The impact of COVID-19 on a high-volume incident learning system: A retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to assess how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted our incident learning system data and communicate the impact of a major exogenous event on radiation oncology clinical practice. METHODS: Trends in our electronic incident reporting system were analyzed to ascertain the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including any direct clinical changes. Incident reports submitted in the 18 months prior to the pandemic (September 14, 2018 to March 13, 2020) and reports submitted during the first 18 months of the pandemic (March 14, 2020 to September 13, 2021) were compared. The incident reports include several data elements that were evaluated for trends between the two time periods, and statistical analysis was performed to compare the proportions of reports. RESULTS: In the 18 months prior to COVID-19, 192 reports were submitted per 1000 planning tasks (n = 832 total). In the first 18 months of the pandemic, 147 reports per 1000 planning tasks were submitted (n = 601 total), a decrease of 23.4%. Statistical analysis revealed that there were no significant changes among the data elements between the pre- and during COVID-19 time periods. An analysis of the free-text narratives in the reports found that phrases related to pretreatment imaging were common before COVID-19 but not during. Conversely, phrases related to intravenous contrast, consent for computed tomography, and adaptive radiotherapy became common during COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The data elements captured by our incident learning system were stable after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with no statistically significant findings after correction for multiple comparisons. A trend toward fewer reports submitted for low-risk issues was observed. The methods used in the work can be generalized to events with a large-scale impact on the clinic or to monitor an incident learning system to drive future improvement activities.

Commissioning an Exradin W2 plastic scintillation detector for clinical use in small radiation fields.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to evaluate the Standard Imaging Exradin W2 plastic scintillation detector (W2) for use in the types of fields used for stereotactic radiosurgery. METHODS: Prior to testing the W2 in small fields, the W2 was evaluated in standard large field conditions to ensure good detector performance. These tests included energy dependence, short-term repeatability, dose-response linearity, angular dependence, temperature dependence, and dose rate dependence. Next, scan settings and calibration of the W2 were optimized to ensure high quality data acquisition. Profiles of small fields shaped by cones and multi-leaf collimator (MLCs) were measured using the W2 and IBA RAZOR diode in a scanning water tank. Output factors for cones (4-17.5 mm) and MLC fields (1, 2, 3 cm) were acquired with both detectors. Finally, the dose at isocenter for seven radiosurgery plans was measured with the W2 detector. RESULTS: W2 exhibited acceptable warm-up behavior, short-term reproducibility, axial angular dependence, dose-rate linearity, and dose linearity. The detector exhibits a dependence upon energy, polar angle, and temperature. Scanning measurements taken with the W2 and RAZOR were in good agreement, with full-width half-maximum and penumbra widths agreeing to within 0.1 mm. The output factors measured by the W2 and RAZOR exhibited a maximum difference of 1.8%. For the seven point-dose measurements of radiosurgery plans, the W2 agreed well with our treatment planning system with a maximum deviation of 2.2%. The Cerenkov light ratio calibration method did not significantly impact the measurement of relative profiles, output factors, or point dose measurements. CONCLUSION: The W2 demonstrated dosimetric characteristics that are suitable for radiosurgery field measurements. The detector agreed well with the RAZOR diode for output factors and scanned profiles and showed good agreement with the treatment planning system in measurements of clinical treatment plans.

AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 5.b: Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-Megavoltage photon and electron beams.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Implementation of the validation testing in MPPG 5.a "Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-megavoltage photon and electron beams".

The AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 5.a provides concise guidance on the commissioning and QA of beam modeling and dose calculation in radiotherapy treatment planning systems. This work discusses the implementation of the validation testing recommended in MPPG 5.a at two institutions. The two institutions worked collaboratively to create a common set of treatment fields and analysis tools to deliver and analyze the validation tests. This included the development of a novel, open-source software tool to compare scanning water tank measurements to 3D DICOM-RT Dose distributions. Dose calculation algorithms in both Pinnacle and Eclipse were tested with MPPG 5.a to validate the modeling of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators. The validation process resulted in more than 200 water tank scans and more than 50 point measurements per institution, each of which was compared to a dose calculation from the institution's treatment planning system (TPS). Overall, the validation testing recommended in MPPG 5.a took approximately 79 person-hours for a machine with four photon and five electron energies for a single TPS. Of the 79 person-hours, 26 person-hours required time on the machine, and the remainder involved preparation and analysis. The basic photon, electron, and heterogeneity correction tests were evaluated with the tolerances in MPPG 5.a, and the tolerances were met for all tests. The MPPG 5.a evaluation criteria were used to assess the small field and IMRT/VMAT validation tests. Both institutions found the use of MPPG 5.a to be a valuable resource during the commissioning process. The validation testing in MPPG 5.a showed the strengths and limitations of the TPS models. In addition, the data collected during the validation testing is useful for routine QA of the TPS, validation of software upgrades, and commissioning of new algorithms.

