3D printing in brachytherapy: A systematic review of gynecological applications.

PURPOSE: To provide a systematic review of the applications of 3D printing in gynecological brachytherapy. METHODS: Peer-reviewed articles relating to additive manufacturing (3D printing) from the 34 million plus biomedical citations in National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI/PubMed), and 53 million records in Web of Science (Clarivate) were queried for 3D printing applications. The results were narrowed sequentially to, (1) all literature in 3D printing with final publications prior to July 2022 (in English, and excluding books, proceedings, and reviews), and then to applications in, (2) radiotherapy, (3) brachytherapy, (4) gynecological brachytherapy. Brachytherapy applications were reviewed and grouped by disease site, with gynecological applications additionally grouped by study type, methodology, delivery modality, and device type. RESULTS: From 47,541 3D printing citations, 96 publications met the inclusion criteria for brachytherapy, with gynecological clinical applications compromising the highest percentage (32%), followed by skin and surface (19%), and head and neck (9%). The distribution of delivery modalities was 58% for HDR (Ir-192), 35% for LDR (I-125), and 7% for other modalities. In gynecological brachytherapy, studies included design of patient specific applicators and templates, novel applicator designs, applicator additions, quality assurance and dosimetry devices, anthropomorphic gynecological applicators, and in-human clinical trials. Plots of year-to-year growth demonstrate a rapid nonlinear trend since 2014 due to the improving accessibility of low-cost 3D printers. Based on these publications, considerations for clinical use are provided. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printing has emerged as an important clinical technology enabling customized applicator and template designs, representing a major advancement in the methodology for implantation and delivery in gynecological brachytherapy.

The effect of dose gradients on gamma comparison insensitivity in patient specific QA comparisons.

BACKGROUND: While many have speculated on the reasons for gamma comparison insensitivity for patient-specific quality assurance analysis, the true reasons for insensitivity have not yet been elucidated. Failing to understand the reasons for this technique's insensitivity limits our ability to either improve the gamma metric to increase sensitivity of the comparison or the capacity to develop new comparison techniques that circumvent the limitations of the gamma comparison. PURPOSE: To understand the underlying cause(s) for gamma comparison insensitivity and determine if simple plan characteristics can quantitatively predict for gamma comparison sensitivity. METHODS: Known MLC and MU errors of varying magnitudes were induced on simple test fields to preliminarily investigate where gamma failures first begin to appear as error magnitude is increased. Gamma value maps between error-induced plan calculations and error-free plan calculations were created for 20 IMRT and 20 VMAT cases, each on three different detector geometries-ArcCHECK, MapCHECK, and Delta4. Gamma value maps were qualitatively compared to dose-gradient maps, and quantitative comparisons were performed between various plan descriptors and the computed gamma sensitivity for five different classes of induced errors were utilized to determine if any plan descriptor could predict the gamma sensitivity on a case-by-case basis. All comparisons were performed in a calculation-only scenario to remove uncertainties introduced by comparisons made with real patient specific QA measurements. RESULTS: Gamma value maps with increasing induced error magnitude illustrated that gamma comparisons fail first in high-dose, low-gradient regions of the field. Conversely, in areas of high gradient, gamma values typically remain low, even in the presence of large errors, regardless of detector geometry and gamma normalization setting. Thus, the complex, and often overlapping, high dose gradients in plans appear to be a limiting factor in gamma comparison sensitivity as the number of points along these gradients may often outnumber the points available for failing the comparison in lower gradient regions of the field. None of the simple plan descriptors studied were able to quantitively predict gamma comparison sensitivity, suggesting that quantitatively predicting the sensitivity of gamma comparisons on a case-by-case basis may require a combination of multiple factors or metrics not studied here. CONCLUSIONS: Simple plan descriptors and the number of points in high-dose, low-gradient regions of the field did not quantitively predict for gamma comparison sensitivity. However, it is clear from gradient and gamma value maps that gamma comparisons fail first in high-dose, low-gradient regions of the field in the presence of known induced errors, which we have shown to be independent of detector geometry and gamma comparison normalization setting. Gamma comparison sensitivity is thus limited by the ever-increasing complexity of plans and is particularly important to consider as treatment volumes become smaller and the complexity of overlapping plan gradients increases. This suggests that new methods for patient-specific QA comparisons are required to circumvent this limitation.

