Daisuke Kawahara1, Hisashi Nakano2, Akito Saito1, Yusuke Ochi3, Yasushi Nagata1,4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Niigata, Japan. 3. Radiation Therapy Section, Department of Clinical Support, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan. 4. Hiroshima High-Precision Radiotherapy Cancer Center, Hiroshima, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of interruption in radiotherapy due to machine failure in patients and medical institutions using machine failure risk analysis (MFRA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The risk of machine failure during treatment is assigned to three scores (biological effect, B; occurrence, O; and cost of labor and repair parts, C) for each type of machine failure. The biological patient risk (BPR) and the economic institution risk (EIR) are calculated as the product of B and O ( B × O ) and C and O ( C × O ), respectively. The MFRA is performed in two linear accelerators (linacs). RESULT: The multileaf collimator (MLC) fault has the highest BPR and second highest EIR. In particular, TrueBeam has a higher BPR and EIR for MLC failures. The total EIR in TrueBeam was significantly higher than that in Clinac iX. The minor interlock had the second highest BPR, whereas a smaller EIR. Meanwhile, the EIR for the LaserGuard fault was the highest, and that for the monitor chamber fault was the second highest. These machine failures occurred in TrueBeam. The BPR and EIR should be evaluated for each linac. Further, the sensitivity of the BPR, it decreased with higher T 1 / 2 and α/β values. No relative difference is observed in the BPR for each machine failure when T 1 / 2 and α/β were varied. CONCLUSION: The risk faced by patients and institutions in machine failure may be reduced using MFRA. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: For clinical radiotherapy, interruption can occur from unscheduled downtime with machine failures. Interruption causes sublethal damage repair. The current study evaluated the effect of interruption in radiotherapy owing to machine failure on patients and medical institutions using a new method, that is, machine failure risk analysis.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of interruption in radiotherapy due to machine failure in patients and medical institutions using machine failure risk analysis (MFRA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The risk of machine failure during treatment is assigned to three scores (biological effect, B; occurrence, O; and cost of labor and repair parts, C) for each type of machine failure. The biological patient risk (BPR) and the economic institution risk (EIR) are calculated as the product of B and O ( B × O ) and C and O ( C × O ), respectively. The MFRA is performed in two linear accelerators (linacs). RESULT: The multileaf collimator (MLC) fault has the highest BPR and second highest EIR. In particular, TrueBeam has a higher BPR and EIR for MLC failures. The total EIR in TrueBeam was significantly higher than that in Clinac iX. The minor interlock had the second highest BPR, whereas a smaller EIR. Meanwhile, the EIR for the LaserGuard fault was the highest, and that for the monitor chamber fault was the second highest. These machine failures occurred in TrueBeam. The BPR and EIR should be evaluated for each linac. Further, the sensitivity of the BPR, it decreased with higher T 1 / 2 and α/β values. No relative difference is observed in the BPR for each machine failure when T 1 / 2 and α/β were varied. CONCLUSION: The risk faced by patients and institutions in machine failure may be reduced using MFRA. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: For clinical radiotherapy, interruption can occur from unscheduled downtime with machine failures. Interruption causes sublethal damage repair. The current study evaluated the effect of interruption in radiotherapy owing to machine failure on patients and medical institutions using a new method, that is, machine failure risk analysis.
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: L M Wroe; T A Ige; O C Asogwa; S C Aruah; S Grover; R Makufa; M Fitz-Gibbon; S L Sheehy Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 4.126
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