Search

Implementing tighter intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tolerances initially resulted in high numbers of marginal or failing QA results and motivated a number of improvements to our calculational processes. This work details those improvements and their effect on results. One hundred eighty IMRT plans analyzed previously were collected and new gamma criteria were applied and compared to the original results. The results were used to obtain an estimate for the number of plans that would require additional dose volume histogram (DVH)‐based analysis and therefore predicted workload increase. For 2 months and 133 plans, the established criteria were continued while the new criteria were applied and tracked in parallel. Because the number of marginal or failing plans far exceeded the predicted levels, a number of calculational elements were investigated: IMRT modeling parameters, calculation grid size, and couch top modeling. After improvements to these elements, the new criteria were clinically implemented and the frequency of passing, questionable, and failing plans measured for the subsequent 15 months and 674 plans. The retrospective analysis of selected IMRT QA results demonstrated that 75% of plans should pass, while 19% of IMRT QA plans would need DVH‐based analysis and an additional 6% would fail. However, after applying the tighter criteria for 2 months, the distribution of plans was significantly different from prediction with questionable or failing plans reaching 47%. After investigating and improving several elements of the IMRT calculation processes, the frequency of questionable plans was reduced to 11% and that of failing plans to less than 1%. Tighter IMRT QA tolerances revealed the need to improve several elements of our plan calculations. As a consequence, the accuracy of our plans have improved, and the frequency of finding marginal or failing IMRT QA results, remains within our practical ability to respond.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine clinically relevant pass/question/fail criteria for gamma analysis of intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) plans, identify which plans should be further analyzed with dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics, and create a workflow for performing that DVH-based analysis. Methods A total of 11 plans, 5 prostate and 6 head/neck, were selected to represent known good plans based on their high-passing rate using conventional IMRT QA criteria. These were modified by moving the programmed MLC positions to underdose the target or overdose important structures by varying amounts. Commercially available hardware/software was used to measure and analyze all plans (76 total) using 4%/3 mm, 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. Two receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves per criterion were created to assess effective passing rates. One ROC curve was to find a higher threshold that determined a clear pass and the second to find a lower threshold to determine a clear failure. Plans between these two thresholds need DVH-based analysis to assess the clinical consequence of the dose difference. The modified plans were analyzed in the planning system and reconstructed in commercially available DVH-based analysis software to access the accuracy and usefulness of the software. Results Analysis of the ROC curves showed optimal pass and fail thresholds for plan error detection per criterion to achieve clinically relevant sensitivity and specificity. Based on measurement uncertainty and pass/fail ranges, 3%/2 mm gamma criteria with a pass threshold of 95% and a fail threshold of 90% were most optimal. DVH analysis showed good agreement with all reconstructed plans except where the changes to the MLC patterns caused the periphery of the target to be underdosed. For questionable plans, comparing the organ-specific DVHs to the physician-provided planning constraints proved to be an efficient and effective workflow since plans for which the target dose was slightly high or where organs at risk were underdosed could be released for the treatment without consulting the physician for a clinical decision. Conclusion This work indicates the potential for appreciable improvement in error detection for IMRT QA. Using effective pass/fail thresholds to determine plans that need DVH-based analysis minimizes the need for excessive, time-consuming, analysis, and making use of the dosimetric constraints of the plan minimizes the burden on physicians. Overall, DVH-based analysis is a powerful tool that can provide substantial insight over the traditional approach that does not provide structure-specific data.

This work is to show which is more relevant to cause local failures (LFs) due to patient setup uncertainty between the planning target volume (PTV) underdosage and the potential target underdosage subject to patient setup uncertainties in head and neck (H&N) cancer treated with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Thirteen LFs in 10 H&N patients treated by VMAT were analyzed. Measures have been taken to minimize the chances of insufficient target delineation for these patients and the patients were clinically determined to have LF based on the PET/CT scan results by an experienced radiologist and then reviewed by a second experienced radiation oncologist. Two methods were used to identify the possible locations of LF due to underdosage: (a) examining the standard VMAT plan, in which the underdosed volume in the nominal dose distribution (UVN) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses from PTVs, and (b) plan robustness analysis, in which in addition to the nominal dose distribution, six perturbed dose distributions were created by translating the CT iso‐center in three cardinal directions by the PTV margin. The coldest dose distribution was represented by the minimum of the seven doses in each voxel. The underdosed volume in the coldest dose distribution (UVC) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the coldest dose distribution from the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the nominal dose distribution. UVN and UVC were subsequently examined for spatial association with the locations of LF. The association was tested using the binominal distribution and the Fisher's exact test of independence. We found that of 13 LFs, 11 were associated with UVCs (P = 0.011), while three were associated with UVNs (P = 0.99). We concluded that the possible target underdosage due to patient setup uncertainties appeared to be a more relevant factor associated with LF in VMAT for H&N cancer than the compromised PTV coverage at least for the patients included in this study.

