Medical physics practice guideline 4.b: Development, implementation, use and maintenance of safety checklists.

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 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the US. 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 US. 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. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning. Should and should not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

AAPM WGPE report 394: Simulated error training for the physics plan and chart review.

BACKGROUND: Simulated error training is a method to practice error detection in situations where the occurrence of error is low. Such is the case for the physics plan and chart review where a physicist may check several plans before encountering a significant problem. By simulating potentially hazardous errors, physicists can become familiar with how they manifest and learn from mistakes made during a simulated plan review. PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to develop a series of training datasets that allows medical physicists and trainees to practice plan and chart reviews in a way that is familiar and accessible, and to provide exposure to the various failure modes (FMs) encountered in clinical scenarios. METHODS: A series of training datasets have been developed that include a variety of embedded errors based on the risk-assessment performed by American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 275 for the physics plan and chart review. The training datasets comprise documentation, screen shots, and digital content derived from common treatment planning and radiation oncology information systems and are available via the Cloud-based platform ProKnow. RESULTS: Overall, 20 datasets have been created incorporating various software systems (Mosaiq, ARIA, Eclipse, RayStation, Pinnacle) and delivery techniques. A total of 110 errors representing 50 different FMs were embedded with the 20 datasets. The project was piloted at the 2021 AAPM Annual Meeting in a workshop where participants had the opportunity to review cases and answer survey questions related to errors they detected and their perception of the project's efficacy. In general, attendees detected higher-priority FMs at a higher rate, though no correlation was found between detection rate and the detectability of the FMs. Familiarity with a given system appeared to play a role in detecting errors, specifically when related to missing information at different locations within a given software system. Overall, 96% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the ProKnow portal and training datasets were effective as a training tool, and 75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they planned to use the tool at their local institution. CONCLUSIONS: The datasets and digital platform provide a standardized and accessible tool for training, performance assessment, and continuing education regarding the physics plan and chart review. Work is ongoing to expand the project to include more modalities, radiation oncology treatment planning and information systems, and FMs based on emerging techniques such as auto-contouring and auto-planning.

Cardiac-Sparing and Breast-Sparing Whole Lung Irradiation Using Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy.

PURPOSE: Whole lung irradiation (WLI) is indicated for certain pediatric patients with lung metastases. This study investigated whether WLI delivered as intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could significantly spare the heart and breasts when compared with conventional WLI delivered with anteroposterior/posteroanterior photon fields and with intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) WLI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conventional, IMRT, and IMPT plans were generated for 5 patients (aged 5-22 years). The prescription dose was 16.5 GyRBE in 1.5-GyRBE fractions. Conventional plans used 6-MV photons prescribed to the midline and a field-in-field technique to cover the planning target volume (the internal target volume [ITV] + 1 cm). IMRT plans used 6-MV photons with a 7-beam arrangement with dose prescribed to the planning target volume. IMPT plans used scenario-based optimization with 5% range uncertainty and 5-mm positional uncertainty to cover the ITV robustly. Monte Carlo dose calculation was used for all IMPT plans. Doses were compared with paired Student t test. RESULTS: The ITV Dmean was similar for the IMPT, conventional, and IMRT plans, but the IMPT plans had a lower Dmin and a higher Dmax at tissue interfaces than conventional plans (Dmean ratio: 0.96, P > .05; Dmin ratio: 0.9, P < .001; Dmax ratio: 1.1, P = .014). Dmeans for breast and heart substructures were lower with IMPT plans than with conventional/IMRT plans (heart ratios, 0.63:0.73; left ventricle ratios, 0.61:0.72; right ventricle ratios, 0.45:0.57; left atrium ratios, 0.79:0.85; right atrium ratios, 0.81:0.86; left breast ratios, 0.40:0.51; right breast ratio, 0.46:0.52; all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: IMPT resulted in comparable ITV coverage and lower mean doses to the heart and breasts when compared with other techniques. Whole lung irradiation delivered as IMPT warrants prospective evaluation in pediatric patients.

