PURPOSE: To quantitatively evaluate through automated simulations the clinical significance of potential high-dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy (HDRPB) physics errors selected from our internal failure-modes and effect analysis (FMEA). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A list of failure modes was compiled and scored independently by 8 brachytherapy physicists on a one-to-ten scale for severity (S), occurrence (O), and detectability (D), with risk priority number (RPN) = SxOxD. Variability of RPNs across observers (standard deviation/average) was calculated. Six idealized HDRPB plans were generated, and error simulations were performed: single (N = 1722) and systematic (N = 126) catheter shifts (craniocaudal; -1cm:1 cm); single catheter digitization errors (tip and connector needle-tips displaced independently in random directions; 0.1 cm:0.5 cm; N = 44,318); and swaps (two catheters swapped during digitization or connection; N = 528). The deviations due to each error in prostate D90%, urethra D20%, and rectum D1cm3 were analyzed using two thresholds: 5-20% (possible clinical impact) and >20% (potentially reportable events). RESULTS: Twenty-nine relevant failure modes were described. Overall, RPNs ranged from 6 to 108 (average ± 1 standard deviation, 46 ± 23), with responder variability ranging from 19% to 184% (average 75% ± 30%). Potentially reportable events were observed in the simulations for systematic shifts >0.4 cm for prostate and digitization errors >0.3 cm for the urethra and >0.4 cm for rectum. Possible clinical impact was observed for catheter swaps (all organs), systematic shifts >0.2 cm for prostate and >0.4 cm for rectum, and digitization errors >0.2 cm for prostate and >0.1 cm for urethra and rectum. CONCLUSIONS: A high variability in RPN scores was observed. Systematic simulations can provide insight in the severity scoring of multiple failure modes, supplementing typical FMEA approaches.
PURPOSE: To quantitatively evaluate through automated simulations the clinical significance of potential high-dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy (HDRPB) physics errors selected from our internal failure-modes and effect analysis (FMEA). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A list of failure modes was compiled and scored independently by 8 brachytherapy physicists on a one-to-ten scale for severity (S), occurrence (O), and detectability (D), with risk priority number (RPN) = SxOxD. Variability of RPNs across observers (standard deviation/average) was calculated. Six idealized HDRPB plans were generated, and error simulations were performed: single (N = 1722) and systematic (N = 126) catheter shifts (craniocaudal; -1cm:1 cm); single catheter digitization errors (tip and connector needle-tips displaced independently in random directions; 0.1 cm:0.5 cm; N = 44,318); and swaps (two catheters swapped during digitization or connection; N = 528). The deviations due to each error in prostate D90%, urethra D20%, and rectum D1cm3 were analyzed using two thresholds: 5-20% (possible clinical impact) and >20% (potentially reportable events). RESULTS: Twenty-nine relevant failure modes were described. Overall, RPNs ranged from 6 to 108 (average ± 1 standard deviation, 46 ± 23), with responder variability ranging from 19% to 184% (average 75% ± 30%). Potentially reportable events were observed in the simulations for systematic shifts >0.4 cm for prostate and digitization errors >0.3 cm for the urethra and >0.4 cm for rectum. Possible clinical impact was observed for catheter swaps (all organs), systematic shifts >0.2 cm for prostate and >0.4 cm for rectum, and digitization errors >0.2 cm for prostate and >0.1 cm for urethra and rectum. CONCLUSIONS: A high variability in RPN scores was observed. Systematic simulations can provide insight in the severity scoring of multiple failure modes, supplementing typical FMEA approaches.
Authors: Mark J Rivard; Bert M Coursey; Larry A DeWerd; William F Hanson; M Saiful Huq; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Michael G Mitch; Ravinder Nath; Jeffrey F Williamson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: J Swamidas; N Khanna; U Mahantshetty; V Somesan; D D Deshpande; S K Shrivastava Journal: Cancer Radiother Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 1.018
Authors: Jinka R Sathya; Ian R Davis; Jim A Julian; Qing Guo; Dean Daya; Ian S Dayes; Himu R Lukka; Mark Levine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter J Hoskin; Ana M Rojas; Peter J Bownes; Gerry J Lowe; Peter J Ostler; Linda Bryant Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Kees Koedooder; Niek van Wieringen; Hans N B van der Grient; Yvonne R J van Herten; Bradley R Pieters; Leo E C M Blank Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038