Paige A Taylor1, Jessica Lowenstein2, David Followill2, Stephen F Kry2. 1. The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: pataylor@mdanderson.org. 2. The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to highlight the value and key findings of on-site proton audits. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The authors performed 38 on-site measurement-based peer reviews of proton centers participating in National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials. The reviews covered beam calibration, lateral and depth measurements, mechanical checks, treatment planning and clinical practice, and quality assurance (QA) practices. Program deficiencies were noted, and recommendations were made about ways institutions could improve their practices. RESULTS: Institutions received an average of 3 (range, 1-8) recommendations for practice improvements. The number of deficiencies did not decrease over time, highlighting the continued need for this type of peer review. The most common deficiencies were for Task Group-recommended QA compliance (97% of centers), computed tomography number (CTN) to relative linear stopping power conversion (59%), and QA procedures (53%). In addition, 32% of institutions assessed failed at least 1 lateral beam profile measurement (<90% of pixels passing 3% [global]/3 mm; 10% threshold), despite passing internal QA measurements. These failures occurred for several different plan configurations (large, small, shallow, and deep targets) and at different depths in the beam path (proximal to target, central, and distal). CTN to relative linear stopping power conversion curves showed deviations at low, mid, and high CTNs and highlighted areas of inconsistency between proton centers, with many centers falling outside of 2 sigma of the mean curve of their peers. All deficiencies from the peer review were discussed with the institutions, and many implemented dosimetric treatment planning and practice changes to improve the accuracy of their system and consistency with other institutions. CONCLUSIONS: This peer review program has been integral in confirming and promoting consistency and best practice across proton centers for clinical trials, minimizing deviations for outcomes data.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to highlight the value and key findings of on-site proton audits. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The authors performed 38 on-site measurement-based peer reviews of proton centers participating in National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials. The reviews covered beam calibration, lateral and depth measurements, mechanical checks, treatment planning and clinical practice, and quality assurance (QA) practices. Program deficiencies were noted, and recommendations were made about ways institutions could improve their practices. RESULTS: Institutions received an average of 3 (range, 1-8) recommendations for practice improvements. The number of deficiencies did not decrease over time, highlighting the continued need for this type of peer review. The most common deficiencies were for Task Group-recommended QA compliance (97% of centers), computed tomography number (CTN) to relative linear stopping power conversion (59%), and QA procedures (53%). In addition, 32% of institutions assessed failed at least 1 lateral beam profile measurement (<90% of pixels passing 3% [global]/3 mm; 10% threshold), despite passing internal QA measurements. These failures occurred for several different plan configurations (large, small, shallow, and deep targets) and at different depths in the beam path (proximal to target, central, and distal). CTN to relative linear stopping power conversion curves showed deviations at low, mid, and high CTNs and highlighted areas of inconsistency between proton centers, with many centers falling outside of 2 sigma of the mean curve of their peers. All deficiencies from the peer review were discussed with the institutions, and many implemented dosimetric treatment planning and practice changes to improve the accuracy of their system and consistency with other institutions. CONCLUSIONS: This peer review program has been integral in confirming and promoting consistency and best practice across proton centers for clinical trials, minimizing deviations for outcomes data.
Authors: Ross A Abrams; Kathryn A Winter; William F Regine; Howard Safran; John P Hoffman; Robert Lustig; Andre A Konski; Al B Benson; John S Macdonald; Tyvin A Rich; Christopher G Willett Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Antonio Carlino; Hugo Palmans; Clare Gouldstone; Petra Trnkova; Ole Noerrevang; Anne Vestergaard; Gloria Vilches Freixas; Geert Bosmans; Stefano Lorentini; Marco Schwarz; Benjamin Koska; Jörg Wulff; Stanislav Vatnitsky; Markus Stock Journal: Z Med Phys Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 4.820
Authors: Ryan L Grant; Paige A Summers; James L Neihart; Anthony P Blatnica; Narayan Sahoo; Michael T Gillin; David S Followill; Geoffrey S Ibbott Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 2.102