Variation in blood pressure and heart rate of radiological technologists in worktime tracked by a wearable device: A preliminary study.

The aim of this preliminary study was to measure the systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) and heart rate (HR) of radiological technologists by WD, and evaluate variation among individuals by worktime, day of the week, job, and workplace. Measurements were obtained using a wristwatch-type WD with optical measurement technology that can measure SBP and DBP every 10 minutes and HR every 30 minutes. SBP, DBP, and HR data obtained at baseline and during work time were combined with the hours of work, day of the week, job, and workplace recorded by the participants in 8 consecutive weeks. We calculated the mean, the ratio to baseline and coefficient of variation [CV(%)] for SBP, DBP, and HR. SBP, DBP, and HR values were significantly higher during work hours than at baseline (p<0.03). The ratio to baseline values ranged from 1.02 to 1.26 for SBP and from 1.07 to 1.30 for DBP. The ratio to baseline for SBP and DBP showed CV(%) of approximately 10% according to the day of the week and over the study period. For HR, ratio to baseline ranged from 0.95 to 1.29. The ratio of mean BP to baseline was >1.2 at the time of starting work, middle and after lunch, and at 14:00. The ratio to baseline of SBP were 1.2 or more for irradiation, equipment accuracy control, registration of patient data, dose verification and conference time, and were also working in CT examination room, treatment planning room, linac room, and the office. CV(%) of BP and HR were generally stable for all workplaces. WD measurements of SBP, DBP, and HR were higher during working hours than at baseline and varied by the individuals, work time, job, and workplace. This method may enable evaluation of unconscious workload in individuals.

[Risk Communication of Radiation Exposure for Diagnosis: A Questionnaire Survey].

PURPOSE: We investigated how a radiologic technologist explains to a patient about the risk of radiation exposure involved by the radiological examination. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, cross-sectional study, an online questionnaire link was emailed to 650 radiological technologists who are members of the National Hospital Kanto Koshinetsu Radiological Technologist Association. The questions to survey risk communication included the ideal and reality explanation for radiation exposure to patients, the respondent's educational background, and years of experience. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Bonferroni correction as a multiple comparison test. RESULTS: Among the 650 radiological technologists, 245 (37.7%) completed the online questionnaire. The most common response was to compare and convey the doses of radiation during examination and background radiation when asked by a patient about risk. In the cross-analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant difference in what was explained according to educational background. According to years of experience, a significant difference in the content was found about explanation of the risk to patients. CONCLUSIONS: We clarified the actual condition of risk communication related to the exposure in radiological examinations. In the future, development of risk communication is expected by improving the knowledge and information of "risk" and giving explanations requested by patients.

Development of a dynamic deformable thorax phantom for the quality management of deformable image registration.

The purpose of this study was to develop a novel dynamic deformable thorax phantom for deformable image registration (DIR) quality assurance (QA) and to verify as a tool for commissioning and DIR QA. The phantom consists of a base phantom, an inner phantom, and a motor-derived piston. The base phantom is an acrylic cylinder phantom with a diameter of 180 mm. The inner phantom consists of deformable, 20 mm thick disk-shaped sponges. To evaluate the physical characteristics of the phantom, we evaluated its image quality and deformation. DIR accuracies were evaluated using the three types of commercially DIR software (MIM, RayStation, and Velocity AI) to test the feasibility of this phantom. We used different DIR parameters to test the impact of parameters on DIR accuracy in various phantom settings. To evaluate DIR accuracy, a target registration error (TRE) was calculated using the anatomical landmark points. The three locations (i.e., distal, middle, and proximal positions) had different displacement amounts. This result indicated that the inner phantom was not moved but deformed. In cases with different phantom settings and marker settings, the ranges of the average TRE were 0.63-15.60 mm (MIM). In cases with different DIR parameters settings, the ranges of the average TRE were as follows: 0.73-7.10 mm (MIM), 8.25-8.66 mm (RayStation), and 8.26-8.43 mm (Velocity). These results suggest that our phantom could evaluate the detailed DIR behaviors with TRE. Therefore, this is indicative of the potential usefulness of our phantom in DIR commissioning and QA.

[Impact of Respiratory Waveform on Gate Signal Generation on Respiratory Gated Irradiation and Evaluation Method of Respiratory Waveform to Be Used].

PURPOSE: The respiratory gated irradiation using the real-time position management system (RPM) was used to clarify the generation of the gated signal when the respiration waveform changed, and also the evaluation method of the respiration waveform was also examined. METHODS: The respiratory waveform was changed using a moving phantom. Respiratory waveform was analyzed from the data recorded in RPM, and the out-of-phase gated rate was examined. Analysis was made by focusing on the coefficient of variation of the respiratory wavelength in the evaluation of respiratory waveform. RESULTS: Immediately after the change of respiratory wavelength from the short cycle to the long cycle, a gated signal was generated at a phase before the set gated phase, and a maximum advance of 1.259 ± 0.212 s occurred. Immediately after the change of respiratory wavelength from the long cycle to the short cycle, the gated signal was generated at the phase exceeding the set gated phase, and a delay of 0.997 ± 0.180 s occurred at the maximum. As the value of the coefficient of variation increased, the gated rate which was out of setting also increased. CONCLUSION: In respiratory gated irradiation using RPM, it became clear that the gated signal is generated out of the phase set by the respiratory waveform change. Coefficient of variation of the respiratory wavelength is considered to be an indicator for evaluating the respiratory waveform to be used in the respiratory gated irradiation.