IMRT QA and gamma comparisons: The impact of detector geometry, spatial sampling, and delivery technique on gamma comparison sensitivity.

PURPOSE: To separately quantify sensitivity differences in patient-specific quality assurance comparisons analyzed with the gamma comparison for different measurement geometries, spatial samplings, and delivery techniques [intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)]. METHODS: Error-free calculations for 20 IMRT and 20 VMAT cases were compared to calculations with known induced errors of varying magnitudes, using gamma comparisons. Five error types (MU scaling, three different MLC errors, and collimator errors) were induced in plan calculations on three different detector geometries - ArcCHECK, MapCHECK, and Delta 4. To study detector geometry sensitivity effects alone, gamma comparisons were made with 1 mm error-free calculations compared to 1 mm error-induced calculations for each device. Effects of spatial sampling were studied by making the same gamma comparisons, but down-sampling the error-induced calculations to the real spatial sampling of each device. Additionally, 1 mm vs 1 mm comparisons between the IMRT and VMAT cases were compared to investigate sensitivity differences between IMRT and VMAT using IMRT and VMAT cohorts with similar ranges of plan complexity and average aperture size. For each case, induced error type, and device, five different gamma criteria were studied to ensure sensitivity differences between devices, spatial sampling scenarios, and delivery technique were not gamma criterion specific, resulting in over 36,000 gamma comparisons. RESULTS: For IMRT cases, Delta4 and MapCHECK devices had similar error sensitivities for lagging leaf, bank shift, and MU errors, while the ArcCHECK had considerably lower sensitivity than the planar-type devices. For collimator errors and perturbational leaf errors the ArcCHECK had higher error sensitivity than planar-type devices. This behavior was independent of gamma parameters (percent dose difference, distance-to-agreement, and low dose threshold), though use of local normalization resulted in error sensitivites that were markedly similar between all three devices. Differences between detector geometries were less pronounced for VMAT deliveries. Error sensitivity for a given gamma criterion when comparing IMRT and VMAT deliveries on the same devices showed that VMAT plans were more sensitive to some specific error types and less sensitive to others, when compared to IMRT plans. For the ArcCHECK device, the sensitivity of IMRT and VMAT cases was quite similar, whereas this was not the case for the planar-type devices. When comparing error sensitivity between 1 mm vs 1 mm calculations and 1 mm vs the real spatial sampling for each device, results showed that increased spatial sampling did not systematically increase error sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Noticeable differences in error sensitivity were observed for different detector geometries, but differences were dependent on induced error type, and a particular device geometry did not offer universal improvements in error sensitivity across studied error types. This study demonstrates that the sensitivity of the gamma comparison does not largely hinge on detector spatial sampling. VMAT deliveries were generally less sensitive to errors when compared to IMRT plans for the planar-type devices, while similar sensitivities were observed between delivery techniques for the ArcCHECK device. Results of this work suggest that a universal gamma criterion is inappropriate for IMRT QA and that the percent pixels passing is an insufficient metric for evaluating quality assurance checks in the clinic.

Novel 4D-MRI of tumor infiltrating vasculature: characterizing tumor and vessel volume motion for selective boost volume definition in pancreatic radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has dismal prognosis. Most patients receive radiation therapy (RT), which is complicated by respiration induced organ motion in upper abdomen. The purpose of this study is to report our early clinical experience in a novel self-gated k-space sorted four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (4D-MRI) with slab-selective (SS) excitation to highlight tumor infiltrating blood vessels for pancreatic RT. METHODS: Ten consecutive patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer were recruited to the study. Non-contrast 4D-MRI with and without slab-selective excitation and 4D-CT with delay contrast were performed on all patients. Vessel-tissue CNR were calculated for aorta and critical vessels (superior mesenteric artery or superior mesenteric vein) encompassed by tumor. Respiratory motion trajectories for tumor, as well as involved vessels were analyzed on SS-4D-MRI. Intra-class cross correlation (ICC) between tumor volume and involved vessels were calculated. RESULTS: Among all 4D imaging modalities evaluated, SS-4D-MRI sampling trajectory results in images with highest vessel-tissue CNR comparing to non-slab-selective 4D-MRI and 4D-CT for all patients studied. Average (±standard deviation) CNR for involved vessels are 13.1 ± 8.4 and 3.2 ± 2.7 for SS-4D-MRI and 4D-CT, respectively. The ICC factors comparing tumor and involved vessels motion trajectories are 0.93 ± 0.10, 0.65 ± 0.31 and 0.77 ± 0.23 for superior-inferior, anterior-posterior and medial-lateral directions respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A novel 4D-MRI sequence based on 3D-radial sampling and slab-selective excitation has been assessed for pancreatic cancer patients. The non-contrast 4D-MRI images showed significantly better contrast to noise ratio for the vessels that limit tumor resectability compared to 4D-CT with delayed contrast. The sequence has great potential in accurately defining both the tumor and boost volume margins for pancreas RT with simultaneous integrated boost.

