Purpose: The Joint Commission has encouraged the healthcare industry to become “High Reliability Organizations” by “Chasing Zero Harm” in patient care. In radiation oncology, the time point of quality checks determines whether errors are prevented or only mitigated. Thus, to “chase zero” in radiation oncology, peer review has to be implemented prior to treatment initiation. A multidisciplinary group consensus peer review (GCPR) model is used pre-treatment at our institution and has been successful in our efforts to “chase zero harm” in patient care. Methods: With the GCPR model, policy-defined complex cases go through a treatment planning conference, which includes physicians, residents, physicists, and dosimetrists. Three major plan aspects are reviewed: target volumes, target and normal tissue dose coverage, and dose distributions. During the review, any team member can ask questions and afterwards a group consensus is taken regarding plan approval. Results: The GCPR model has been implemented through a commitment to peer review and creative conference scheduling. Automated analysis software is used to depict color-coded results for department approved target coverage and dose constraints. About 8% of plans required re-planning while about 23% required minor changes. The mean time for review of each plan was 8 min. Conclusions: Catching errors prior to treatment is the only way to “chase zero” in radiation oncology. Various types of errors may exist in treatment plans and our GCPR model succeeds in preventing many errors of all shapes and sizes in target definition, dose prescriptions, and treatment plans from ever reaching the patients.

Aim: Development of MRI sequences and processing methods for the production of images appropriate for direct use in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment planning.Background: MRI is useful in SRS treatment planning, especially for patients with brain lesions or anatomical targets that are poorly distinguished by CT, but its use requires further refinement. This methodology seeks to optimize MRI sequences to generate distortion-free and clinically relevant MR images for MRI-only SRS treatment planning. Materials and methods:We used commercially available SRS MRI-guided radiotherapy phantoms and eight patients to optimize sequences for patient imaging. Workflow involved the choice of correct MRI sequence(s), optimization of the sequence parameters, evaluation of image quality (artifact free and clinically relevant), measurement of geometrical distortion, and evaluation of the accuracy of our offline correction algorithm.Results: CT images showed a maximum deviation of 1.3 mm and minimum deviation of 0.4 mm from true fiducial position for SRS coordinate definition. Interestingly, uncorrected

PurposeMagnetic resonance (MR) images are necessary for accurate contouring of intracranial targets, determination of gross target volume and evaluation of organs at risk during stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment planning procedures. Many centers use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulators or regular diagnostic MRI machines for SRS treatment planning; while both types of machine require two stages of quality control (QC), both machine- and patient-specific, before use for SRS, no accepted guidelines for such QC currently exist. This article describes appropriate machine-specific QC procedures for SRS applications.Methods and materialsWe describe the adaptation of American College of Radiology (ACR)-recommended QC tests using an ACR MRI phantom for SRS treatment planning. In addition, commercial Quasar MRID3D and Quasar GRID3D phantoms were used to evaluate the effects of static magnetic field (B0) inhomogeneity, gradient nonlinearity, and a Leksell G frame (SRS frame) and its accessories on geometrical distortion in MR images.ResultsQC procedures found in-plane distortions (Maximum = 3.5 mm, Mean = 0.91 mm, Standard deviation = 0.67 mm, >2.5 mm (%) = 2) in X-direction (Maximum = 2.51 mm, Mean = 0.52 mm, Standard deviation = 0.39 mm, > 2.5 mm (%) = 0) and in Y-direction (Maximum = 13. 1 mm , Mean = 2.38 mm, Standard deviation = 2.45 mm, > 2.5 mm (%) = 34) in Z-direction and < 1 mm distortion at a head-sized region of interest. MR images acquired using a Leksell G frame and localization devices showed a mean absolute deviation of 2.3 mm from isocenter. The results of modified ACR tests were all within recommended limits, and baseline measurements have been defined for regular weekly QC tests.ConclusionsWith appropriate QC procedures in place, it is possible to routinely obtain clinically useful MR images suitable for SRS treatment planning purposes. MRI examination for SRS planning can benefit from the improved localization and planning possible with the superior image quality and soft tissue contrast achieved under optimal conditions.

Object: The purpose of this study was to compare two methods of stereotactic localization in Gamma Knife treatment planning: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) or fiducial. While the fiducial method is the traditional method of localization, CBCT is now available for use with the Gamma Knife Icon. This study seeks to determine whether a difference exists between the two methods and then whether one is better than the other regarding accuracy and workflow optimization.Methods: Cone beam computed tomography was used to define stereotactic space around the Elekta Film Pinprick phantom and then treated with film in place. The same phantom was offset known amounts from center and then imaged with CBCT and registered with the reference CBCT image to determine if measured offsets matched those known. Ten frameless and 10 frame-based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to CBCT patient fusions were retrospectively evaluated using the TG-132 TRE method. The stereotactic coordinates defined by CBCT and traditional fiducials were compared on the Elekta 8 cm Ball phantom, an anthropomorphic phantom, and actual patient data. Offsets were introduced to the anthropomorphic phantom in the stereotactic frame and CBCT's ability to detect those offsets was determined.Results: Cone beam computed tomography defines stereotactic space well within the established limits of the mechanical alignment system. The CBCT to CBCT registration can detect offsets accurately to within 0.1 mm and 0.5°. In all cases, some disagreement existed between fiducial localization and that of CBCT which in some cases was small, but also was as high as 0.43 mm in the phantom domain and as much as 1.54 mm in actual patients. Conclusion:Cone beam computed tomography demonstrates consistent accuracy in defining stereotactic space. Since both localization methods do not agree with each other consistently, the more reliable method must be identified. Cone beam computed tomography can accurately determine offsets occurring within stereotactic space that would be nondiscernible utilizing the fiducial method and seems to be more reliable. Using CBCT localization offers the opportunity to streamline workflow