A multi-institutional study of secondary check of treatment planning using Clarkson-based dose calculation for three-dimensional radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: As there have been few reports on quantitative analysis of inter-institutional results for independent monitor unit (MU) verification, we performed a multi-institutional study of verification to show the feasibility of applying the 3-5% action levels used in the U.S. and Europe, and also to show the results of inter-institutional comparisons. METHODS: A total of 5936 fields were collected from 12 institutions. We used commercial software employing the Clarkson algorithm for verification after a validation study of measurement and software comparisons was performed. The doses generated by the treatment planning systems (TPSs) were retrospectively analyzed using the verification software. RESULTS: Mean ±â€¯two standard deviations of all locations were 1.0 ±â€¯3.6%. There were larger differences for breast (4.0 ±â€¯4.0%) and for lung (2.5 ±â€¯5.8%). A total of 80% of the fields with differences over 5% of the action level involved breast and lung targets, with 7.2 ±â€¯5.4%. Inter-institutional comparisons showed various systematic differences for field shape for breast and differences in the fields were attributable to differences in reference point placement for lung. The large differences for breast and lung are partially attributable to differences in the methods used to correct for heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The 5% action level may be feasible for verification; however, an understanding of larger differences in breast and lung plans is important in clinical practice. Based on the inter-institutional comparisons, care must be taken when determining an institution-specific action level from plans with different field shape settings and incorrectly placed reference points.

Multi-institutional comparison of computer-based independent dose calculation for intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy.

PURPOSE: No multi-institutional studies of computer-based independent dose calculation have addressed the discrepancies among radiotherapy treatment planning systems (TPSs) and the verification programs for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). We conducted a multi-institutional study to investigate whether ±5% is a reasonable action level for independent dose calculation for IMRT/VMAT. METHODS: In total, 477 IMRT/VMAT plans for prostate or head and neck (H&N) malignancies were retrospectively analyzed using a modified Clarkson-based commercial verification program. The doses from the TPSs and verification programs were compared using the mean ±1 standard deviation (SD). RESULTS: In the TPS-calculated dose comparisons for prostate and H&N malignancies, the sliding window (SW) technique (-2.5 ±â€¯1.8% and -5.3 ±â€¯2.6%) showed greater negative systematic differences than the step-and-shoot (S&S) technique (-0.3 ±â€¯2.2% and -0.8 ±â€¯2.2%). The VMAT dose differences for prostate and H&N malignancies were 0.9 ±â€¯1.8% and 1.1 ±â€¯3.3%, respectively. The SDs were larger for the H&N plans than for the prostate plans in both IMRT and VMAT. Such plans including more out-of-field control points showed greater systematic differences and SDs. CONCLUSIONS: This study will help individual institutions to establish an action level for agreement between primary calculations and verification for IMRT/VMAT. A local dose difference of ±5% at a point within the planning target volume (above -350 HU) may be a reasonable action level.

Prognostic factors associated with the accuracy of deformable image registration in lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy.

We evaluated the accuracy of an in-house program in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) cancer patients, and explored the prognostic factors associated with the accuracy of deformable image registrations (DIRs). The accuracy of the 3 programs which implement the free-form deformation and the B-spline algorithm was compared regarding the structures on 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) image datasets between the peak-inhale and peak-exhale phases. The dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and normalized DSC (NDSC) were measured for the gross tumor volumes from 19 lung SBRT patients. We evaluated the accuracy of DIR using gross tumor volume, magnitude of displacement from 0% phase to 50% phase, whole lung volume in the 50% phase image, and status of tumor pleural attachment. The median NDSC values using the NiftyReg, MIM Maestro and Velocity AI programs were 1.027, 1.005, and 0.946, respectively, indicating that NiftyReg and MIM Maestro programs had similar accuracy with an uncertainty of < 1 mm. Larger uncertainty of 1 to 2 mm was observed using the Velocity AI program. The NiftyReg and the MIM programs provided higher NDSC values than the median values when the gross tumor volume was attached to the pleura (p <0.05). However, it showed a different trend in using the Velocity AI program. All software programs provided unexpected results, and there is a possibility that such results would reduce the accuracy of 4D treatment planning and adaptive radiotherapy. The unexpected results may be because the tumors are surrounded by other tissues, and there are differences regarding the region of interest for rigid and nonrigid registration. Furthermore, our results indicated that the pleural attachment status might be an important predictor of DIR accuracy for thoracic images, indicating that there is a potentially large dose distribution discrepancy concerning 4D treatment planning and adaptive radiotherapy.

Precision in Wedge Off-axis Using Independent Dose Verification.

It is essential for quality assurance to verify the safety of each individual patient's plan in radiation therapy. The tolerance level for independent verification of monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT clinical radiotherapy has been shown in the AAPM TG114. Thus, we investigated the precision of independent MU (dose) verification considering a wedge off-axis calculation and we conducted a study at twelve institutes for independent verification with the wedge off-axis calculation. The results obtained with the wedge off-axis calculation showed better agreement with the treatment planning system calculation results than those without the former calculation in a phantom study and in the patient retrospective study. The confidence limits with the wedge off-axis calculation were 2.2±3.4% and 2.0±4.3% for the plans with a physical wedge and a non-physical wedge in the patient study, respectively. However, the confidence limits were over 5% without the off-axis calculation. From our multi-institutional study, the results suggested that the tolerance level for the wedge off-axis plan would be 5% when considering the wedge off-axis calculation and the level was similar to that of the treatment planning system using other conventional irradiation techniques.