Standardizing dose prescriptions: An ASTRO white paper.

This white paper recommends the standardization (content and presentation order) of several "key components" of the radiation therapy prescription to facilitate accurate communication between radiation therapy care providers. The rationale, other similar efforts, and detailed considerations are described. In brief, the Task Force recommends that the prescription's "elements" include: treatment site, method of delivery, dose per fraction, total number of fractions, total dose (eg, right breast, tangent photons, 267 cGy * 16 = 4272 cGy). A similar formalism is recommended for brachytherapy (eg, cervix, Ir-192 brachytherapy, 600cGy * 5 = 3000 cGy) and other modalities. The white paper also considers future directions for other items such as the simulation order, treatment planning objectives, prescription point or volume, treatment schedule, localization imaging, laboratory monitoring, concurrent chemotherapy, patient instructions for treatment, etc. The intent of this white paper is to facilitate accurate communication among providers to support safe practice as well as to guide vendors in product development that is consistent with this standard prescription.

The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management.

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery challenges traditional prescriptive quality management (QM) methods, such as many of those included in guidelines published by organizations such as the AAPM, ASTRO, ACR, ESTRO, and IAEA. These prescriptive guidelines have traditionally focused on monitoring all aspects of the functional performance of radiotherapy (RT) equipment by comparing parameters against tolerances set at strict but achievable values. Many errors that occur in radiation oncology are not due to failures in devices and software; rather they are failures in workflow and process. A systematic understanding of the likelihood and clinical impact of possible failures throughout a course of radiotherapy is needed to direct limit QM resources efficiently to produce maximum safety and quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and has developed a framework for designing QM activities, based on estimates of the probability of identified failures and their clinical outcome through the RT planning and delivery process. The Task Group has chosen a specific radiotherapy process required for "intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)" as a case study. The goal of this work is to apply modern risk-based analysis techniques to this complex RT process in order to demonstrate to the RT community that such techniques may help identify more effective and efficient ways to enhance the safety and quality of our treatment processes. The task group generated by consensus an example quality management program strategy for the IMRT process performed at the institution of one of the authors. This report describes the methodology and nomenclature developed, presents the process maps, FMEAs, fault trees, and QM programs developed, and makes suggestions on how this information could be used in the clinic. The development and implementation of risk-assessment techniques will make radiation therapy safer and more efficient.

IMRT QA: Selecting gamma criteria based on error detection sensitivity.

