RESUMO
PURPOSE: An educational program using Radiation Oncology-Incident Learning System (RO-ILS) was developed to improve safety culture and training for radiation oncology (RO) residents. METHODS: The program included a pre-training assessment, interactive training, integration of residents into quality assurance meetings, and a post-training assessment over a 3 month rotation. RESULTS: Twelve residents completed the safety training program. Pre-training assessment mean scores (five-point scale) of experience with Incident Learning Systems (ILS), root-cause analysis (RCA), failure-mode and effect analysis (FMEA), safety training, and culture were 2.3, 2.8, 2.0, 4.0, and 4.4, respectively. Post-training assessment showed a significant increase in ILS 4.0 (p < 0.001), RCA 3.8 (p = 0.008), and FMEA 3.3 (p = 0.006) and safety culture (4.8, p = 0.043). Additionally, residents were anonymously surveyed ≥ 10 months after graduation to determine the long-term value of the program. The overall assessment from the graduated residents indicates that this education is valued by RO in many institutions. The majority of the residents are either currently utilizing or plan to utilize the information gained in this program in their new institutions. CONCLUSIONS: We report a successful implementation of a safety training program in a RO residency with significant improvements in self-reported confidence with the concepts of ILS, RCA, and FMEA and an improved perception of safety culture. This program can be implemented across all residency programs.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To explore whether treatment with multiple Gamma Knife sessions (mGK) resulted in different survival outcomes or cumulative radiation doses compared to single session Gamma Knife (sGK) in patients who have been treated for ≥10 brain metastases (BMs). METHODS: Thirty-five patients with ≥10 BMs treated with Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery (GK SRS) were identified and separated into sGK vs. mGK cohorts. Survival outcomes and dosimetry data were compared between the two groups. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) classes were used to further stratify patients. RESULTS: mGK patients survived longer from the first GK treatment (p<0.009). By RPA class, patients with class 1 had a prolonged survival from BM diagnosis than those in classes 2 and 3 (p=0.004). However, survival was not significantly different between the classes from the first GK treatment (p=0.089). Stratified by mGK vs. sGK and RPA classes, sGK patients in RPA class 1 had the longest survival from BM diagnosis but the worst survival from GK treatment. mGK patients in any RPA class had the best survival from the first GK treatment. For patients with RPA class 2+3, mGK was associated with longer survival from both BM diagnosis and first treatment. Statistical but not clinical differences between the mGK vs. sGK groups were observed in the max dose to the targets and cochlea, and the V40Gy whole brain dose. CONCLUSIONS: mGK may be beneficial if GK is initiated early at first BM diagnosis vs. sGK initiated late. Future research is required to confirm these findings and explore additional areas of interest, such as quality-of-life and economic considerations.
RESUMO
Purpose To investigate time efficiency, applicability, and accuracy of using a web-based, independent quality assurance (QA) platform and vendor-dependent based system check for daily linear accelerator (LINAC) QA. Methods Time needed to perform daily QA on a single (n=1) LINAC was collected for three months. Task Group report 142 (TG-142) compliant daily QA included dosimetry checks (four photon, four electron beams); imaging checks (planar kilovolt (kV) & megavolt (MV), kV cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)); and mechanical and safety checks using SunCHECK Machine (SCM) (Sun Nuclear Inc., Melbourne, FL, USA). Additionally, Machine Performance Check (MPC) (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) was performed for all energies. Four trained radiation therapists performed daily QA on both platforms. Data were collected to identify the time required to complete both SCM and MPC. Additionally, the two platforms were evaluated on usability and features. Output results were compared to our monthly standard to assess accuracy. Results On average, SCM took 22 minutes with a standard deviation of six minutes and MPC took 15 minutes with a standard deviation of three minutes. MPC output results were impacted due to the beam output being coupled to the beam profile changes. As a result, the two systems on average disagreed by -1.41% after three months despite being baselined at the same time point and output agreeing well initially (average difference of -0.1% across all energies). While there was overlap in the tests performed, SCM tests were more relevant to TG-142 while MPC tests were beneficial to machine service and, with a clear understanding of the limitations of the system, found suitable as a secondary backup to SCM for daily output verification. Conclusions This work demonstrates that a comprehensive TG-142 daily QA can be designed using SCM and MPC can be added as a beneficial tool and backup for output verification while still maintaining an efficient daily QA process.