Using standardized workflows and quantitative data-driven management to reduce time interval from simulation to treatment initiation.

PURPOSE: External beam radiotherapy is a complex process, involving timely coordination among multiple teams. The aim of this study is to report our experience of establishing a standardized workflow and using quantitative data and metrics to manage the time-to-treatment initiation (TTI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Starting in 2014, we established a standard process in a radiation oncology-specific electronic medical record system (RO-EMR) for patients receiving external beam radiation therapy in our department, aiming to measure the time interval from simulation to treatment initiation, defined as TTI, for radiation oncology. TTI data were stratified according to the following treatment techniques: three-dimensional (3D) conformal therapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Statistical analysis was performed with the Mann-Whitney test for the respective metrics of aggregate data for the initial period 2012- 2015 (PI) and the later period 2016-2019 (PII). RESULT: Over 8 years, the average annual number of treatments for PI and PII were 1760 and 2357 respectively, with 3D, IMRT, and SBRT treatments accounting for 53, 29, 18% and 44, 34, 22%, respectively, of the treatment techniques. The median TTI for 3D, IMRT, and SBRT for PI and PII were 1, 6, 7, and 1, 5, 7 days, respectively, while the 90th percentile TTI for the three techniques in both periods were 5, 9, 11 and 4, 9, 10 days, respectively. From the aggregate data, the TTI was significantly reduced (p = 0.0004, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001) from PI to PII for the three treatment techniques. CONCLUSION: Establishing a standardized workflow and frequently measuring TTI resulted in shortening the TTI during the early years (in PI) and maintaining the established TTI in the subsequent years (in PII).

Using feasibility dose-volume histograms to reduce intercampus plan quality variability for head-and-neck cancer.

The purpose of this work is to objectively assess variability of intercampus plan quality for head-and-neck (HN) cancer and to test utility of a priori feasibility dose-volume histograms (FDVHs) as planning dose goals. In this study, 109 plans treated from 2017 to 2019 were selected, with 52 from the main campus and 57 from various regional centers. For each patient, the planning computed tomography images and contours were imported into a commercial program to generate FDVHs with a feasibility value (f-value) ranging from 0.0 to 0.5. For 10 selected organs-at-risk (OARs), we used the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) to quantify the overlaps between FDVH and clinically achieved DVH of each OAR and determined the f-value associated with the maximum DSC (labeled as f-max). Subsequently, 10 HN plans from the regional centers were replanned with planning dose goals guided by FDVHs. The clinical and feasibility-guided auto-planning (FgAP) plans were evaluated using our institutional criteria. Among plans from the main campus and regional centers, the median f-max values were statistically significantly different (p < 0.05) for all OARs except for the left parotid (p = 0.622), oral cavity (p = 0.057), and mandible (p = 0.237). For the 10 FgAP plans, the median values of f-max were 0.21, compared to 0.37 from the clinical plans. With comparable dose coverage to the tumor volumes, the significant differences (p < 0.05) in the median f-max and corresponding dose reduction (shown in parenthesis) for the spinal cord, larynx, supraglottis, trachea, and esophagus were 0.27 (8.5 Gy), 0.3 (7.6 Gy), 0.19 (5.9 Gy), 0.19 (8.9 Gy), and 0.12 (4.0 Gy), respectively. In conclusion, the FDVH prediction is an objective quality assurance tool to evaluate the intercampus plan variability. This tool can also provide guideline in planning dose goals to further improve plan quality.