PURPOSE: The gamma comparison is widely used to evaluate the agreement between measurements and treatment planning system calculations in patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA). However, recent publications have raised concerns about the lack of sensitivity when employing commonly used gamma criteria. Understanding the actual sensitivity of a wide range of different gamma criteria may allow the definition of more meaningful gamma criteria and tolerance limits in IMRT QA. We present a method that allows the quantitative determination of gamma criteria sensitivity to induced errors which can be applied to any unique combination of device, delivery technique, and software utilized in a specific clinic. METHODS: A total of 21 DMLC IMRT QA measurements (ArcCHECK®, Sun Nuclear) were compared to QA plan calculations with induced errors. Three scenarios were studied: MU errors, multi-leaf collimator (MLC) errors, and the sensitivity of the gamma comparison to changes in penumbra width. Gamma comparisons were performed between measurements and error-induced calculations using a wide range of gamma criteria, resulting in a total of over 20 000 gamma comparisons. Gamma passing rates for each error class and case were graphed against error magnitude to create error curves in order to represent the range of missed errors in routine IMRT QA using 36 different gamma criteria. RESULTS: This study demonstrates that systematic errors and case-specific errors can be detected by the error curve analysis. Depending on the location of the error curve peak (e.g., not centered about zero), 3%/3 mm threshold = 10% at 90% pixels passing may miss errors as large as 15% MU errors and ±1 cm random MLC errors for some cases. As the dose threshold parameter was increased for a given %Diff/distance-to-agreement (DTA) setting, error sensitivity was increased by up to a factor of two for select cases. This increased sensitivity with increasing dose threshold was consistent across all studied combinations of %Diff/DTA. Criteria such as 2%/3 mm and 3%/2 mm with a 50% threshold at 90% pixels passing are shown to be more appropriately sensitive without being overly strict. However, a broadening of the penumbra by as much as 5 mm in the beam configuration was difficult to detect with commonly used criteria, as well as with the previously mentioned criteria utilizing a threshold of 50%. CONCLUSIONS: We have introduced the error curve method, an analysis technique which allows the quantitative determination of gamma criteria sensitivity to induced errors. The application of the error curve method using DMLC IMRT plans measured on the ArcCHECK® device demonstrated that large errors can potentially be missed in IMRT QA with commonly used gamma criteria (e.g., 3%/3 mm, threshold = 10%, 90% pixels passing). Additionally, increasing the dose threshold value can offer dramatic increases in error sensitivity. This approach may allow the selection of more meaningful gamma criteria for IMRT QA and is straightforward to apply to other combinations of devices and treatment techniques.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: 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 8,000 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.• Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Four-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging With 3-Dimensional Radial Sampling and Self-Gating-Based K-Space Sorting: Early Clinical Experience on Pancreatic Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: To apply a novel self-gating k-space sorted 4-dimensional MRI (SG-KS-4D-MRI) method to overcome limitations due to anisotropic resolution and rebinning artifacts and to monitor pancreatic tumor motion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients were imaged using 4D-CT, cine 2-dimensional MRI (2D-MRI), and the SG-KS-4D-MRI, which is a spoiled gradient recalled echo sequence with 3-dimensional radial-sampling k-space projections and 1-dimensional projection-based self-gating. Tumor volumes were defined on all phases in both 4D-MRI and 4D-CT and then compared. RESULTS: An isotropic resolution of 1.56 mm was achieved in the SG-KS-4D-MRI images, which showed superior soft-tissue contrast to 4D-CT and appeared to be free of stitching artifacts. The tumor motion trajectory cross-correlations (mean ± SD) between SG-KS-4D-MRI and cine 2D-MRI in superior-inferior, anterior-posterior, and medial-lateral directions were 0.93 ± 0.03, 0.83 ± 0.10, and 0.74 ± 0.18, respectively. The tumor motion trajectories cross-correlations between SG-KS-4D-MRI and 4D-CT in superior-inferior, anterior-posterior, and medial-lateral directions were 0.91 ± 0.06, 0.72 ± 0.16, and 0.44 ± 0.24, respectively. The average standard deviation of gross tumor volume calculated from the 10 breathing phases was 0.81 cm(3) and 1.02 cm(3) for SG-KS-4D-MRI and 4D-CT, respectively (P=.012). CONCLUSIONS: A novel SG-KS-4D-MRI acquisition method capable of reconstructing rebinning artifact-free, high-resolution 4D-MRI images was used to quantify pancreas tumor motion. The resultant pancreatic tumor motion trajectories agreed well with 2D-cine-MRI and 4D-CT. The pancreatic tumor volumes shown in the different phases for the SG-KS-4D-MRI were statistically significantly more consistent than those in the 4D-CT.

RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System: A report from the first year of experience.

PURPOSE: Incident learning is a critical tool to improve patient safety. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 established essential legal protections to allow for the collection and analysis of medical incidents nationwide. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Working with a federally listed patient safety organization (PSO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine established RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). This paper provides an overview of the RO-ILS background, development, structure, and workflow, as well as examples of preliminary data and lessons learned. RO-ILS is actively collecting, analyzing, and reporting patient safety events. RESULTS: As of February 24, 2015, 46 institutions have signed contracts with Clarity PSO, with 33 contracts pending. Of these, 27 sites have entered 739 patient safety events into local database space, with 358 events (48%) pushed to the national database. CONCLUSIONS: To establish an optimal safety culture, radiation oncology departments should establish formal systems for incident learning that include participation in a nationwide incident learning program such as RO-ILS.

