Objective: This paper reports on the rationalization of a substantial pool of in vivo dosimetry (IVD) data from patients treated with total skin electron beam therapy (TSEBT) and the application of this to verify the accurate delivery of TSEBT when changing linac manufacturer. Methods: Thermoluminescent dosimeter IVD data from 149 patients were analyzed comparing the population mean and standard deviation for each site. The number of sites required to confirm the prescribed dose were reviewed considering both dosimetric and clinical relevance. The reduced sites were then used to assess the continued dosimetric accuracy on new equipment and the results were compared statistically using the Mann–Witney test. Results: The trunk dose measurement points were reduced from nine to six and five extra trunk sites were identified and reviewed clinically prior to removal. Following change in manufacturer the trunk dose points showed no statistically significant change and confirmed that patients had received within 1.3% of the intended mean trunk dose using both delivery methods. A statistically significant change in 4 out of the 13 extra trunk sites was seen following the move to the new centre. However, all but one site showed a change of less than 1 standard deviation. Conclusion: The total number of measurement points per patient were reduced from 27 to 19 which constituted a 25% saving in preparation and read out. Accurate delivery of prescribed dose was confirmed following measurement point reduction for treatments delivered on linacs from two different manufacturers. Advances in knowledge: Proven methodology for rationalization of IVD measurements for TSEBT
Objective: This article describes the external audit measurements conducted in two UK centres implementing total skin electron beam therapy (TSEBT) and the results obtained. Methods: Measurements of output, energy, beam flatness and symmetry at a standard distance (95 or 100 cm SSD) were performed using a parallel plate chamber in solid water. Similarly, output and energy measurements were also performed at the treatment plane for single and dual fields. Clinical simulations were carried out using thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) and Gafchromic® film (International Specialty Products, Wayne, NJ) on an anthropomorphic phantom. Results: Extended distance measurements confirmed that local values for the beam dosimetry at Centres A and B were within 2% for outputs and 1-mm agreement of the expected depth at which the dose is 50% of the maximum for the depth-dose curve in water (R 50,D ) value. Clinical simulation using TLDs) showed an agreement of 21.6% and 26.7% compared with the expected mean trunk dose for each centre, respectively, and a variation within 10% (61 standard deviation) across the trunk. The film results confirmed that the delivery of the treatment technique at each audited centre complies with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer recommendations. Conclusion: This audit methodology has proven to be a successful way to confirm the agreement of dosimetric parameters for TSEBT treatments at both audited centres and could serve as the basis for an audit template to be used by other audit groups. Advances in knowledge: TSEBT audits are not established in the UK owing to a limited number of centres carrying out the treatment technique. This article describes the audits performed at two UK centres prior to their clinical implementation.
A hybrid quality control (QC) program was developed that integrates automated and conventional Linac QC, realizing the benefits of both automated and conventional QC, increasing efficiency and maintaining independent measurement methods. Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was then applied in order to validate the program prior to clinical implementation. The hybrid QC program consists of automated QC with machine performance check and DailyQA3 array on the TrueBeam Linac, and Delta4 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) standard plan measurements, alongside conventional monthly QC at a reduced frequency. The FMEA followed the method outlined in TG-100. Process maps were created for each treatment type at our center: VMAT, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), conformal, and palliative. Possible failure modes were established by evaluating each stage in the process map. The FMEA followed semiquantitative methods, using data from our QC records from eight Linacs over 3 years for the occurrence estimates, and simulation of failure modes in the treatment planning system, with scoring surveys for severity and detectability. The risk priority number (RPN) was calculated from the product of the occurrence, severity, and detectability scores and then normalized to the maximum and ranked to determine the most critical failure modes. The highest normalized RPN values (100, 90) were found to be for MLC position dynamic for both VMAT and SBRT treatments. The next highest score was 35 for beam position for SBRT, and the majority of scores were less than 20. Overall, these RPN scores for the hybrid Linac QC program indicated that it would be acceptable, but the high RPN score associated with the dynamic MLC failure mode indicates that it would be valuable to perform more rigorous testing of the MLC. The FMEA proved to be a useful tool in validating hybrid QC.
The use of volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and inverse planning has been in routine use in radiotherapy for two decades. However, use in total body irradiation (TBI) has been more recent and few guidelines exist as to how to plan or verify. This has led to heterogeneous approaches. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of current advanced planning and dosimetry verification protocols used in optimised conformal TBI as a basis for investigating the need for greater standardisation in TBI.
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.