Validation of a modern second-check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the Mobius second-check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization-chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ (MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse with the AcurosXB dose algorithm, is also provided. Finally, patient dose calculated in Mobius is compared directly to Eclipse to demonstrate typical expected results during clinical use of the Mobius system. METHODS: Seventeen anonymized intensity-modulated clinical treatment plans were selected for analysis. Dose was recalculated on the MVP in both Eclipse and Mobius. These calculated doses were compared to doses measured using an A1SL ionization-chamber in the MVP. Dose was measured and analyzed at two different chamber positions for each treatment plan. Mobius calculated dose was then compared directly to Eclipse using the following metrics; target mean dose, target D95%, global 3D gamma pass rate, and target gamma pass rate. Finally, these same metrics were used to analyze the first 36 intensity modulated cases, following clinical implementation of the Mobius system. RESULTS: The average difference between Mobius and measurement was 0.3 ± 1.3%. Differences ranged from -3.3 to + 2.2%. The average difference between Eclipse and measurement was -1.2 ± 0.7%. Eclipse vs. measurement differences ranged from -3.0 to -0.1%. For the 17 anonymized pre-clinical cases, the average target mean dose difference between Mobius and Eclipse was 1.0 ± 1.1%. Average target D95% difference was -0.9 ± 2.0%. Average global gamma pass rate, using a criteria of 3%, 2 mm, was 94.4 ± 3.3%, and average gamma pass rate for the target volume only was 80.2 ± 12.3%. Results of the first 36 intensity-modulated cases, post-clinical implementation of Mobius, were similar to those seen for the 17 pre-clinical test cases. CONCLUSION: Mobius correctly calculated dose for each tested intensity modulated treatment plan, agreeing with measurement to within 3.5% for all cases analyzed. The dose calculation accuracy and independence of the Mobius system is sufficient to provide a rigorous second-check of a modern TPS.

RIP1 and RIP3 complex regulates radiation-induced programmed necrosis in glioblastoma.

Radiation-induced necrosis (RN) is a relatively common side effect of radiation therapy for glioblastoma. However, the molecular mechanisms involved and the ways RN mechanisms differ from regulated cell death (apoptosis) are not well understood. Here, we compare the molecular mechanism of cell death (apoptosis or necrosis) of C6 glioma cells in both in vitro and in vivo (C6 othotopically allograft) models in response to low and high doses of X-ray radiation. Lower radiation doses were used to induce apoptosis, while high-dose levels were chosen to induce radiation necrosis. Our results demonstrate that active caspase-8 in this complex I induces apoptosis in response to low-dose radiation and inhibits necrosis by cleaving RIP1 and RI. When activation of caspase-8 was reduced at high doses of X-ray radiation, the RIP1/RIP3 necrosome complex II is formed. These complexes induce necrosis through the caspase-3-independent pathway mediated by calpain, cathepsin B/D, and apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF). AIF has a dual role in apoptosis and necrosis. At high doses, AIF promotes chromatinolysis and necrosis by interacting with histone H2AX. In addition, NF-κB, STAT-3, and HIF-1 play a crucial role in radiation-induced inflammatory responses embedded in a complex inflammatory network. Analysis of inflammatory markers in matched plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) isolated from in vivo specimens demonstrated the upregulation of chemokines and cytokines during the necrosis phase. Using RIP1/RIP3 kinase specific inhibitors (Nec-1, GSK'872), we also establish that the RIP1-RIP3 complex regulates programmed necrosis after either high-dose radiation or TNF-α-induced necrosis requires RIP1 and RIP3 kinases. Overall, our data shed new light on the relationship between RIP1/RIP3-mediated programmed necrosis and AIF-mediated caspase-independent programmed necrosis in glioblastoma.