Clinical experience using a video-guided spirometry system for deep inhalation breath-hold radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer.

The purpose was to report clinical experience of a video-guided spirometry system in applying deep inhalation breath-hold (DIBH) radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer, and to study the systematic and random uncertainties, intra- and interfraction motion and impact on cardiac dose associated with DIBH. The data from 28 left-sided breast cancer patients treated with spirometer-guided DIBH radiation were studied. Dosimetric comparisons between free-breathing (FB) and DIBH plans were performed. The distance between the heart and chest wall measured on the digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) and MV portal images, dDRR(DIBH) and dport(DIBH), respectively, was compared as a measure of DIBH setup uncertainty. The difference (Δd) between dDRR(DIBH) and dport(DIBH) was defined as the systematic uncertainty. The standard deviation of Δd for each patient was defined as the random uncertainty. MV cine images during radiation were acquired. Affine registrations of the cine images acquired during one fraction and multiple fractions were performed to study the intra- and interfraction motion of the chest wall. The median chest wall motion was used as the metric for intra- and interfraction analysis. Breast motions in superior-inferior (SI) direction and "AP" (defined on the DRR or MV portal image as the direction perpendicular to the SI direction) are reported. Systematic and random uncertainties of 3.8 mm and 2mm, respectively, were found for this spirometer-guided DIBH treatment. MV cine analysis showed that intrafraction chest wall motions during DIBH were 0.3mm in "AP" and 0.6 mm in SI. The interfraction chest wall motions were 3.6 mm in "AP" and 3.4 mm in SI. Utilization of DIBH with this spirometry system led to a statistically significant reduction of cardiac dose relative to FB treatment. The DIBH using video-guided spirometry provided reproducible cardiac sparing with minimal intra- and interfraction chest wall motion, and thus is a valuable adjunct to modern breast treatment techniques.

Dosimetric evaluation of simultaneous integrated boost during stereotactic body radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) provides a promising way to treat locally advanced pancreatic cancer and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. A simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the region of vessel abutment or encasement during SBRT has the potential to downstage otherwise likely positive surgical margins. Despite the potential benefit of using SIB-SBRT, the ability to boost is limited by the local geometry of the organs at risk (OARs), such as stomach, duodenum, and bowel (SDB), relative to tumor. In this study, we have retrospectively replanned 20 patients with 25Gy prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV) and 33~80Gy to the boost target volume (BTV) using an SIB technique for all patients. The number of plans and patients able to satisfy a set of clinically established constraints is analyzed. The ability to boost vessels (within the gross target volume [GTV]) is shown to correlate with the overlap volume (OLV), defined to be the overlap between the GTV + a 1(OLV1)- or 2(OLV2)-cm margin with the union of SDB. Integral dose, boost dose contrast (BDC), biologically effective BDC, tumor control probability for BTV, and normal tissue complication probabilities are used to analyze the dosimetric results. More than 65% of the cases can deliver a boost to 40Gy while satisfying all OAR constraints. An OLV2 of 100cm(3) is identified as the cutoff volume: for cases with OLV2 larger than 100cm(3), it is very unlikely the case could achieve 25Gy to the PTV while successfully meeting all the OAR constraints.

Practice patterns for peer review in radiation oncology.