Purpose This report describes the long-term outcomes of a prospective trial of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), integrating a 111 In capromab pendetide (ProstaScint) scan-directed simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials Seventy-one patients with T1N0M0 to T4N0M0 prostate cancer were enrolled, and their ProstaScint and pelvic computed tomography scans were coregistered for treatment planning. The entire prostate received 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions with IMRT, whereas regions of increased uptake on ProstaScint scans received 82 Gy as an SIB. Patients with intermediate- and high-risk disease also received 6 months and 12 months of adjuvant hormonal therapy, respectively. Results The study enrolled 31 low-, 30 intermediate-, and 10 high-risk patients. The median follow-up was 120 months (range, 24-150 months). The 10-year biochemical control rates were 85% for the entire cohort and 84%, 84%, and 90% for patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease, respectively. The 10-year survival rate of the entire cohort was 69%. Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level >10 ng/mL and boost volume of >10% of the prostate volume were significantly associated with poorer biochemical control and survival. The outcomes were compared with those of a cohort of 302 patients treated similarly but without the SIB and followed up for a median of 91 months (range, 6-138 months). The 5- and 10-year biochemical control rates were 86% and 61%, respectively, in patients without the SIB compared with 94% and 85%, respectively, in patients in this trial who received the SIB ( P =.02). The cohort that received an SIB did not have increased toxicity. Conclusions The described IMRT strategy, integrating multiple imaging modalities to administer 75.6 Gy to the entire prostate with a boost dose of 82 Gy, was feasible. The addition of the SIB was associated with greater biochemical control but not toxicity. Modern imaging technology can be used to locally intensify the dose to tumors and spare normal tissues, producing very favorable long-term biochemical disease control.

Purpose To present the most updated American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria formed by an expert panel on the appropriate delivery of external beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer (in the definitive setting and post-prostatectomy) and to provide clinical variants with expert recommendations based on accompanying Appropriateness Criteria for target volumes and treatment planning. Methods and materials The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a panel of multidisciplinary experts. The guideline development and revision process includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. Results The panel summarizes the most recent and relevant literature on the topic, including organ motion and localization methods, image guidance, and delivery techniques (eg, 3-dimensional conformal intensity modulation). The panel presents 7 clinical variants, including (1) a standard case and cases with (2) a distended rectum, (3) a large-volume prostate, (4) bilateral hip implants, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) prior prostatectomy, and (7) a pannus extending into the radiation field. Each case outlines the appropriate techniques for simulation, treatment planning, image guidance, dose, and fractionation. Numerical rating and commentary is given for each treatment approach in each variant. Conclusions External beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature, these Appropriateness Criteria can aid clinicians in determining the appropriate treatment delivery and personalized approaches for individual patients.

Purpose Incident learning is a critical tool to improve patient safety. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 established essential legal protections to allow for the collection and analysis of medical incidents nationwide. Methods and materials Working with a federally listed patient safety organization (PSO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine established RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). This paper provides an overview of the RO-ILS background, development, structure, and workflow, as well as examples of preliminary data and lessons learned. RO-ILS is actively collecting, analyzing, and reporting patient safety events. Results As of February 24, 2015, 46 institutions have signed contracts with Clarity PSO, with 33 contracts pending. Of these, 27 sites have entered 739 patient safety events into local database space, with 358 events (48%) pushed to the national database. Conclusions To establish an optimal safety culture, radiation oncology departments should establish formal systems for incident learning that include participation in a nationwide incident learning program such as RO-ILS.

Purpose The Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS) receives event reports from facilities across the country. This effort extracted common error pathways seen in the data. These pathways, expressed as fault trees, demonstrate the need for, and opportunities for, preventing these errors and/or limiting their propagation to treatment. Methods and materials As of the third quarter of 2016, 2344 event reports had been submitted to RO-ILS and reviewed. A total of 396 of the reports judged highest priority were rereviewed and assigned up to 3 keywords to classify events. Based on patterns among the keyword assignments, the data were further aggregated into pathways leading to 3 general error types: "problematic plan approved for treatment," "wrong shift instructions given to therapists," and "wrong shift performed at treatment." Fault trees were created showing how different errors at different stages in the treatment process combine to flow into these general error types. Results A total of 173 of the 396 (44%) events were characterized as belonging to 1 of these 3 general error types. Ninety-nine events were defined as "problematic plan approved for treatment," 40 as "wrong shift instructions given to therapists," and 34 as "wrong shift performed at treatment." Seventy-six of these events (44%) resulted in incorrectly delivered treatment. Event discovery was by therapists (n = 76), physicists (n = 45), physicians (n = 23), dosimetrists (n = 15), or not identified (n = 9); 5 events were found as a result of the patient questioning the staff. For the event type "problematic plan approved for treatment," 64 of the 99 (65%) events were attributable to physician error: incorrect target or dosing pattern prescribed. Conclusions Data extracted from RO-ILS event reports demonstrate common error pathways in radiation oncology that propagate all the way to treatment. Additional study and coordination of efforts is needed to develop and share best practices to address the sources of these errors and curtail their propagation.