Using a daily monitoring system to reduce treatment position override rates in external beam radiation therapy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To report our 7-year experience with a daily monitoring system to significantly reduce couch position overrides and errors in patient treatment positioning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment couch position override data were extracted from a radiation oncology-specific electronic medical record system from 2012 to 2018. During this period, we took several actions to reduce couch position overrides, including reducing the number of tolerance tables from 18 to 6, tightening tolerance limits, enforcing time outs, documenting reasons for overrides, and timely reviewing of overrides made from previous treatment day. The tolerance tables included treatment categories for head and neck (HN) (with/without cone beam CT [CBCT]), body (with/without CBCT), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and clinical setup for electron beams. For the same time period, we also reported treatment positioning-related incidents that were recorded in our departmental incident report system. To verify our tolerance limits, we further examined couch shifts after daily kilovoltage CBCT (kV-CBCT) for the patients treated from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2018, the override rate decreased from 11.2% to 1.6%/year, whereas the number of fractions treated in the department increased by 23%. The annual patient positioning error rate was also reduced from 0.019% in 2012, to 0.004% in 2017 and 0% in 2018. For patients treated under daily kV-CBCT guidance from 2018 to 2021, the applied couch shifts after imaging registration that exceeded the tolerance limits were low, <1% for HN, <1.2% for body, and <2.6% for SBRT. CONCLUSIONS: The daily monitoring system, which enables a timely review of overrides, significantly reduced the number of treatment couch position overrides and ultimately resulted in a decrease in treatment positioning errors. For patients treated with daily kV-CBCT guidance, couch position shifts after CBCT image guidance demonstrated a low rate of exceeding the set tolerance.

Treatment planning of VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT delivery techniques for single fraction spine SBRT: An intercomparative dosimetric analysis and phantom-based quality assurance measurements.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare clinically treated step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (ssIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans in dosimetric endpoints and pretreatment quality assurance (QA) measurements. METHODS: Five single fraction spine SBRT (18 Gy) cases - including one cervical, two thoracic, and two lumbar spines - clinically treated with ssIMRT were replanned with VMAT, and all plans were delivered to a phantom for comparing plan quality and delivery accuracy. Furthermore, we analyzed 98 clinically treated plans (18 Gy single fraction), including 34 ssIMRT and 29 VMAT for cervical/thoracic spine, and 19 ssIMRT and 16 VMAT for lumbar spine. The conformality index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) were calculated, and QA measurement records were compared. For the spinal cord/cauda equina, the maximum dose to 0.03 cc (D0.03cc ) and volume receiving 10 or 12 Gy (V10Gy /V12Gy ) were recorded. Statistical significance was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Compared to ssIMRT, replanned VMAT plans had lower V10Gy /V12Gy and D0.03cc to the spinal cord/cauda equina in all five cases, and better CI in three out of five cases. The VMAT replans were slightly less homogeneous than those of ssIMRT plans. Both modalities passed IMRT QA with >95% passing rate with (3%, 3 mm) gamma criteria. With the 98 clinical cases, for cervical/thoracic ssIMRT and VMAT plans, the median V10Gy of spinal cord was 4.15% and 1.85% (P = 0.004); the median D0.03cc of spinal cord was 10.85 Gy and 10.10 Gy (P = 0.032); the median CI was 1.28 and 1.08 (P = 0.009); the median HI were 1.34 and 1.33 (P = 0.697), respectively. For lumbar spine, no significant dosimetric endpoint differences were observed. The two modalities were comparable in delivery accuracy. CONCLUSION: From our clinically treated plans, we found that VMAT plans provided better dosimetric quality and comparable delivery accuracy when compared to ssIMRT for single fraction spine SBRT.

Combining automatic plan integrity check (APIC) with standard plan document and checklist method to reduce errors in treatment planning.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To report our experience of combining three approaches of an automatic plan integrity check (APIC), a standard plan documentation, and checklist methods to minimize errors in the treatment planning process. MATERIALS/METHODS: We developed APIC program and standardized plan documentation via scripting in the treatment planning system, with an enforce function of APIC usage. We used a checklist method to check for communication errors in patient charts (referred to as chart errors). Any errors in the plans and charts (referred to as the planning errors) discovered during the initial chart check by the therapists were reported to our institutional Workflow Enhancement (WE) system. Clinical Implementation of these three methods is a progressive process while the APIC was the major progress among the three methods. Thus, we chose to compared the total number of planning errors before (including data from 2013 to 2014) and after (including data from 2015 to 2018) APIC implementation. We assigned the severity of these errors into five categories: serious (S), near miss with safety net (NM), clinical interruption (CLI), minor impediment (MI), and bookkeeping (BK). The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 253 planning error forms, containing 272 errors, were submitted during the study period, representing an error rate of 3.8%, 3.1%, 2.1%, 0.8%, 1.9% and 1.3% of total number of plans in these years respectively. A marked reduction of planning error rate in the S and NM categories was statistically significant (P < 0.01): from 0.6% before APIC to 0.1% after APIC. The error rate for all categories was also significantly reduced (P < 0.01), from 3.4% before APIC and 1.5% per plan after APIC. CONCLUSION: With three combined methods, we reduced both the number and the severity of errors significantly in the process of treatment planning.

