Quality management, quality assurance, and quality control in medical physics.

The historic and ongoing evolution of the practice, technology, terminology, and implementation of programs related to quality in the medical radiological professions has given rise to the interchangeable use of the terms Quality Management (QM), Quality Assurance (QA), and Quality Control (QC) in the vernacular. This White Paper aims to provide clarification of QM, QA, and QC in medical physics context and guidance on how to use these terms appropriately in American College of Radiology (ACR) Practice Parameters and Technical Standards, generalizable to other guidance initiatives. The clarification of these nuanced terms in the radiology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine environments will not only boost the comprehensibility and usability of the Medical Physics Technical Standards and Practice Parameters, but also provide clarity and a foundation for ACR's clinical, physician-led Practice Parameters, which also use these important terms for monitoring equipment performance for safety and quality. Further, this will support the ongoing development of the professional practice of clinical medical physics by providing a common framework that distinguishes the various types of responsibilities borne by medical physicists and others in the medical radiological environment. Examples are provided of how QM, QA, and QC may be applied in the context of ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards.

Evaluation of Radioactivity in Patient Specimens Received in the Core Laboratory at a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Designated Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Biological specimens from patients who have received radiopharmaceuticals are often collected for diagnostic testing and sent to clinical laboratories. Residual radiation has long been assumed to be minimal. However, literature is sparse and may not represent the specimen volumes or spectrum of radionuclides currently seen at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. This study examined the radiopharmaceuticals associated with patient specimens received in the hospital core laboratory and assessed the potential risk of external radiation exposure to laboratory personnel. METHODS: The types and amounts of radiopharmaceuticals administered in a large metropolitan hospital system were retrospectively examined over a 20-month study period. The associated biological specimens sent to the largest core laboratory in the system for testing were evaluated. In addition, manual survey meter assessment of random clinical specimens and weekly wipe tests were performed for 44 weeks, and wearable and environmental dosimeters were placed for 6 months. RESULTS: Over 11 000 specimens, collected within 5 physical half-lives of radiopharmaceutical administration, were processed by our laboratory. Manual survey meter assessment of random clinical specimens routinely identified radioactive specimens. If held in a closed palm for >2 min, many samples could potentially deliver a 0.02 mSv effective dose of radiation. CONCLUSIONS: The laboratory regularly receives radioactive patient specimens without radioactive labels. Although the vast majority of these are blood specimens associated with low-dose diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals, some samples may be capable of delivering a significant amount of radiation. Recommendations for laboratories associated with NCI cancer centers are given.

Initial experience and lessons learned with implementing Lutetium-177-dotatate radiopharmaceutical therapy in a radiation oncology-based program.

PURPOSE: To assist radiation oncology centers in implementing Lutetium-177-dotatate (177Lu) radiopharmaceutical therapy for midgut neuroendocrine tumors. Here we describe our workflow and how it was revised based on our initial experience on an expanded access protocol (EAP). METHODS: A treatment team/area was identified. An IV-pump-based infusion technique was implemented. Exposure-based techniques were implemented to determine completion of administration, administered activity, and patient releasability. Acute toxicities were assessed at each fraction. A workflow failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients were treated: 11 patients during EAP (36 administrations) and 11 patients after EAP (44 administrations). Mean 177Lu infusion time was 37 min (range 26-65 min). Mean administered activity was 97% (range 90-99%). Mean patient exposures at 1 m were 1.9 mR/h (range 1.0-4.1 mR/h) post-177Lu and 0.9 mR/h (range 0.4-1.8 mR/h) at discharge, rendering patients releasable with instructions. Treatment area was decontaminated and released same day. All patients in the EAP experienced nausea, and nearly half experienced emesis despite premedication with antiemetics. Peripheral IV-line complications occurred in six treatments (16.7%), halting administration in 2 cases (5.6%). We transitioned to peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-lines and revised amino acid formulary after the EAP. The second cohort of 11 patients after EAP were analyzed for PICC-line complications and acute toxicity. Nausea and emesis rates decreased (nausea G1+ 61%-27%; emesis G1+ 23%-7%), and no PICC complications were observed. FMEA revealed that a failure in amino acid preparation was the highest risk. CONCLUSION: 177Lu-dotatate can be administered safely in an outpatient radiation oncology department.