Quality Assurance Needs for Modern Image-Based Radiotherapy: Recommendations From 2007 Interorganizational Symposium on “Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy: Challenges of Advanced Technology”

Williamson, Jeffrey F.; Dunscombe, Peter; Sharpe, Michael B.; Thomadsen, Bruce R.; Purdy, James A.; Deye, James A.

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.08.080

Cited by 60 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the recent advocacy of process-based approaches for RT quality management [4][5][6] indicates an appreciation for the shifting QA paradigm by community leaders. This study demonstrates the value of such a process-based technique in facilitating the safe clinical implementation of adaptive treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lack of a framework for the safe implementation of ART continues to deter its practice, while the lack of ART practice limits the implementation of data-driven quality management. We aim to address this void by employing a process-based approach, which has recently been endorsed by community experts as a means to optimize radiotherapy safety strategies, [4][5][6] to evaluate the QA and safety needs for implementation of ART. Since ART-based error data currently do not exist, process-based analysis was performed using expert-based data from the forthcoming AAPM task group 100 (TG-100) as a baseline.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Process‐based quality management for clinical implementation of adaptive radiotherapy

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Intensity-modulated adaptive radiotherapy (ART) has been the focus of considerable research and developmental work due to its potential therapeutic benefits. However, in light of its unique quality assurance (QA) challenges, no one has described a robust framework for its clinical implementation. In fact, recent position papers by ASTRO and AAPM have firmly endorsed pretreatment patient-specific IMRT QA, which limits the feasibility of online ART. The authors aim to address these obstacles by applying failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to identify high-priority errors and appropriate risk-mitigation strategies for clinical implementation of intensity-modulated ART. Methods: An experienced team of two clinical medical physicists, one clinical engineer, and one radiation oncologist was assembled to perform a standard FMEA for intensity-modulated ART. A set of 216 potential radiotherapy failures composed by the forthcoming AAPM task group 100 (TG-100) was used as the basis. Of the 216 failures, 127 were identified as most relevant to an ART scheme. Using the associated TG-100 FMEA values as a baseline, the team considered how the likeliness of occurrence (O), outcome severity (S), and likeliness of failure being undetected (D) would change for ART. New risk priority numbers (RPN) were calculated. Failures characterized by RPN ≥ 200 were identified as potentially critical. Results: FMEA revealed that ART RPN increased for 38% (n = 48/127) of potential failures, with 75% (n = 36/48) attributed to failures in the segmentation and treatment planning processes. Fortythree of 127 failures were identified as potentially critical. Risk-mitigation strategies include implementing a suite of quality control and decision support software, specialty QA software/hardware tools, and an increase in specially trained personnel. Conclusions: Results of the FMEA-based risk assessment demonstrate that intensity-modulated ART introduces different (but not necessarily more) risks than standard IMRT and may be safely implemented with the proper mitigations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Process‐based quality management for clinical implementation of adaptive radiotherapy

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the potential or actual use of new advanced technologies also raises other questions about such as the cost, efficacy and ethics, rather than the accuracy for targeting. In fact, the economic burden of increased quality assurance is a challenge [19] as application of advanced technologies in radiotherapy also depends on the needs of the countries concerned in terms of essential infrastructure in order to allow for a smooth, incremental and safe progression to advanced radiotherapy services [20] . Therefore, R&D of the RAs is necessary to render protection to human against undesirable health consequences from radiation exposure especially in the current medical field.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research and Development of Radioprotective Agents: A Mini-Review

Saaya

Katsube

Xie

et al. 2017

International Journal of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research and development (R&D) of radioprotective agents (RAs) have been conducting since seven decades ago, and the safety and protection against undesirable effects of ionizing radiation (IR) has become an important issue especially for the benefit of patients receiving the radiotherapy, in addition to the applications in nuclear industry, military, outer space exploration and accidental exposures. Although the technology advancement makes the radiotherapy a promising better treatment by maximizing the effect of IR to the cancer cells, there are still needs for improvement in minimizing the toxicity to the normal cells. Aiming at providing the new researchers in the radiation protection field with an overall view for R&D of the RAs, this mini-review elucidates in brief a general understanding of the IR and its effects on the cell, the concepts of radiotherapy and therapeutic ratio, the categories of RAs and their mechanisms, and discusses on the strategies and challenge for R&D of the RAs.

show abstract

“…Many documents exist that provide guidance on how to implement or conduct quality activities in this field [1e3]. However, most of these guidelines focus on one or a few aspects of the overall services, with technical issues often being the centre of attention [4,5]. As such, standards that capture the whole continuum of radiation therapy delivery from clinical documentation and treatment prescription to machine calibration and treatment delivery could be an important tool to provide guidance that can be adopted uniformly by all radiation therapy departments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development of Practice Standards for Radiation Oncology in Australia: A Tripartite Approach

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality Assurance Needs for Modern Image-Based Radiotherapy: Recommendations From 2007 Interorganizational Symposium on “Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy: Challenges of Advanced Technology”

Cited by 60 publications

References 57 publications

Process‐based quality management for clinical implementation of adaptive radiotherapy

Process‐based quality management for clinical implementation of adaptive radiotherapy

Research and Development of Radioprotective Agents: A Mini-Review

The Development of Practice Standards for Radiation Oncology in Australia: A Tripartite Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About