Single‐isocenter, multitarget cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is more efficient than using an isocenter for each target, but spatial positioning uncertainties can be magnified at locations away from the isocenter. This study reports on the spatial accuracy of two frameless, linac‐based SRS systems for multitarget, single‐isocenter SRS as a function of distance from the isocenter. One system uses the ExacTrac platform for image guidance and the other localizes with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). For each platform, a phantom with 12 target BBs distributed up to 13.8 cm from the isocenter was aligned starting from five different initial offsets and then imaged with the treatment beam at seven different gantry and couch angles. The distribution of the resulting positioning errors demonstrated the value of adding a 1‐mm PTV margin for targets up to about 7–8 cm from the isocenter. For distances 10 cm or more, the CBCT‐based alignment remained within 1.1 mm while the ExacTrac‐based alignment differed by up to 2.2 mm.

AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

The Monte Carlo (MC) method has been shown through many research studies to calculate accurate dose distributions for clinical radiotherapy, particularly in heterogeneous patient tissues where the effects of electron transport cannot be accurately handled with conventional, deterministic dose algorithms. Despite its proven accuracy and the potential for improved dose distributions to influence treatment outcomes, the long calculation times previously associated with MC simulation rendered this method impractical for routine clinical treatment planning. However, the development of faster codes optimized for radiotherapy calculations and improvements in computer processor technology have substantially reduced calculation times to, in some instances, within minutes on a single processor. These advances have motivated several major treatment planning system vendors to embark upon the path of MC techniques. Several commercial vendors have already released or are currently in the process of releasing MC algorithms for photon and/or electron beam treatment planning. Consequently, the accessibility and use of MC treatment planning algorithms may well become widespread in the radiotherapy community. With MC simulation, dose is computed stochastically using first principles; this method is therefore quite different from conventional dose algorithms. Issues such as statistical uncertainties, the use of variance reduction techniques, theability to account for geometric details in the accelerator treatment head simulation, and other features, are all unique components of a MC treatment planning algorithm. Successful implementation by the clinical physicist of such a system will require an understanding of the basic principles of MC techniques. The purpose of this report, while providing education and review on the use of MC simulation in radiotherapy planning, is to set out, for both users and developers, the salient issues associated with clinical implementation and experimental verification of MC dose algorithms. As the MC method is an emerging technology, this report is not meant to be prescriptive. Rather, it is intended as a preliminary report to review the tenets of the MC method and to provide the framework upon which to build a comprehensive program for commissioning and routine quality assurance of MC-based treatment planning systems.

To identify prognostic factors and evaluate biochemical control rates for patients with localized prostate cancer treated with either high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conventional-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy 3D-CRT.Four hundred sixteen patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 years (median, 5 years) were included. Two hundred seventy-one patients received 3D-CRT with a median dose of 68.4 Gy (range, 66-71 Gy). The next 145 patients received IMRT with a median dose of 75.6 Gy (range, 70.2-77.4 Gy). Biochemical control rates were calculated according to both American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) consensus definitions. Prognostic factors were identified using both univariate and multivariate analyses.The 5-year biochemical control rate was 60.4% for 3D-CRT and 74.1% for IMRT (p0.0001, first ASTRO Consensus definition). Using the ASTRO Phoenix definition, the 5-year biochemical control rate was 74.4% and 84.6% with 3D-RT and IMRT, respectively (p = 0.0326). Univariate analyses determined that PSA level, T stage, Gleason score, perineural invasion, and radiation dose were predictive of biochemical control. On multivariate analysis, dose, Gleason score, and perineural invasion remained significant.On the basis of both ASTRO definitions, dose, Gleason score, and perineural invasion were predictive of biochemical control. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy allowed delivery of higher doses of radiation with very low toxicity, resulting in improved biochemical control.