Practice Patterns of Pediatric Total Body Irradiation Techniques: A Children's Oncology Group Survey.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine current practice patterns in pediatric total body irradiation (TBI) techniques among COG member institutions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between November 2019 and February 2020, a questionnaire containing 52 questions related to the technical aspects of TBI was sent to medical physicists at 152 COG institutions. The questions were designed to obtain technical information on commonly used TBI treatment techniques. Another set of 9 questions related to the clinical management of patients undergoing TBI was sent to 152 COG member radiation oncologists at the same institutions. RESULTS: Twelve institutions were excluded because TBI was not performed in their institutions. A total of 88 physicists from 88 institutions (63% response rate) and 96 radiation oncologists from 96 institutions (69% response rate) responded. The anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior (AP/PA) technique was the most common technique reported (49 institutions [56%]); 44 institutions (50%) used the lateral technique, and 14 (16%) used volumetric modulated arc therapy or tomotherapy. Midplane dose rates of 6 to 15 cGy/min were most commonly used. The most common specification for lung dose was the midlung dose for both AP/PA techniques (71%) and lateral techniques (63%). Almost all physician responders agreed with the need to refine current TBI techniques, and 79% supported the investigation of new TBI techniques to further lower the lung dose. CONCLUSIONS: There was no consistency in the practice patterns, methods for dose measurement, and reporting of TBI doses among COG institutions. The lack of standardization precludes meaningful correlation between TBI doses and clinical outcomes including disease control and normal tissue toxicity. The COG radiation oncology discipline is currently undertaking several steps to standardize the practice and dose reporting of pediatric TBI using detailed questionnaires and phantom-based credentialing for all COG centers.

An FMEA evaluation of intensity modulated radiation therapy dose delivery failures at tolerance criteria levels.

PURPOSE: The objective of this work was to assess both the perception of failure modes in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) when the linac is operated at the edge of tolerances given in AAPM TG-40 (Kutcher et al.) and TG-142 (Klein et al.) as well as the application of FMEA to this specific section of the IMRT process. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to approximately 2000 physicists worldwide that participate in quality services provided by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core - Houston (IROC-H). The survey briefly described eleven different failure modes covered by basic quality assurance in step-and-shoot IMRT at or near TG-40 (Kutcher et al.) and TG-142 (Klein et al.) tolerance criteria levels. Respondents were asked to estimate the worst case scenario percent dose error that could be caused by each of these failure modes in a head and neck patient as well as the FMEA scores: Occurrence, Detectability, and Severity. Risk probability number (RPN) scores were calculated as the product of these scores. Demographic data were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 181 individual and three group responses were submitted. 84% were from North America. Most (76%) individual respondents performed at least 80% clinical work and 92% were nationally certified. Respondent medical physics experience ranged from 2.5 to 45 yr (average 18 yr). A total of 52% of individual respondents were at least somewhat familiar with FMEA, while 17% were not familiar. Several IMRT techniques, treatment planning systems, and linear accelerator manufacturers were represented. All failure modes received widely varying scores ranging from 1 to 10 for occurrence, at least 1-9 for detectability, and at least 1-7 for severity. Ranking failure modes by RPN scores also resulted in large variability, with each failure mode being ranked both most risky (1st) and least risky (11th) by different respondents. On average MLC modeling had the highest RPN scores. Individual estimated percent dose errors and severity scores positively correlated (P < 0.01) for each FM as expected. No universal correlations were found between the demographic information collected and scoring, percent dose errors or ranking. CONCLUSIONS: Failure modes investigated overall were evaluated as low to medium risk, with average RPNs less than 110. The ranking of 11 failure modes was not agreed upon by the community. Large variability in FMEA scoring may be caused by individual interpretation and/or experience, reflecting the subjective nature of the FMEA tool.