Application of failure mode and effects analysis to optimization of linac quality controls protocol.

PURPOSE: To apply Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to optimize linac quality control (QC) protocol in order to ensure patient safety and treatment quality, taking maximum advantage of the available resources. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Each parameter tested by the QC was considered as a potential failure mode (FM). For each FM, likelihood of occurrence (O), severity of effect (S), and lack of detectability (D) were evaluated and corresponding Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated from the product of three indexes. The scores were assigned using two methods: (a) A survey submitted to the medical physicists; (b) A semi-quantitative analysis (SQA) performed through: simulation of FMs in the treatment planning system; studies reported in literature; results obtained by the QC data analysis. A weighted RPN for all FMs was calculated taking into account both the methods. For each linac, the tests were then sorted by their frequency and the RPN value. RESULTS: A high variability was found in the scores of the survey, although in many it was reduced in RPN values, highlighting the more relevant tests as on beam output and imaging system. Integrating these results with those obtained by SQA, the RPN-based ranking of tests has been provided considering the specific use of the accelerator: for example, more accurate tests on dose modulation and multileaf collimator speed were required in linacs where intensity-modulated treatment is performed, while, more specific tests on couch and jaw position indicators were necessary where treatments with multiple isocenters and/or junctions between adjacent fields were often delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis is a useful tool to prioritize the linac QCs, taking into account the specific equipment and clinical practice. The integration of SQA and survey results reduces subjectivity of the FMEA scoring and allows to optimize linac QCs without "losing" the expertise and experience of medical physicists and clinical staff.

Radiotherapy for unresectable sinonasal cancers: dosimetric comparison of intensity modulated radiation therapy with coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for treatment of unresectable paranasal sinuses cancers (PNSCs) with different clinical presentations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four patients treated for primary target volume only (group 1), four requiring elective nodal irradiation (group 2) and four with positive nodes in macroscopic disease (group 3) were selected. For each patient were generated 7 fields IMRT, coplanar VMAT (c-VMAT) and non-coplanar VMAT (nc-VMAT) treatment plans. Total doses were 70Gy and 54Gy to high dose planning target volume (HD-PTV) and low-dose-PTV, respectively. Dose-volume histogram, conformity and homogeneity index (CI and HI), and monitor units (MUs) per Gy were evaluated. RESULTS: VMAT provided significantly better target coverage, in terms of V100% (Volume encompassed by the isodose 100%), than IMRT, in particular when nc-VMAT was used. In general, organ at risk sparing is similar with the three approaches, although nc-VMAT can allow a statistically significant reduction of dose to contralateral parotid gland and cochlea for all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: VMAT can offer significant improvement of treatment for all unresectable PNSCs over existing IMRT techniques. In particular, nc-VMAT may be a further advantage for those patients with sinonasal cancers and involvement of the nodes in whom large volumes and complex/irregular shape have to be irradiated, even if clinical benefits should be established in the future.

Critical analysis of locoregional failures following intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

AIM: To analyze the patterns of locoregional failure following intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) at our institution, as part of an internal quality assurance program. We aimed to investigate the potential existence of a correlation between any part of the IMRT process and clinical outcome. METHODS & MATERIALS: A total of 106 non-metastatic NPC patients consecutively treated with IMRT (with or without chemotherapy) were analyzed. Radiotherapy was administered using a sequential or simultaneous integrated boost approach at the total prescribed dose of 66-70 Gy (2.00-2.12 Gy per fraction). MRI studies of recurrences were recorded with the planning computed tomography studies to identify volume of failure. Recurrence-related characteristics were analyzed with respect to the original treatment. Failures were classified as 'in-field', 'marginal' or 'out-field' if at least 95, 20-95 or less than 20% of the volume of failure, respectively, was within 95% of the total prescription dose. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 43.4 months, 5-years local control, regional control, locoregional control and overall survival rates were 87.7, 88.0, 83.5 and 81.3% respectively. A total of 21 failures were registered in 15 patients. In particular, ten failures (47.6%) were classified as 'in-field' (seven local failures and three regional failures [RFs]), nine failures (42.9%) as 'marginal' (five local failures and four RFs) and only two failures (9.5%) as 'out-field' (both RFs). The most relevant causes of failures were suboptimal target definition and target coverage as well as a longer than planned overall treatment time. CONCLUSION: IMRT determines excellent outcome in NPC patients. However, great attention in all IMRT steps is necessary to reduce potential causes of failure.

Set-up errors analyses in IMRT treatments for nasopharyngeal carcinoma to evaluate time trends, PTV and PRV margins.

INTRODUCTION: the aims of this study were to analyze the systematic and random interfractional set-up errors during Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) in 20 consecutive nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients by means of Electronic Portal Images Device (EPID), to define appropriate Planning Target Volume (PTV) and Planning Risk Volume (PRV) margins, as well as to investigate set-up displacement trend as a function of time during fractionated RT course. MATERIAL AND METHODS: before EPID clinical implementation, an anthropomorphic phantom was shifted intentionally 5 mm to all directions and the EPIs were compared with the digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) to test the system's capability to recognize displacements observed in clinical studies. Then, 578 clinical images were analyzed with a mean of 29 images for each patient. RESULTS: phantom data showed that the system was able to correct shifts with an accuracy of 1 mm. As regards clinical data, the estimated population systematic errors were 1.3 mm for left-right (L-R), 1 mm for superior-inferior (S-I) and 1.1 mm for anterior-posterior (A-P) directions, respectively. Population random errors were 1.3 mm, 1.5 mm and 1.3 mm for L-R, S-I and A-P directions, respectively. PTV margin was at least 3.4, 3 and 3.2 mm for L-R, S-I and A-P direction, respectively. PRV margins for brainstem and spinal cord were 2.3, 2 and 2.1 mm and 3.8, 3.5 and 3.2 mm for L-R, A-P and S-I directions, respectively. Set-up error displacements showed no significant changes as the therapy progressed (p>0.05), although displacements >3 mm were found more frequently when severe weight loss or tumor nodal shrinkage occurred. DISCUSSION: these results enable us to choose margins that guarantee with sufficient accuracy the coverage of PTVs and organs at risk sparing. Collected data confirmed the need for a strict check of patient position reproducibility in case of anatomical changes.

From clinical target volume to biological target volume.

The authors' experience with a point matching algorithm for image registration belonging to a commercially available software package for conformal radiotherapy, is reported. The algorithm IFS (Image Fusion System) permits the registration of two image data-sets in two different manners: by use of a stereotactic localization frame, dedicated to brain studies, and by means of point markers that may be internal anatomical landmarks or external fiducials fixed on the patient skin. Position errors were obtained by evaluating the stereotactic coordinates of seven sources detectable by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Computed Tomography (CT), for the first method. The comparison of the geometric centers of cylindrical rods enclosed in a second phantom was employed to evaluate the registration accuracy of the second algorithm. The mean differences in source identification between CT and MRI images are inferior to 1 mm with both techniques, if MRI distortion phenomenon and patient movements are excluded. The software utility of the IFS algorithm to draw, after fusion, a target ROI that is the synthesis of the two information modalities undergoing registration may be a useful tool for the optimization of a radiotherapy treatment planning.