Background To compare plan robustness of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to compare the effectiveness of 3 plan robustness quantification methods. Methods and materials The VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 head and neck cancer patients. For each plan, 6 new perturbed dose distributions were computed using ±3 mm setup deviations along each of the 3 orientations. Worst-case analysis (WCA), dose-volume histogram (DVH) band (DVHB), and root-mean-square dose-volume histogram (RVH) were used to quantify plan robustness. In WCA, a shaded area in the DVH plot bounded by the DVHs from the lowest and highest dose per voxel was displayed. In DVHB, we displayed the envelope of all DVHs in band graphs of all the 7 dose distributions. The RVH represents the relative volume on the vertical axis and the root-mean-square-dose on the horizontal axis. The width from the first 2 methods at different target DVH indices (such as D 95% and D 5% ) and the area under the RVH curve for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. Results were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results The DVHB showed that the width at D 95% of IMRT was larger than that of VMAT (unit Gy) (1.59 vs 1.18) and the width at D 5% of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (0.59 vs 0.54). The WCA showed similar results between IMRT and VMAT plans (D 95% : 3.28 vs 3.00; D 5% : 1.68 vs 1.95). The RVH showed the area under the RVH curve of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (1.13 vs 1.15). No statistical significance was found in plan robustness between IMRT and VMAT. Conclusions The VMAT is comparable to IMRT in terms of plan robustness. For the 3 quantification methods, WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter–dependent, whereas RVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties.

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) has been customarily performed either in a shielded operating suite located in the operating room (OR) or in a shielded treatment room located within the Department of Radiation Oncology. In both cases, this cancer treatment modality uses stationary linear accelerators. With the development of new technology, mobile linear accelerators have recently become available for IORT. Mobility offers flexibility in treatment location and is leading to a renewed interest in IORT. These mobile accelerator units, which can be transported any day of use to almost any location within a hospital setting, are assembled in a nondedicated environment and used to deliver IORT. Numerous aspects of the design of these new units differ from that of conventional linear accelerators. The scope of this Task Group (TG-72) will focus on items that particularly apply to mobile IORT electron systems. More specifically, the charges to this Task Group are to (i) identify the key differences between stationary and mobile electron linear accelerators used for IORT, (ii) describe and recommend the implementation of an IORT program within the OR environment, (iii) present and discuss radiation protection issues and consequences of working within a nondedicated radiotherapy environment, (iv) describe and recommend the acceptance and machine commissioning of items that are specific to mobile electron linear accelerators, and (v) design and recommend an efficient quality assurance program for mobile systems.

JAMES M. GALVIN D.SC.,* GARY EZZELL, PH.D., AVRAHAM EISBRAUCH, M.D.,* CEDRIC YU, D.SC., BRIAN BUTLER, M.D.,* YING XIAO, PH.D., ISAAC ROSEN, PH.D., JULIAN ROSENMAN, M.D.,* MICHAEL SHARPE, PH.D., LEI XING, PH.D., PING XIA, PH.D., TONY LOMAX, PH.D., DANIEL A. LOW, PH.D., AND JATINDER PALTA, PH.D. *American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology IMRT Scope Committee; American Association of Physicists in Medicine IMRT Subcommittee of the Radiation Therapy Committee

Purpose: Incident learning systems encompass volumes, varieties, values, and velocities of underlying data elements consistent with the V’s of big data. Veracity, the 5th V however exists only if there is high inter-rater reliability (IRR) within the data elements. The purpose of this work was to assess IRR in the nationally deployed RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology-Incident Learning System (R) sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Methods: Ten incident reports covering a wide range of scenarios were created in standardized narrative and video formats and disseminated to 67 volunteers of multiple disciplines from 26 institutions along with two published narratives from the International Commission of Radiological Protection to assess IRR on a nationally representative level. The volunteers were instructed to independently enter the associated data elements in a test version of RO-ILS over a 3-week period. All responses were aggregated into a spreadsheet to assess IRR using free-marginal kappa metrics. Results: 48 volunteers from 21 institutions completed all reports in the study period. The average kappa score for all raters across all critical data elements was 0.659 [range 0.326–1.000]. Statistically significant differences (p

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represents one of the most significant technical advances in radiation therapy since the advent of the medical linear accelerator. It allows the clinical implementation of highly conformal nonconvex dose distributions. This complex but promising treatment modality is rapidly proliferating in both academic and community practice settings. However, these advances do not come without a risk. IMRT is not just an add-on to the current radiation therapy process; it represents a new paradigm that requires the knowledge of multimodality imaging, setup uncertainties and internal organ motion, tumor control probabilities, normal tissue complication probabilities, three-dimensional (3-D) dose calculation and optimization, and dynamic beam delivery of nonuniform beam intensities. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a viable and safe IMRT program. The scope of the IMRT program is quite broad, encompassing multileaf-collimator-based IMRT delivery systems, goal-based inverse treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT with patient-specific quality assurance. This report, while not prescribing specific procedures, provides the framework and guidance to allow clinical radiation oncology physicists to make judicious decisions in implementing a safe and efficient IMRT program in their clinics.

