PURPOSE: To develop and implement a failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA)-based commissioning and quality assurance framework for dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) tumor tracking systems. METHODS: A systematic failure mode and effect analysis was performed for a prototype real-time tumor tracking system that uses implanted electromagnetic transponders for tumor position monitoring and a DMLC for real-time beam adaptation. A detailed process tree of DMLC tracking delivery was created and potential tracking-specific failure modes were identified. For each failure mode, a risk probability number (RPN) was calculated from the product of the probability of occurrence, the severity of effect, and the detectibility of the failure. Based on the insights obtained from the FMEA, commissioning and QA procedures were developed to check (i) the accuracy of coordinate system transformation, (ii) system latency, (iii) spatial and dosimetric delivery accuracy, (iv) delivery efficiency, and (v) accuracy and consistency of system response to error conditions. The frequency of testing for each failure mode was determined from the RPN value. RESULTS: Failures modes with RPN > or = 125 were recommended to be tested monthly. Failure modes with RPN < 125 were assigned to be tested during comprehensive evaluations, e.g., during commissioning, annual quality assurance, and after major software/hardware upgrades. System latency was determined to be approximately 193 ms. The system showed consistent and accurate response to erroneous conditions. Tracking accuracy was within 3%-3 mm gamma (100% pass rate) for sinusoidal as well as a wide variety of patient-derived respiratory motions. The total time taken for monthly QA was approximately 35 min, while that taken for comprehensive testing was approximately 3.5 h. CONCLUSIONS: FMEA proved to be a powerful and flexible tool to develop and implement a quality management (QM) framework for DMLC tracking. The authors conclude that the use of FMEA-based QM ensures efficient allocation of clinical resources because the most critical failure modes receive the most attention. It is expected that the set of guidelines proposed here will serve as a living document that is updated with the accumulation of progressively more intrainstitutional and interinstitutional experience with DMLC tracking.
PURPOSE: To develop and implement a failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA)-based commissioning and quality assurance framework for dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) tumor tracking systems. METHODS: A systematic failure mode and effect analysis was performed for a prototype real-time tumor tracking system that uses implanted electromagnetic transponders for tumor position monitoring and a DMLC for real-time beam adaptation. A detailed process tree of DMLC tracking delivery was created and potential tracking-specific failure modes were identified. For each failure mode, a risk probability number (RPN) was calculated from the product of the probability of occurrence, the severity of effect, and the detectibility of the failure. Based on the insights obtained from the FMEA, commissioning and QA procedures were developed to check (i) the accuracy of coordinate system transformation, (ii) system latency, (iii) spatial and dosimetric delivery accuracy, (iv) delivery efficiency, and (v) accuracy and consistency of system response to error conditions. The frequency of testing for each failure mode was determined from the RPN value. RESULTS: Failures modes with RPN > or = 125 were recommended to be tested monthly. Failure modes with RPN < 125 were assigned to be tested during comprehensive evaluations, e.g., during commissioning, annual quality assurance, and after major software/hardware upgrades. System latency was determined to be approximately 193 ms. The system showed consistent and accurate response to erroneous conditions. Tracking accuracy was within 3%-3 mm gamma (100% pass rate) for sinusoidal as well as a wide variety of patient-derived respiratory motions. The total time taken for monthly QA was approximately 35 min, while that taken for comprehensive testing was approximately 3.5 h. CONCLUSIONS: FMEA proved to be a powerful and flexible tool to develop and implement a quality management (QM) framework for DMLC tracking. The authors conclude that the use of FMEA-based QM ensures efficient allocation of clinical resources because the most critical failure modes receive the most attention. It is expected that the set of guidelines proposed here will serve as a living document that is updated with the accumulation of progressively more intrainstitutional and interinstitutional experience with DMLC tracking.
Authors: G J Kutcher; L Coia; M Gillin; W F Hanson; S Leibel; R J Morton; J R Palta; J A Purdy; L E Reinstein; G K Svensson Journal: Med Phys Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Paul J Keall; Amit Sawant; Byungchul Cho; Dan Ruan; Junqing Wu; Per Poulsen; Jay Petersen; Laurence J Newell; Herbert Cattell; Stine Korreman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-07-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Amit Sawant; Raghu Venkat; Vikram Srivastava; David Carlson; Sergey Povzner; Herb Cattell; Paul Keall Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: M Saiful Huq; Benedick A Fraass; Peter B Dunscombe; John P Gibbons; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Paul M Medin; Arno Mundt; Sassa Mutic; Jatinder R Palta; Bruce R Thomadsen; Jeffrey F Williamson; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Vincent Caillet; Ricky O'Brien; Douglas Moore; Per Poulsen; Tobias Pommer; Emma Colvill; Amit Sawant; Jeremy Booth; Paul Keall Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Paul J Keall; Emma Colvill; Ricky O'Brien; Jin Aun Ng; Per Rugaard Poulsen; Thomas Eade; Andrew Kneebone; Jeremy T Booth Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.071
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: Jacqueline Tonigan Faught; Peter A Balter; Jennifer L Johnson; Stephen F Kry; Laurence E Court; Francesco C Stingo; David S Followill Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: James L Bedford; Martin F Fast; Simeon Nill; Fiona M A McDonald; Merina Ahmed; Vibeke N Hansen; Uwe Oelfke Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Bradley W Schuller; Angi Burns; Elizabeth A Ceilley; Alan King; Joan LeTourneau; Alexander Markovic; Lynda Sterkel; Brigid Taplin; Jennifer Wanner; Jeffrey M Albert Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Carri K Glide-Hurst; Percy Lee; Adam D Yock; Jeffrey R Olsen; Minsong Cao; Farzan Siddiqui; William Parker; Anthony Doemer; Yi Rong; Amar U Kishan; Stanley H Benedict; X Allen Li; Beth A Erickson; Jason W Sohn; Ying Xiao; Evan Wuthrick Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-10-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sara Broggi; Marie Claire Cantone; Anna Chiara; Nadia Di Muzio; Barbara Longobardi; Paola Mangili; Ivan Veronese Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 2.102