Evaluation of auto-planning in IMRT and VMAT for head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this work are to (a) investigate whether the use of auto-planning and multiple iterations improves quality of head and neck (HN) radiotherapy plans; (b) determine whether delivery methods such as step-and-shoot (SS) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) impact plan quality; (c) report on the observations of plan quality predictions of a commercial feasibility tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty HN cases were retrospectively selected from our clinical database for this study. The first ten plans were used to test setting up planning goals and other optimization parameters in the auto-planning module. Subsequently, the other ten plans were replanned with auto-planning using step-and-shoot (AP-SS) and VMAT (AP-VMAT) delivery methods. Dosimetric endpoints were compared between the clinical plans and the corresponding AP-SS and AP-VMAT plans. Finally, predicted dosimetric endpoints from a commercial program were assessed. RESULTS: All AP-SS and AP-VMAT plans met the clinical dose constraints. With auto-planning, the dose coverage of the low dose planning target volume (PTV) was improved while the dose coverage of the high dose PTV was maintained. Compared to the clinical plans, the doses to critical organs, such as the brainstem, parotid, larynx, esophagus, and oral cavity were significantly reduced in the AP-VMAT (P < 0.05); the AP-SS plans had similar homogeneity indices (HI) and conformality indices (CI) and the AP-VMAT plans had comparable HI and improved CI. Good agreement in dosimetric endpoints between predictions and AP-VMAT plans were observed in five of seven critical organs. CONCLUSION: With improved planning quality and efficiency, auto-planning module is an effective tool to enable planners to generate HN IMRT plans that are meeting institution specific planning protocols. DVH prediction is feasible in improving workflow and plan quality.

A Volumetric Dosimetry Analysis of Vertebral Body Fracture Risk After Single Fraction Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Vertebral compression fractures (VCF) are a common and severe complication of spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We sought to analyze how volumetric dosimetry and clinical factors were associated with the risk of VCF. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We evaluated 173 spinal segments that underwent single fraction SBRT in 85 patients from a retrospective database. Vertebral bodies were contoured and dosimetric values were calculated. Competing risk models were used to evaluate the effect of clinical and dosimetry variables on the risk of VCF. RESULTS: Our primary endpoint was development of a post-SBRT VCF. New or progressive fractures were noted in 21/173 vertebrae (12.1%); the median time to fracture was 322 days. Median follow-up time was 426 days. Upon multivariable analysis, the percentages of vertebral body volume receiving >20 Gy and >24 Gy were significantly associated with increased risk of VCF (hazard ratio, 1.036, 1.104; P = .029, .044, respectively). No other patient or treatment factors were found to be significant on multivariable analysis. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the percentages of vertebral body volume receiving >20 Gy and >24 Gy required to obtain 90% sensitivity for predicting vertebral body fracture were 24% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: VCF is a common complication after SBRT, with a crude incidence of 12.1%. Treatment plans that permit higher volumes receiving doses >20 Gy and >24 Gy to the vertebral body are associated with increased risk of VCF. To achieve 90% sensitivity for predicting VCF post-SBRT, the percentage of vertebral volume receiving >20 Gy should be <24% and maximum point dose should be <24 Gy. These results may help guide clinicians when evaluating spine SBRT treatment plans to minimize the risk of developing posttreatment VCF.