We have developed a treatment planning protocol for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy of the prostate using commercially available inverse planning software. Treatment plans were developed for ten patients using the Corvus version 3.8 planning system, testing various prescription options, including tissue types, dose volume histogram values for the target and normal structures, beam arrangements, and number of intensity levels. All plans were scaled so that 95% of the clinical target volume received 75.6 Gy; mean doses to the prostate were typically 79 Gy. The reproducibility of the inverse planning algorithm was tested by repeating a set of the plans five times. Plans were deemed acceptable if they satisfied predefined dose constraints for the targets and critical organs. Figures of merit for target coverage, target dose uniformity, and organ sparing were used to rank acceptable plans. Certain systematic behaviors of the optimizer were noted: the high dose regions for both targets and critical organs were 5–10 Gy more than prescribed; reducing bladder and rectum tolerance increased the range of doses within the target; increasing the number of fields incrementally improved plan quality. A set of planning parameters was found that usually satisfied the minimum requirements. Repeating the optimization with different beam order produced similar but slightly different dose distributions, which was sometimes useful for finding acceptable solutions for difficult cases. The standard set of parameters serves as a useful starting point for individualized planning. PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.90.+y

Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric difference between a simple radiation therapy plan utilizing a single contour and a more complex three-dimensional (3D) plan utilizing multiple contours, lung inhomogeneity correction, and dose-based compensators. Methods and Materials: This is a study of the radiation therapy (RT) plans of 85 patients with early breast cancer. All patients were considered for breast-conserving management and treated by conventional tangential fields technique. Two plans were generated for each patient. The first RT plan was based on a single contour taken at the central axis and utilized two wedges. The second RT plan was generated by using the 3D planning system to design dose-based compensators after lung inhomogeneity correction had been made. The endpoints of the study were the comparison between the volumes receiving greater than 105% and greater than 110% of the reference dose, as well as the magnitude of the treated volume maximum dose. Dosimetric improvement was defined to be of significant value if the volume receiving > 105% of one plan was reduced by at least 50% with the absolute difference between the volumes being 5% or greater. The dosimetric improvements in 49 3D plans (58%) were considered of significant value. Patients' field separation and breast size did not predict the magnitude of improvement in dosimetry. Conclusion: Dose-based compensator plans significantly reduced the volumes receiving > 105%, >110%, and volume maximum dose.

A method has been developed to permit the calculation of dwell times for endobronchial high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy treatment using two catheters, without using a dedicated treatment planning system. Worksheets were developed to guide a user through manual calculations, and a computer program was written to automate the process. This empirical algorithm produces dose distributions that are clinically safe and reasonable. The total dwell times match those predicted by individually optimized distributions to within a few percent. The method has been used most frequently as a quality assurance check on optimized plans produced by a commercial treatment planning system, but it can serve as a back-up method should the commercial system fail. [Worksheets with example calculations may be retrieved using anonymous ftp from the American Institute of Physics, Electronic Physics Auxillary Publication Service (EPAPS).]

Purpose: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of permanent 125 iodine implants for recurrent malignant gliomas. Methods and Materials: Between January 1989 and January:, 59 patients with histologically confirmed recurrent malignant gliomas (22 nonglioblastoma malignant gliomas, 37 glioblastoma multiforme at the time of implant) received a permanent 125 iodine implant. Patients ranged in age from 13–74 years. The median ages for the overall group, nonglioblastoma (nonGBM), and glioblastoma (GBM) groups was 47 years, 39 years, and 53 years, respectively. Results: With a median follow-up of 40 months, the median survival for the 59 total patients is 1.34 years; nonGBM 2.04 years, GBM 0.9 years. Factors predictive for poor prognosis were GBM histology, age 60 years or more, target volume 17 cc or more, and/or tumor location within the corpus callosum or thalamus. Reoperations have been performed in 24 (40%) patients; 15 (25%) for tumor progression; 3 (5%) for radiation necrosis; 2 (3%) for skull necrosis/infection, and 4 (7%) for other reasons (Ommaya reservoir insertion, catheter removal, hematoma evacuation). Conclusion: Permanent 125 iodine implants in selected patients with recurrent malignant gliomas are associated with reasonable long-term survival and a low risk of complications. Given the low incidence of radiation necrosis, future plans are to increase dose rate and/or total dose delivered with the permanent implant.

