Literature DB >> 29029890

Radiation Therapy Deficiencies Identified During On-Site Dosimetry Visits by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center.

Stephen F Kry1, Lainy Dromgoole2, Paola Alvarez2, Jessica Leif2, Andrea Molineu2, Paige Taylor2, David S Followill3.   

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.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29029890      PMCID: PMC5699963          DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.08.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  19 in total

1.  AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams.

Authors:  P R Almond; P J Biggs; B M Coursey; W F Hanson; M S Huq; R Nath; D W Rogers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  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

3.  Equilibration of air temperature inside the thimble of a Farmer-type ion chamber.

Authors:  R C Tailor; C Chu; D S Followill; W F Hanson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Examining credentialing criteria and poor performance indicators for IROC Houston's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom.

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

5.  The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management.

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

6.  Technical Report: Reference photon dosimetry data for Varian accelerators based on IROC-Houston site visit data.

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

7.  Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40.

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

8.  Treatment Planning System Calculation Errors Are Present in Most Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston Phantom Failures.

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

9.  Implementation and evaluation of an end-to-end IGRT test.

Authors:  Stephen F Kry; Jimmy Jones; Nathan L Childress
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations - Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams.

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

View more
  6 in total

1.  Dose calculation errors as a component of failing IROC lung and spine phantom irradiations.

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

2.  Remote beam output audits: a global assessment of results out of tolerance.

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

Review 3.  Novel methodologies for dosimetry audits: Adapting to advanced radiotherapy techniques.

Authors:  Marlies Pasler; Victor Hernandez; Núria Jornet; Catharine H Clark
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-03-19

4.  Dosimetric end-to-end tests in a national audit of 3D conformal radiotherapy.

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

5.  AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 5.b: Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-Megavoltage photon and electron beams.

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

6.  A comparison of IROC and ACDS on-site audits of reference and non-reference dosimetry.

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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.