PURPOSE: To assess the impact of new technologies on deviation rates in radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment delivery deviations in RT were prospectively monitored during a time of technology upgrade. In January 2003, our department had three accelerators, none with "modern" technologies (e.g., without multileaf collimators [MLC]). In 2003 to 2004, we upgraded to five new accelerators, four with MLC, and associated advanced capabilities. The deviation rates among patients treated on "high-technology" versus "low-technology" machines (defined as those with vs. without MLC) were compared over time using the two-tailed Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In 2003, there was no significant difference between the deviation rate in the "high-technology" versus "low-technology" groups (0.16% vs. 0.11%, p = 0.45). In 2005 to 2006, the deviation rate for the "high-technology" groups was lower than the "low-technology" (0.083% vs. 0.21%, p = 0.009). This difference was caused by a decline in deviations on the "high-technology" machines over time (p = 0.053), as well as an unexpected trend toward an increase in deviations over time on the "low-technology" machines (p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Advances in RT delivery systems appear to reduce the rate of treatment deviations. Deviation rates on "high-technology" machines with MLC decline over time, suggesting a learning curve after the introduction of new technologies. Associated with the adoption of "high-technology" was an unexpected increase in the deviation rate with "low-technology" approaches, which may reflect an over-reliance on tools inherent to "high-technology" machines. With the introduction of new technologies, continued diligence is needed to ensure that staff remain proficient with "low-technology" approaches.
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of new technologies on deviation rates in radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment delivery deviations in RT were prospectively monitored during a time of technology upgrade. In January 2003, our department had three accelerators, none with "modern" technologies (e.g., without multileaf collimators [MLC]). In 2003 to 2004, we upgraded to five new accelerators, four with MLC, and associated advanced capabilities. The deviation rates among patients treated on "high-technology" versus "low-technology" machines (defined as those with vs. without MLC) were compared over time using the two-tailed Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In 2003, there was no significant difference between the deviation rate in the "high-technology" versus "low-technology" groups (0.16% vs. 0.11%, p = 0.45). In 2005 to 2006, the deviation rate for the "high-technology" groups was lower than the "low-technology" (0.083% vs. 0.21%, p = 0.009). This difference was caused by a decline in deviations on the "high-technology" machines over time (p = 0.053), as well as an unexpected trend toward an increase in deviations over time on the "low-technology" machines (p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Advances in RT delivery systems appear to reduce the rate of treatment deviations. Deviation rates on "high-technology" machines with MLC decline over time, suggesting a learning curve after the introduction of new technologies. Associated with the adoption of "high-technology" was an unexpected increase in the deviation rate with "low-technology" approaches, which may reflect an over-reliance on tools inherent to "high-technology" machines. With the introduction of new technologies, continued diligence is needed to ensure that staff remain proficient with "low-technology" approaches.
Authors: M Saiful Huq; Benedick A Fraass; Peter B Dunscombe; John P Gibbons; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Arno J Mundt; Sasa Mutic; Jatinder R Palta; Frank Rath; Bruce R Thomadsen; Jeffrey F Williamson; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Vyacheslav L Murzin; Kaley Woods; Vitali Moiseenko; Roshan Karunamuni; Kathryn R Tringale; Tyler M Seibert; Michael J Connor; Daniel R Simpson; Ke Sheng; Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Eric C Ford; Ray Gaudette; Lee Myers; Bruce Vanderver; Lilly Engineer; Richard Zellars; Danny Y Song; John Wong; Theodore L Deweese Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stuart Greenham; Stephen Manley; Kirsty Turnbull; Matthew Hoffmann; Amara Fonseca; Justin Westhuyzen; Andrew Last; Noel J Aherne; Thomas P Shakespeare Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2018-05-10