Literature DB >> 28862765

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

Jacqueline Tonigan Faught1,2,3, Peter A Balter1, Jennifer L Johnson1, Stephen F Kry2, Laurence E Court1, Francesco C Stingo4,5, David S Followill2.   

Abstract

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.
© 2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  zzm321990IMRTzzm321990; FMEA; quality assurance; radiation therapy; risk

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28862765      PMCID: PMC6421844          DOI: 10.1002/mp.12551

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  13 in total

1.  Failure mode and effect analysis for delivery of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy.

Authors:  Julian R Perks; Sinisa Stanic; Robin L Stern; Barbara Henk; Marsha S Nelson; Rick D Harse; Mathew Mathai; James A Purdy; Richard K Valicenti; Allan D Siefkin; Allen M Chen
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Point/Counterpoint: QA procedures in radiation therapy are outdated and negatively impact the reduction of errors.

Authors:  Howard Ira Amols; Eric E Klein; Colin G Orton
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Failure mode and effects analysis: too little for too much?

Authors:  Bryony Dean Franklin; Nada Atef Shebl; Nick Barber
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2012-03-23       Impact factor: 7.035

4.  Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators.

Authors:  Eric E Klein; Joseph Hanley; John Bayouth; Fang-Fang Yin; William Simon; Sean Dresser; Christopher Serago; Francisco Aguirre; Lijun Ma; Bijan Arjomandy; Chihray Liu; Carlos Sandin; Todd Holmes
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Is failure mode and effect analysis reliable?

Authors:  Nada Atef Shebl; Bryony Dean Franklin; Nick Barber
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.844

6.  Failure mode and effects analysis: an empirical comparison of failure mode scoring procedures.

Authors:  Laura Ashley; Gerry Armitage
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.844

7.  Failure mode and effect analysis-based quality assurance for dynamic MLC tracking systems.

Authors:  Amit Sawant; Sonja Dieterich; Michelle Svatos; Paul Keall
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Application of failure mode and effects analysis to intraoperative radiation therapy using mobile electron linear accelerators.

Authors:  Mario Ciocca; Marie-Claire Cantone; Ivan Veronese; Federica Cattani; Guido Pedroli; Silvia Molinelli; Viviana Vitolo; Roberto Orecchia
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-06-25       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  Evaluation of safety in a radiation oncology setting using failure mode and effects analysis.

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

10.  A method for evaluating quality assurance needs in radiation therapy.

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

View more
  6 in total

1.  Quantifying clinical severity of physics errors in high-dose rate prostate brachytherapy using simulations.

Authors:  David Aramburu Nunez; Michael Trager; Joel Beaudry; Gilad N Cohen; Lawrence T Dauer; Daniel Gorovets; Nima Hassan Rezaeian; Marisa A Kollmeier; Brian Leong; Patrick McCann; Matthew Williamson; Michael J Zelefsky; Antonio L Damato
Journal:  Brachytherapy       Date:  2021-06-27       Impact factor: 2.441

2.  Radiobiological effects of the interruption time with Monte Carlo Simulation on multiple fields in photon beams.

Authors:  Hisashi Nakano; Daisuke Kawahara; Satoshi Tanabe; Satoru Utsunomiya; Takeshi Takizawa; Madoka Sakai; Hirotake Saito; Atsushi Ohta; Motoki Kaidu; Hiroyuki Ishikawa
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 2.102

3.  A Modular System for Treating Moving Anatomical Targets With Scanned Ion Beams at Multiple Facilities: Pre-Clinical Testing for Quality and Safety of Beam Delivery.

Authors:  Michelle Lis; Wayne Newhauser; Marco Donetti; Moritz Wolf; Timo Steinsberger; Athena Paz; Marco Durante; Christian Graeff
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  A bi-institutional multi-disciplinary failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for a Co-60 based total body irradiation technique.

Authors:  Shahbaz Ahmed; Todd Bossenberger; Adrian Nalichowski; Jeremy S Bredfeldt; Sarah Bartlett; Kristen Bertone; Michael Dominello; Mark Dziemianowicz; Melanie Komajda; G Mike Makrigiorgos; Karen J Marcus; Andrea Ng; Marvin Thomas; Jay Burmeister
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 3.481

5.  Development and validation of a comprehensive patient-specific quality assurance program for a novel stereotactic radiation delivery system for breast lesions.

Authors:  Stewart J Becker; Ying Niu; Yildirim Mutaf; Shifeng Chen; Yannick Poirier; Elizabeth M Nichols; ByongYong Yi
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Failure modes and effects analysis for surface-guided DIBH breast radiotherapy.

Authors:  Megan Bright; Ryan D Foster; Carnell J Hampton; Justin Ruiz; Benjamin Moeller
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 2.102

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.