Search

A successful proton beam therapy (PBT) center relies heavily on the proper function and maintenance of a proton beam therapy machine. However, when a PBT machine is non-operational, a proton facility is hindered with delays that can potentially lead to inferior treatment outcome due to treatment interruption. This article reports a viable solution for a photon back-up plan in a proton down event.The implementation of a workflow for which proton plans are converted to photon plans so that patients can be treated using photons has been a successful strategy to reduce delays and mitigate its effect on patient care. This workflow was established through collaboration of physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, therapists, nurses, and schedulers.A tiered system established by disease site, number of fractions, and individualized circumstances is used to prioritize patients. Proton-photon backup planning strategy and physics check details were described. This article provides an overview of workflow of conversion of PBT to photon when the PBT machine is down. Specific needs of patients undergoing proton beam therapy are addressed.

Purpose: To assess the efficacy of placing a polyethylene glycol (PEG) spacing hydrogel in patients undergoing proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. This study also aims to assess the effect on rectal radiation dose of prostate–rectum separation in various anatomic planes. Methods and Materials: Seventy-two consecutive prostate cancer patients undergoing conventionally fractionated pencil beam scanning proton radiation therapy with and without hydrogel placement were compared. Magnetic resonance images taken after hydrogel placement measured prostate–rectum separation and were correlated to rectal dosing and rectal toxicity. Univariate analysis of clinical variables and radiation dosing was conducted using nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test with continuity correction between groups (hydrogel spacer vs controls). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient assessed relationships between the various anatomic dimensions of perirectal space and rectal radiation dosing. Results: Fifty-one patients had hydrogel placement before therapy and 21 did not. There was a 42.2% reduction in rectal dosing (mL3 rectum) in hydrogel patients (P

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.

Since the advent of the AAPM Medical Physics 3.0 Initiative, AAPM has been focused on how physicists can bring additional value to their respective organizations. This could be as simple as new approaches to QA procedures or as complex as expanding greatly beyond our traditional roles in the clinic. As recently highlighted in the Medical Physics Leadership Academy Journal Club, the Arbinger Institute teaches leadership, change management, and conflict resolution among other skills. This meshes well with the MPLA Journal Club mission of teaching Influencing, Conflict Management, Adaptability, Initiative, and Self Confidence. In their seminal book Leadership and Self‐Deception, they teach how to navigate these challenges through a unique narrative format. Other books (Dare to Lead, Smarter Faster Better, Turn the Ship Around) also help teach critical leadership skills, but Leadership and Self‐Deception lays an excellent foundation to be expanded on with further reading and exploration.

Purpose Custom-fabricated lead shields are often used for superficial radiation treatments to reduce radiation doses to adjacent healthy tissue. However, the process for fabricating these lead shields is time consuming, labor intensive, and uncomfortable for patients. Alternatively, patient-specific shields can be 3-dimensionally (3D) printed from a high-density bronze-based filament to address these concerns. This study was performed to assess the shielding characteristics of 3D-printed bronze (3DPB) shields, demonstrate their clinical viability, and report the first ever published case of a patient treated with a 3DPB shield. Methods and Materials The transmission of 6 and 9 MeV electron beams through varying thicknesses of 3DPB was first measured. Percent depth doses and beam profiles were measured with flat 3DPB shields and equivalent lead shields to determine surface dose enhancement, output factors, and field widths. Two 3DPB shields were designed and fabricated for an anthropomorphic phantom, and phantom measurements were performed using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters and film. Finally, 3DPB shields were used during the treatment of 7 patients' skin lesions. Results Ten and 15 mm of 3DPB were sufficient to shield 6 and 9 MeV electrons, respectively, by 95%. The 3DPB and lead shields had nearly identical beam widths (within 1%). Output factors were on average within 0.8% for bronze shields and 1.2% for lead shields relative to an unshielded field. The skin enhancement for bronze was higher than for lead by an average of 6.3%. Phantom measurements using 3DPB shields generally showed less than 3% transmission of the primary beam under the 3DPB shield. The patients' shields fit as designed and were all deemed clinically acceptable by their physicians. Conclusions The 3DPB shields fit better than lead shields, are easier to design and manufacture, and have similar dosimetric properties. 3DPB shields are a viable clinical option for patient-specific superficial shielding.