model, which was compared with the submitted plan for each organ-at-risk (OAR) dose constraint. A report comparing each plan for each OAR constraint was provided to the submitting centre within 24 h of receiving the plan. The centre could then modify the plan based on the KBP report, or continue with the existing plan. RESULTS: Real-time feedback using KBP was provided in 24/31 cases. Consistent plan quality was in general achieved between KBP and the submitted plan. KBP review resulted in replan and improvement of OAR dosimetry in two patients. All centres indicated that the feedback was a useful QA check of their treatment plan. CONCLUSION: KBP for real-time treatment plan review was feasible for 24/31 cases, and demonstrated ability to improve treatment plan quality in two cases. Challenges include integration of KBP feedback into clinical timelines, interpretation of KBP results with respect to clinical trade-offs, and determination of appropriate plan quality improvement criteria.

FIELDRT: an open-source platform for the assessment of target volume delineation in radiation therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Target volume delineation (TVD) has been identified as a weakness in the accuracy of radiotherapy, both within and outside of clinical trials due to the intra/interobserver variations affecting the TVD quality. Sources of variations such as poor compliance or protocol violation may have adverse effect on treatment outcomes. In this paper, we present and describe the FIELDRT software developed for the ARENA project to improve the quality of TVD through qualitative and quantitative feedbacks and individual and personalized summary of trainee"s performance. METHODS: For each site-specific clinical case included in the FIELDRT software, reference volumes, minimum and maximum "acceptable" volumes and organ at risk were derived by outlines of consultants and senior trainees. The software components currently developed include: (a) user-friendly importing interface (b) analysis toolbox to compute quantitative and qualitative (c) visualiser and (d) structured report generator for personalised feedback. The FIELDRT software was validated by comparing the performance of 63 trainees and by measuring performance over time. In addition, a trainee evaluation day was held in 2019 to collect feedback on FIELDRT. RESULTS: Results show the trainees' improvement when reoutlining a case after reviewing the feedback generated from the FIELDRT software. Comments and feedback received after evaluation day were positive and confirmed that FIELDRT can be a useful application for training purposes. CONCLUSION: We presented a new open-source software to support education in TVD and ongoing continuous professional development for clinical oncology trainees and consultants. ARENA in combination with FIELDRT implements site-specific modules with reference target and organs at risk volumes and automatically evaluates individual performance using several quantitative and qualitative feedbacks. Pilot results suggests this software could be used as an education tool to reduce variation in TVD so to guarantee high quality in radiotherapy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: FIELDRT is a new easy and free to use software aiming at supporting education in TVD and ongoing continuous professional development. The software provides quantitative/qualitative feedback and an exportable report with an individual and personalised summary of trainee's performance.