Eric Ford1, Leigh Conroy2, Lei Dong3, Luis Fong de Los Santos4, Anne Greener5, Grace Gwe-Ya Kim6, Jennifer Johnson7, Perry Johnson8, James G Mechalakos9, Brian Napolitano10, Stephanie Parker11, Deborah Schofield12, Koren Smith13, Ellen Yorke9, Michelle Wells14. 1. University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Veterans Affairs NJHCS, East Orange, NJ, USA. 6. University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. 7. Landauer Medical Physics, Houston, TX, USA. 8. University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. 9. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Manhattan, NY, USA. 10. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 11. Wake Forest Baptist Health, High Point, NC, USA. 12. Saint Vincent Hospital, Worcester, MA, USA. 13. Mary Bird Perkin Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. 14. Piedmont Cancer, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the review of radiotherapy treatment plans and charts by a medical physicist is a key component of safe, high-quality care, very few specific recommendations currently exist for this task. AIMS: The goal of TG-275 is to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations on physics plan and chart review for radiation therapy. While this report is aimed mainly at medical physicists, others may benefit including dosimetrists, radiation therapists, physicians and other professionals interested in quality management. METHODS: The scope of the report includes photon/electron external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), proton radiotherapy, as well as high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for gynecological applications (currently the highest volume brachytherapy service in most practices). The following review time points are considered: initial review prior to treatment, weekly review, and end-of-treatment review. The Task Group takes a risk-informed approach to developing recommendations. A failure mode and effects analysis was performed to determine the highest-risk aspects of each process. In the case of photon/electron EBRT, a survey of all American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members was also conducted to determine current practices. A draft of this report was provided to the full AAPM membership for comment through a 3-week open-comment period, and the report was revised in response to these comments. RESULTS: The highest-risk failure modes included 112 failure modes in photon/electron EBRT initial review, 55 in weekly and end-of-treatment review, 24 for initial review specific to proton therapy, and 48 in HDR brachytherapy. A 103-question survey on current practices was released to all AAPM members who self-reported as working in the radiation oncology field. The response rate was 33%. The survey data and risk data were used to inform recommendations. DISCUSSION: Tables of recommended checks are presented and recommendations for best practice are discussed. Suggestions to software vendors are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: TG-275 provides specific recommendations for physics plan and chart review which should enhance the safety and quality of care for patients receiving radiation treatments.
BACKGROUND: While the review of radiotherapy treatment plans and charts by a medical physicist is a key component of safe, high-quality care, very few specific recommendations currently exist for this task. AIMS: The goal of TG-275 is to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations on physics plan and chart review for radiation therapy. While this report is aimed mainly at medical physicists, others may benefit including dosimetrists, radiation therapists, physicians and other professionals interested in quality management. METHODS: The scope of the report includes photon/electron external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), proton radiotherapy, as well as high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for gynecological applications (currently the highest volume brachytherapy service in most practices). The following review time points are considered: initial review prior to treatment, weekly review, and end-of-treatment review. The Task Group takes a risk-informed approach to developing recommendations. A failure mode and effects analysis was performed to determine the highest-risk aspects of each process. In the case of photon/electron EBRT, a survey of all American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members was also conducted to determine current practices. A draft of this report was provided to the full AAPM membership for comment through a 3-week open-comment period, and the report was revised in response to these comments. RESULTS: The highest-risk failure modes included 112 failure modes in photon/electron EBRT initial review, 55 in weekly and end-of-treatment review, 24 for initial review specific to proton therapy, and 48 in HDR brachytherapy. A 103-question survey on current practices was released to all AAPM members who self-reported as working in the radiation oncology field. The response rate was 33%. The survey data and risk data were used to inform recommendations. DISCUSSION: Tables of recommended checks are presented and recommendations for best practice are discussed. Suggestions to software vendors are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: TG-275 provides specific recommendations for physics plan and chart review which should enhance the safety and quality of care for patients receiving radiation treatments.
Authors: Lindsey A Olsen; Clifford G Robinson; Guangrong R He; H Omar Wooten; Sridhar Yaddanapudi; Sasa Mutic; Deshan Yang; Kevin L Moore Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-12-19
Authors: Matthew B Spraker; Robert Fain; Olga Gopan; Jing Zeng; Matthew Nyflot; Loucille Jordan; Gabrielle Kane; Eric Ford Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2017 Sep - Oct
Authors: M B Altman; J A Kavanaugh; H O Wooten; O L Green; T A DeWees; H Gay; W L Thorstad; H Li; S Mutic Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: David J Hoopes; Adam P Dicker; Nadine L Eads; Gary A Ezzell; Benedick A Fraass; Theresa M Kwiatkowski; Kathy Lash; Gregory A Patton; Tom Piotrowski; Cindy Tomlinson; Eric C Ford Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-06-25
Authors: Elizabeth L Covington; Xiaoping Chen; Kelly C Younge; Choonik Lee; Martha M Matuszak; Marc L Kessler; Wayne Keranen; Eduardo Acosta; Ashley M Dougherty; Stephanie E Filpansick; Jean M Moran Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Joseph M Dewhurst; Matthew Lowe; Mark J Hardy; Christopher J Boylan; Philip Whitehurst; Carl G Rowbottom Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Robert Poel; Elias Rüfenacht; Ekin Ermis; Michael Müller; Michael K Fix; Daniel M Aebersold; Peter Manser; Mauricio Reyes Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-10-22 Impact factor: 4.309
Authors: Prema Rassiah; Fan-Chi Frances Su; Y Jessica Huang; Dan Spitznagel; Vikren Sarkar; Martin W Szegedi; Hui Zhao; Adam B Paxton; Geoff Nelson; Bill J Salter Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Todd F Atwood; Narottam Lamichhane; Krisha Howell; Stephanie E Weiss; Louise Bird; Charles Pearson; Michael C Joiner; Michael M Dominello; Jay Burmeister Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Anis Ahmad; Lakshmi Santanam; Abhishek A Solanki; Laura Padilla; Erina Vlashi; Patrizia Guerrieri; Michael M Dominello; Jay Burmeister; Michael C Joiner Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 2.243