It has long been standard practice in radiation oncology to report internally when a patient’s treatment has not gone as planned and to report events to regulatory agencies when legally required. Most potential errors are caught early and never affect the patient. Quality assurance steps routinely prevent errors from reaching the patient, and these “near misses” are much more frequent than treatment errors. A growing number of radiation oncology facilities have implemented incident learning systems to report and analyze both errors and near misses. Using the term “incident learning” instead of “event reporting” emphasizes the need to use these experiences to change the practice and make future errors less likely and promote an educational, non-punitive environment. There are challenges in making such a system practical and effective. Speakers from institutions of different sizes and practice environments will share their experiences on how to make such a system work and what benefits their clinics have accrued. Questions that will be addressed include: • How to create a system that is easy for front line staff to access • How to motivate staff to report • How to promote the system as positive and educational and not punitive or demeaning • How to organize the team for reviewing and responding to reports • How to prioritize which reports to discuss in depth • How not to dismiss the rest • How to identify underlying causes • How to design corrective actions and implement change • How to develop useful statistics and analysis tools • How to coordinate a departmental system with a larger risk management system • How to do this without a dedicated quality manager Some speakers’ experience is with in-house systems and some will share experience with the AAPM/ASTRO national Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). Reports intended to be of value nationally need to be comprehensible to outsiders; examples of useful reports will be shown. There will be ample time set aside for audience members to contribute to the discussion. Learning Objectives: 1. Learn how to promote the use of an incident learning system in a clinic. 2. Learn how to convert “event reporting” into “incident learning”. 3. See examples of practice changes that have come out of learning systems. 4. Learn how the RO-ILS system can be used as a primary internal learning system. 5. Learn how to create succinct, meaningful reports useful to outside readers. Gary Ezzell chairs the AAPM committee overseeing RO-ILS and has received an honorarium from ASTRO for working on the committee reviewing RO-ILS reports. Derek Brown is a director of TreatSafely.org . Brett Miller has previously received travel expenses and an honorarium from Varian. Phillip Beron has nothing to report.

This paper describes in detail the setup of breast irradiation using an isocentric tangential technique. This setup method does not require any special devices or calculations beyond simple arithmetic. We will discuss some of the practical problems and pitfalls that result from the oblique incidence of the radiation beams and the slope of the chest wall and provide possible solutions.

We evaluate long-term disease control and chronic toxicities observed in patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.A total of 302 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy between July 2000 and May 2005 were retrospectively analyzed. Risk groups (low, intermediate and high) were designated based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Biochemical control was based on the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (Phoenix) consensus definition. Chronic toxicity was measured at peak symptoms and at last visit. Toxicity was scored based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.The median radiation dose delivered was 75.6 Gy (range 70.2 to 77.4) and 35.4% of patients received androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were followed until death or from 6 to 138 months (median 91) for those alive at last evaluation. Local and distant recurrence rates were 5% and 8.6%, respectively. At 9 years biochemical control rates were 77.4% for low risk, 69.6% for intermediate risk and 53.3% for high risk cases (log rank p = 0.05). On multivariate analysis T stage and prostate specific antigen group were prognostic for biochemical control. At last followup only 0% and 0.7% of patients had persistent grade 3 or greater gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, respectively. High risk group was associated with higher distant metastasis rate (p = 0.02) and death from prostate cancer (p = 0.0012).This study represents one of the longest experiences with intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. With a median followup of 91 months, intensity modulated radiation therapy resulted in durable biochemical control rates with low chronic toxicity.

Purpose To evaluate, in a prospective study, the use of 111 In–capromab pendetide (ProstaScint) scan to guide the delivery of a concomitant boost to intraprostatic region showing increased uptake while treating the entire gland with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials From September 2002 to November 2005, 71 patients were enrolled. Planning pelvic CT and 111 In–capromab pendetide scan images were coregistered. The entire prostate gland received 75.6 Gy/42 fractions, whereas areas of increased uptake in 111 In–capromab pendetide scan received 82 Gy. For patients with T3/T4 disease, or Gleason score ≥8, or prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/mL, 12 months of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was given. In January 2005 the protocol was modified to give 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to patients with a prostate-specific antigen level of 10–20 ng/mL or Gleason 7 disease. Results Thirty-one patients had low-risk, 30 had intermediate-risk, and 10 had high-risk disease. With a median follow-up of 66 months, the 5-year biochemical control rates were 94% for the entire cohort and 97%, 93%, and 90% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Maximum acute and late urinary toxicities were Grade 2 for 38 patients (54%) and 28 patients (39%) and Grade 3 for 1 and 3 patients (4%), respectively. One patient had Grade 4 hematuria. Maximum acute and late gastrointestinal toxicities were Grade 2 for 32 patients (45%) and 15 patients (21%), respectively. Most of the side effects improved with longer follow-up. Conclusion Concomitant boost to areas showing increased uptake in 111 In–capromab pendetide scan to 82 Gy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy while the entire prostate received 75.6 Gy was feasible and tolerable, with 94% biochemical control rate at 5 years.