PURPOSE: Physician peer review seeks to improve the quality of care through the evaluation of physician performance, specifically medical decision making and technical expertise. To establish current peer review practice patterns, evaluate interest in recommendations for peer review, and establish a framework for future recommendations, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) surveyed its physician members. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A radiation oncology-specific peer review survey instrument was developed, formally tested, and found to meet established levels of reliability and validity. The final instrument was delivered using a web-based survey platform including reminders. All ASTRO physician-members and members-in-training worldwide were invited by email to participate. RESULTS: A total of 5674 physicians were contacted starting in January 2013. A total of 572 physicians participated (10%) yielding a ±4% margin of error. Those responding were split evenly between academic providers and private practice and others. The median time since training=16 years, median number of new patients per year=215, and median practice size=6 physicians; 83% of respondents were involved in peer review and 75% were comfortable with their program. Of those involved, 65% report doing some review before radiation begins. Of patients treated by these physicians, 56% are reviewed before treatment. Peer review elements reviewed include overall treatment strategy (86%), dose and fractionation (89%), contouring (59%), and isodose or dose-volume histogram (75%). Ninety percent of physicians have changed radiation plans because of peer review. These providers make changes in 7%-10% of cases. Seventy-four percent of physicians agree that ASTRO should make formal peer review recommendations, with 7% in opposition. CONCLUSIONS: This survey suggests that peer review in radiation oncology is common and leads to changes in management in a meaningful fraction of cases. There is much variation in the manner of conducting, and reported utility of, peer review. The majority of ASTRO physician members support formal recommendations and guidance on peer review.

A review of safety, quality management, and practice guidelines for high-dose-rate brachytherapy: executive summary.

This white paper was commissioned by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Board of Directors to evaluate the status of safety and practice guidance for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. Given the maturity of HDR brachytherapy technology, this white paper considers, from a safety point of view, the adequacy of general physics and quality assurance guidance, as well as clinical guidance documents available for the most common treatment sites. The rate of medical events in HDR brachytherapy procedures in the United States in 2009 and 2010 was 0.02%, corresponding to 5-sigma performance. The events were not due to lack of guidance documents but failures to follow those recommendations or human failures in the performance of tasks. The white paper summarized by this Executive Summary reviews current guidance documents and offers recommendations regarding their application to delivery of HDR brachytherapy. It also suggests topics where additional research and guidance is needed.

Adequacy of inhale/exhale breathhold CT based ITV margins and image-guided registration for free-breathing pancreas and liver SBRT.

PURPOSE: To evaluate use of breath-hold CTs and implanted fiducials for definition of the internal target volume (ITV) margin for upper abdominal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). To study the statistics of inter- and intra-fractional motion information. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 11 patients treated with SBRT for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) or liver cancer were included in the study. Patients underwent fiducial implantation, free-breathing CT and breath-hold CTs at end inhalation/exhalation. All patients were planned and treated with SBRT using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Two margin strategies were studied: Strategy I uses PTV = ITV + 3 mm; Strategy II uses PTV = GTV + 1.5 cm. Both CBCT and kV orthogonal images were taken and analyzed for setup before patient treatments. Tumor motion statistics based on skeletal registration and on fiducial registration were analyzed by fitting to Gaussian functions. RESULTS: All 11 patients met SBRT planning dose constraints using strategy I. Average ITV margins for the 11 patients were 2 mm RL, 6 mm AP, and 6 mm SI. Skeletal registration resulted in high probability (RL = 69%, AP = 4.6%, SI = 39%) that part of the tumor will be outside the ITV. With the 3 mm ITV expansion (Strategy 1), the probability reduced to RL 32%, AP 0.3%, SI 20% for skeletal registration; and RL 1.2%, AP 0%, SI 7% for fiducial registration. All 7 pancreatic patients and 2 liver patients failed to meet SBRT dose constraints using strategy II. The liver dose was increased by 36% for the other 2 liver patients that met the SBRT dose constraints with strategy II. CONCLUSIONS: Image guidance matching to skeletal anatomy is inadequate for SBRT positioning in the upper abdomen and usage of fiducials is highly recommended. Even with fiducial implantation and definition of an ITV, a minimal 3 mm planning margin around the ITV is needed to accommodate intra-fractional uncertainties.

Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: Executive summary.

This report is part of a series of white papers commissioned for the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Board of Directors as part of ASTRO's Target Safely Campaign, focusing on the role of peer review as an important component of a broad safety/quality assurance (QA) program. Peer review is one of the most effective means for assuring the quality of qualitative, and potentially controversial, patient-specific decisions in radiation oncology. This report summarizes many of the areas throughout radiation therapy that may benefit from the application of peer review. Each radiation oncology facility should evaluate the issues raised and develop improved ways to apply the concept of peer review to its individual process and workflow. This might consist of a daily multidisciplinary (eg, physicians, dosimetrists, physicists, therapists) meeting to review patients being considered for, or undergoing planning for, radiation therapy (eg, intention to treat and target delineation), as well as meetings to review patients already under treatment (eg, adequacy of image guidance). This report is intended to clarify and broaden the understanding of radiation oncology professionals regarding the meaning, roles, benefits, and targets for peer review as a routine quality assurance tool. It is hoped that this work will be a catalyst for further investigation, development, and study of the efficacy of peer review techniques and how these efforts can help improve the safety and quality of our treatments.

