Objective: To develop decision trees predicting for tumor volume reduction in patients with head and neck (H&N) cancer using pretreatment clinical and pathological parameters. Methods: Forty-eight patients treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the nasopharynx, oropharynx, oral cavity, or hypopharynx were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were rescanned at a median dose of 37.8 Gy and replanned to account for anatomical changes. The percentages of gross tumor volume (GTV) change from initial to rescan computed tomography (CT; %GTVD) were calculated. Two decision trees were generated to correlate %GTVD in primary and nodal volumes with 14 characteristics including age, gender, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), site, human papilloma virus (HPV) status, tumor grade, primary tumor growth pattern (endophytic/exophytic), tumor/nodal/group stages, chemotherapy regimen, and primary, nodal, and total GTV volumes in the initial CT scan. The C4.5 Decision Tree induction algorithm was implemented. Results: The median %GTVD for primary, nodal, and total GTVs was 26.8%, 43.0%, and 31.2%, respectively. Type of chemotherapy, age, primary tumor growth pattern, site, KPS, and HPV status were the most predictive parameters for primary %GTVD decision tree, whereas for nodal %GTVD, KPS, site, age, primary tumor growth pattern, initial primary GTV, and total GTV volumes were predictive. Both decision trees had an accuracy of 88%. Conclusions: There can be significant changes in primary and nodal tumor volumes during the course of H&N chemoradiotherapy. Considering the proposed decision trees, radiation oncologists can select patients predicted to have high %GTVD, who would theoretically gain the most benefit from adaptive radiotherapy, in order to better use limited clinical resources.
Purpose Although stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an attractive noninvasive approach for liver irradiation, it presents specific challenges associated with respiration‐induced liver motion, daily tumor localization due to liver deformation, and poor visualization of target with respect to adjacent normal liver in computed tomography (CT). We aim to identify potential hazards and develop a set of mitigation strategies to improve the safety of our liver SBRT program, using failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA). Materials and methods A multidisciplinary group consisting of two physicians, three physicists, two dosimetrists, and two therapists was formed. A process map covering ten major stages of the liver SBRT program from the initial diagnosis to posttreatment follow‐up was generated. A total of 102 failure modes (FM), together with their causes and effects, were identified. The occurrence (O), severity (S), and lack of detectability (D) were independently scored using a scale from 1 (lowest risk) to 10 (largest risk). The ranking was done using the risk probability number (RPN) defined as the product of average O, S, and D numbers for each mode. Two fault tree analyses were performed. The failure modes with the highest RPN values as well as highest severity score were considered for investigation and a set of mitigation strategies was developed to address these. Results The median RPN (RPNmed) values for all modes ranged from of 9 to 105 and the highest median S score (Smed) was 8. Fourteen FMs were identified to be significant by both RPNmed and Smed (top ten RPNmed ranked and highest Smed FMs) and 12 of them were considered for risk mitigation efforts. The remaining two were omitted due to either sufficient checks already in place, or lack of practical mitigation strategies. Implemented measures consisted of five physics tasks, two physician tasks, and three workflow changes. Conclusions The application of FMEA to our liver SBRT program led to the identification of potential FMs and allowed improvement measures to enhance the safety of our clinical practice.
Incidental concurrent use of ACEi demonstrated efficacy in diminishing rates of symptomatic pneumonitis in the setting of lung SBRT.
Purpose: To identify areas of improvement in our liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) program, using failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA). Methods: A multidisciplinary group consisting of one physician, three physicists, one dosimetrist and two therapists was formed. A process map covering 10 major stages of the liver SBRT program from the initial diagnosis to post treatment follow‐up was generated. A total of 102 failure modes, together with their causes and effects, were identified. The occurrence (O), severity (S) and lack of detectability (D) were independently scored. The ranking was done using the risk probability number (RPN) defined as the product of average O, S and D numbers for each mode. The scores were normalized to remove inter‐observer variability, while preserving individual ranking order. Further, a correlation analysis on the overall agreement on rank order of all failure modes resulted in positive values for successive pairs of evaluators. The failure modes with the highest RPN value were considered for further investigation. Results: The average normalized RPN values for all modes were 39 with a range of 9 to 103. The FMEA analysis resulted in the identification of the top 10 critical failures modes as: Incorrect CT‐MR registration, MR scan not performed in treatment position, patient movement between CBCT acquisition and treatment, daily IGRT QA not verified, incorrect or incomplete ITV delineation, OAR contours not verified, inaccurate normal liver effective dose (Veff) calculation, failure of bolus tracking for 4D CT scan, setup instructions not followed for treatment and plan evaluation metrics missed. Conclusion: The application of FMEA to our liver SBRT program led to the identification and possible improvement of areas affecting patient safety.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.