BACKGROUND: In the current study, the effects of dose escalation for localized prostate cancer treatment with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or permanent transperineal brachytherapy (BRT) in comparison with conventional dose 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) were evaluated. METHODS: This study included 853 patients; 270 received conventional dose 3D-CRT, 314 received high-dose IMRT, 225 received BRT, and 44 received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) + BRT boost. The median radiation doses were 68.4 grays (Gy) for 3D-CRT and 75.6 Gy for IMRT. BRT patients received a prescribed dose of 144 Gy with iodine-125 (I-125) or 120 Gy with palladium-103 (Pd-103), respectively. Patients treated with EBRT + BRT received 45 Gy of EBRT plus a boost of 110 Gy with I-125 or 90 Gy with Pd-103. Risk group categories were low risk (T1-T2 disease, prostate-specific antigen level ≤10 ng/mL, and a Gleason score ≤6), intermediate risk (increase in value of 1 of the factors), and high risk (increase in value of ≥2 factors). RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 58 months, the 5-year biochemical control (bNED) rates were 74% for 3D-CRT, 87% for IMRT, 94% for BRT, and 94% for EBRT + BRT (P

Have a question about RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System™, or interested in learning more? Sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and AAPM, RO-ILS is the only medical specialty society-sponsored incident learning system for radiation oncology. It facilitates safer and higher quality care in radiation oncology by providing a mechanism for shared learning in a secure and non-punitive environment. Please join our RO-ILS experts for a question and answer session on Wednesday, July 15th at 8:30 in the Partners in Solutions Room in Exhibit Hall C. Our experts include: Gary Ezzell, PhD, Mayo Clinic Arizona, [Brett Miller, Phillip Beron, and Derek Brown], Emily Sanscrainte from Clarity PSO and Cindy Tomlinson, MPP, ASTRO.

Purpose: Lack of plan robustness may contribute to local failure in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to treat head and neck (H&N) cancer. Thus we compared plan robustness of VMAT with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods: VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 HN (2) dose-volume histograms (DVHs) band (DVHB); and (3) root-mean-square-dose deviation (RMSD) volume histogram (DDVH). DDVH represents the relative volume (y) on the vertical axis and the RMSD (x) on the horizontal axis. Similar to DVH, this means that y% of the volume of the indicated structure has the RMSD at least x Gy[RBE].The width from the first two methods at different target DVH indices (such as D95 and D5) and the area under the DDVH curves (AUC) for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. In these robustness quantification tools, the smaller the value, the more robust the plan is. Plan robustness evaluation metrics were compared using Wilcoxon test. Results: DVHB showed the width at D95 from IMRT to be larger than from VMAT (unit Gy) [1.59 vs 1.18 (p=0.49)], while the width at D5 from IMRT was found to be slightly larger than from VMAT [0.59 vs 0.54 (p=0.84)]. WCA showed similar results [D95: 3.28 vs 3.00 (p=0.56); D5: 1.68 vs 1.95 (p=0.23)]. DDVH showed the AUC from IMRT to be slightly smaller than from VMAT [1.13 vs 1.15 (p=0.43)]. Conclusion: VMAT plan robustness is comparable to IMRT plan robustness. The plan robustness conclusions from WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter dependent. On the other hand DDVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties on the dose to a volume of interest. NIH/NCI K25CA168984; Eagles Cancer Research Career Development; The Lawrence W. and Marilyn W. Matteson Fund for Cancer Research Mayo ASU Seed Grant; The Kemper Marley Foundation

This study was performed to examine potential field arrangements for irradiating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) on a dose escalation study. An example patient was chosen and 7 coplanar treatment plans were created to treat a NSCLC. Two plans included prophylactic nodal irradiation (PNRT) and 5 did not. Four plans used 4 fields, 2 plans used 5 fields, and 1 plan included dynamic conformal 360 degrees rotational therapy. All plans delivered 80 Gy to the isocenter with 10-MV x-rays. Each plan was initially created without dose inhomogeneity corrections and then was recalculated with these corrections, maintaining the same weighting and number of monitor units. Avoiding PNRT spared a considerable volume of normal tissue from radiation. Plans with 5 fields generally spared normal tissues better than 4-field plans. There was no benefit to the dynamic conformal 360 degrees rotational plan. Inhomogeneity corrections revealed that higher doses were delivered to both the tumor and normal structures. Seven beam arrangements for the treatment of NSCLC were compared to develop potential beam arrangements that would be applicable to treating NSCLC on a multi-institutional dose escalation study. We favor the use of at least 5 beams in most situations. It is possible that the use of more fields would further improve plans up to a point of diminishing returns, as exemplified by the lack of benefit seen with the dynamic conformal 360 degrees rotational plan. It is possible that the use of noncoplanar fields or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) may further improve the therapeutic ratio.

