Stephen F Kry1, Lainy Dromgoole2, Paola Alvarez2, Jessica Leif2, Andrea Molineu2, Paige Taylor2, David S Followill3. 1. Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Quality Assurance Center in Houston, Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; The University of Texas Health Science Center Houston, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: sfkry@mdanderson.org. 2. Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Quality Assurance Center in Houston, Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Quality Assurance Center in Houston, Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; The University of Texas Health Science Center Houston, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the dosimetric, mechanical, and programmatic deficiencies most frequently observed during on-site visits of radiation therapy facilities by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Quality Assurance Center in Houston (IROC Houston). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The findings of IROC Houston between 2000 and 2014, including 409 institutions and 1020 linear accelerators (linacs), were compiled. On-site evaluations by IROC Houston include verification of absolute calibration (tolerance of ±3%), relative dosimetric review (tolerances of ±2% between treatment planning system [TPS] calculation and measurement), mechanical evaluation (including multileaf collimator and kilovoltage-megavoltage isocenter evaluation against Task Group [TG]-142 tolerances), and general programmatic review (including institutional quality assurance program vs TG-40 and TG-142). RESULTS: An average of 3.1 deficiencies was identified at each institution visited, a number that has decreased slightly with time. The most common errors are tabulated and include TG-40/TG-142 compliance (82% of institutions were deficient), small field size output factors (59% of institutions had errors ≥3%), and wedge factors (33% of institutions had errors ≥3%). Dosimetric errors of ≥10%, including in beam calibration, were seen at many institutions. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial room for improvement of both dosimetric and programmatic issues in radiation therapy, which should be a high priority for the medical physics community. Particularly relevant was suboptimal beam modeling in the TPS and a corresponding failure to detect these errors by not including TPS data in the linac quality assurance process.
PURPOSE: To review the dosimetric, mechanical, and programmatic deficiencies most frequently observed during on-site visits of radiation therapy facilities by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Quality Assurance Center in Houston (IROC Houston). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The findings of IROC Houston between 2000 and 2014, including 409 institutions and 1020 linear accelerators (linacs), were compiled. On-site evaluations by IROC Houston include verification of absolute calibration (tolerance of ±3%), relative dosimetric review (tolerances of ±2% between treatment planning system [TPS] calculation and measurement), mechanical evaluation (including multileaf collimator and kilovoltage-megavoltage isocenter evaluation against Task Group [TG]-142 tolerances), and general programmatic review (including institutional quality assurance program vs TG-40 and TG-142). RESULTS: An average of 3.1 deficiencies was identified at each institution visited, a number that has decreased slightly with time. The most common errors are tabulated and include TG-40/TG-142 compliance (82% of institutions were deficient), small field size output factors (59% of institutions had errors ≥3%), and wedge factors (33% of institutions had errors ≥3%). Dosimetric errors of ≥10%, including in beam calibration, were seen at many institutions. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial room for improvement of both dosimetric and programmatic issues in radiation therapy, which should be a high priority for the medical physics community. Particularly relevant was suboptimal beam modeling in the TPS and a corresponding failure to detect these errors by not including TPS data in the linac quality assurance process.
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
Authors: Mallory E Carson; Andrea Molineu; Paige A Taylor; David S Followill; Francesco C Stingo; Stephen F Kry Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-12 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: James R Kerns; David S Followill; Jessica Lowenstein; Andrea Molineu; Paola Alvarez; Paige A Taylor; Francesco C Stingo; Stephen F Kry Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 4.071
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: James R Kerns; Francesco Stingo; David S Followill; Rebecca M Howell; Adam Melancon; Stephen F Kry Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jennifer B Smilowitz; Indra J Das; Vladimir Feygelman; Benedick A Fraass; Stephen F Kry; Ingrid R Marshall; Dimitris N Mihailidis; Zoubir Ouhib; Timothy Ritter; Michael G Snyder; Lynne Fairobent Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Sharbacha S Edward; Mallory C Glenn; Christine B Peterson; Peter A Balter; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Rebecca M Howell; David S Followill; Stephen F Kry Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Stephen F Kry; Christine B Peterson; Rebecca M Howell; Joanna Izewska; Jessica Lye; Catharine H Clark; Mitsuhiro Nakamura; Coen Hurkmans; Paola Alvarez; Andrew Alves; Tomislav Bokulic; David Followill; Pavel Kazantsev; Jessica Lowenstein; Andrea Molineu; Jacob Palmer; Susan A Smith; Paige Taylor; Paulina Wesolowska; Ivan Williams Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-09-16
Authors: Joerg Lehmann; Andrew Alves; Leon Dunn; Maddison Shaw; John Kenny; Stephanie Keehan; Jeremy Supple; Francis Gibbons; Sophie Manktelow; Chris Oliver; Tomas Kron; Ivan Williams; Jessica Lye Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-04-24
Authors: Mark W Geurts; Dustin J Jacqmin; Lindsay E Jones; Stephen F Kry; Dimitris N Mihailidis; Jared D Ohrt; Timothy Ritter; Jennifer B Smilowitz; Nicholai E Wingreen Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Jessica Lye; Stephen Kry; Maddison Shaw; Francis Gibbons; Stephanie Keehan; Joerg Lehmann; Tomas Kron; David Followill; Ivan Williams Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 4.071