Practice-based evidence to evidence-based practice: building the National Radiation Oncology Registry.

The National Radiation Oncology Registry (NROR), sponsored by the Radiation Oncology Institute and the American Society for Radiation Oncology, is designed to collect standardized information on cancer care delivery among patients treated with radiotherapy in the United States and will focus on patients with prostate cancer. Stakeholders were engaged through a forum that emphasized the need for patient-centered outcomes, minimal data burden, and maximal connectivity to existing registries and databases. An electronic infrastructure is under development to provide connectivity across radiation oncology and hospital information systems. The NROR Gateway features automatic abstraction as well as aggregation of treatment and outcome data. The prostate cancer data dictionary provides standardized elements in four domains: facility, physician, patient, and treatment. The pilot phase will consist of clinical centers chosen to provide a representative mix of radiation treatment modalities, facility types, population-based settings, and regional locations. The initial set of radiation practice metrics includes physician board certification and maintenance, ordering of staging scans, active surveillance discussion, dose prescriptions for low-risk/high-risk disease, radiation fields for low-risk/high-risk disease, image-guided radiation therapy use, androgen deprivation therapy use, post-brachytherapy implant computed tomography dosimetry, collection of toxicity assessments, and longitudinal patient follow-up. The NROR pilot study will provide the framework for expansion to a nationwide electronic registry for radiation oncology.

Use of plan quality degradation to evaluate tradeoffs in delivery efficiency and clinical plan metrics arising from IMRT optimizer and sequencer compromises.

PURPOSE: Plan degradation resulting from compromises made to enhance delivery efficiency is an important consideration for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. IMRT optimization and/or multileaf collimator (MLC) sequencing schemes can be modified to generate more efficient treatment delivery, but the effect those modifications have on plan quality is often difficult to quantify. In this work, the authors present a method for quantitative assessment of overall plan quality degradation due to tradeoffs between delivery efficiency and treatment plan quality, illustrated using comparisons between plans developed allowing different numbers of intensity levels in IMRT optimization and/or MLC sequencing for static segmental MLC IMRT plans. METHODS: A plan quality degradation method to evaluate delivery efficiency and plan quality tradeoffs was developed and used to assess planning for 14 prostate and 12 head and neck patients treated with static IMRT. Plan quality was evaluated using a physician's predetermined "quality degradation" factors for relevant clinical plan metrics associated with the plan optimization strategy. Delivery efficiency and plan quality were assessed for a range of optimization and sequencing limitations. The "optimal" (baseline) plan for each case was derived using a clinical cost function with an unlimited number of intensity levels. These plans were sequenced with a clinical MLC leaf sequencer which uses >100 segments, assuring delivered intensities to be within 1% of the optimized intensity pattern. Each patient's optimal plan was also sequenced limiting the number of intensity levels (20, 10, and 5), and then separately optimized with these same numbers of intensity levels. Delivery time was measured for all plans, and direct evaluation of the tradeoffs between delivery time and plan degradation was performed. RESULTS: When considering tradeoffs, the optimal number of intensity levels depends on the treatment site and on the stage in the process at which the levels are limited. The cost of improved delivery efficiency, in terms of plan quality degradation, increased as the number of intensity levels in the sequencer or optimizer decreased. The degradation was more substantial for the head and neck cases relative to the prostate cases, particularly when fewer than 20 intensity levels were used. Plan quality degradation was less severe when the number of intensity levels was limited in the optimizer rather than the sequencer. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of plan quality degradation allows for a quantitative assessment of the compromises in clinical plan quality as delivery efficiency is improved, in order to determine the optimal delivery settings. The technique is based on physician-determined quality degradation factors and can be extended to other clinical situations where investigation of various tradeoffs is warranted.