Clinical radiotherapy data clearly demonstrate the link between the quality and safety of radiation treatments and the outcome for patients. The medical physicist plays an essential role in this process. To ensure the highest quality treatments, the medical physicist must understand and employ modern quality improvement techniques. This extends well beyond the duties traditionally associated with prescriptive QA measures. This session will review the current best practices for improving quality and safety in radiation therapy. General elements of quality management will be reviewed including: what makes a good quality management structure, the use of prospective risk analysis such as FMEA, and the use of incident learning. All of these practices are recommended in society-level documents and are incorporated into the new Practice Accreditation program developed by ASTRO. To be effective, however, these techniques must be practical in a resource-limited environment. This session will therefore focus on practical tools such as the newly-released radiation oncology incident learning system, RO-ILS, supported by AAPM and ASTRO. With these general constructs in mind, a case study will be presented of quality management in an SBRT service. An example FMEA risk assessment will be presented along with incident learning examples including root cause analysis. As the physicist's role as “quality officer” continues to evolve it will be essential to understand and employ the most effective techniques for quality improvement. This session will provide a concrete overview of the fundamentals in quality and safety. Learning Objectives: 1. Recognize the essential elements of a good quality management system in radiotherapy. 2. Understand the value of incident learning and the AAPM/ASTRO ROILS incident learning system. 3. Appreciate failure mode and effects analysis as a risk assessment tool and its use in resource-limited environments. 4. Understand the fundamental principles of good error proofing that extends beyond traditional prescriptive QA measures.

The performance of an automated treatment planning algorithm was tested using cases of patients with pancreatic carcinoma; the system implements optimization tools that suggest high-quality plans for consideration by the planner and physician, making best use of the capabilities of a conventional linear accelerator: isocentric setup, shaped fields, and wedges. Ten consecutive patients presenting with pancreatic cancer were first planned using a conventional 3-field protocol to provide a basis for comparison. Each was then planned using an automated optimization technique using a genetic algorithm and a dose-based score function subject to volume-dose constraints. Two sets of optimized plans were created, 1 using only axial beams and the other permitting non-axial beams. The improvement afforded by the optimization was assessed by comparing the score function results and by computing the combined normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for a constant isocenter dose. In all 10 cases, optimization improved the dose-based score function. In 9 cases, the non-axial plan scored higher than the axial plan. Optimization driven by the dose-based score function improved or equaled the predicted NTCP in 8 axial and 9 nonaxial plans. This study demonstrates progress toward the goal of developing an automated planning tool that can robustly suggest high-quality plans.

It is useful to expedite high dose rate brachytherapy endobronchial treatments by using standardized dwell weights and worksheets, avoiding computerized planning where possible. Such methods assume the treatment catheter is straight. This study uses inverse-square considerations to quantify the curvature that invalidates the straight-line approximation. The ratio of the distance between end dwell positions and the active length can be used as a measure of the curvature. The variation in mean dose and maximum dose at the prescription points is presented as a function of active length and curvature, allowing the planner to determine quickly when a pre-treatment computer plan is necessary.

Incident learning is a key tool for improving the quality and safety of procedures. Its use has been linked to better patient‐safety outcomes. This session is designed to provide practical advice to the clinical medical physicist on how to run a successful incident learning system in radiation oncology. The session will draw on engaging examples from clinical practice and will focus on the relevance to smaller clinics. The session will include a presentation from a leading physician on clinical perspectives on quality and safety improvement. The session will also introduce the new national incident reporting system being developed by AAPM and ASTRO. This program employs the Patient Safety Organization (PSO) structure. The concept and structure of the PSO system will be discussed by an expert in the field. Learning Objectives: 1. Appreciate the value of incident learning for improving patient safety 2. Understand the difference between incident learning at the institutional level vs. the national level, and recognize the issues unique to each 3. Learn about the new national radiation oncology incident learning system developed by AAPM and ASTRO

Come on down! This symposium adopts the format and excitement of a television game show to highlight important and contemporary issues in the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. Hosted by Dr. Kessler and moderated by our President Elect Dr. Bayouth, two teams of physicists captained by our President Dr. Hazle and Chair of the Board Dr. Ezzell will vie for supremacy in debate, trivia, and audience participation. Questions will test the mental mettle of the teams and audience alike on topics ranging from physics fundamentals to the cutting edge, along with debates drawn from the Point‐Counterpoint series in the Medical Physics Journal. Audience participation is an important part of the symposium, so be sure to bring an Audience Response Unit (ARU) if you have one. Everyone will be a winner!