Structure and Processes of Existing Practice in Radiotherapy Peer Review: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Peer review in radiotherapy is an essential step in clinical quality assurance to avoid planning-related errors that can impact on patient safety and treatment outcomes. Despite recommendations that radiotherapy centres should include peer review in their regular quality assurance pathway, adoption of the practice has not been universal, and to date there have been no formal guidelines set out to standardise the process. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to determine existing practice in radiotherapy peer review internationally, with respect to meeting structure and processes, in order to define a standardised framework. A PubMed and Web of Science search identified 17 articles detailing peer review practice. The results revealed significant variation in peer review processes between institutions, and a lack of consensus on documentation and reporting. Variations in the grading of outcomes of peer review were also noted. Taking into account the results of this review, a framework for standardising the process and outcome documentation for peer review has been developed. This can be utilised by radiotherapy centres introducing or updating peer review practice, and can facilitate meaningful evaluation of the clinical impact of peer review in the future.

EPID-guided 3D dose verification of lung SBRT.

PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of utilizing tumor tracks from electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images taken during treatment to verify the delivered dose. METHODS: The proposed method is based on a computation of the delivered fluence by utilizing the planned fluence and the tumor motion track for each field. A phantom study was designed to assess the feasibility of the method. The CIRS dynamic thorax phantom was utilized with a realistic soft resin tumor, modeled after a real patient tumor. The dose calculated with the proposed method was compared to direct measurements taken with 15 metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) inserted in small fissures made in the tumor model. The phantom was irradiated with the tumor static and moved with different range of motions and setup errors. EPID images were recorded throughout all deliveries and the tumor model was tracked post-treatment with in-house developed software. The planned fluence for each field was convolved with the tumor motion tracks to obtain the delivered fluence. Utilizing the delivered fluence from each field, the delivered dose was calculated. The estimated delivered dose was compared to the dose directly measured with the MOSFETs. The feasibility of the proposed method was also demonstrated on a real lung cancer patient, treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. RESULTS: The calculation of delivered dose with the delivered fluence method was in good agreement with the MOSFET measurements, with average differences ranging from 0.8% to 8.3% depending on the proximity of a dose gradient. For the patient treatment, the planned and delivered dose volume histograms were compared and verified the overall good coverage of the target volume. CONCLUSIONS: The delivered fluence method was applied successfully on phantom and clinical data and its accuracy was evaluated. Verifying each treatment fraction may enable correction strategies that can be applied during the course of treatment to ensure the desired dose coverage.

Options for combining altered fractionation with IMRT.

We set out to investigate IMRT-based concomitant boost. Eight patients with stage III/IV squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated with once daily with chemoradiotherapy at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Hospital had their treatment plans reviewed with IRB approval. Each case was replanned for treatment with a a concomitant boost regimen. Plans delivered 1.9 Gy in 30 fractions to 57 Gy with a boost of 1.5 Gy in 10 fractions for a total dose of 72 Gy. The boost was planned with both IMRT and 3-D conformal, to compare the two techniques. For each patient, both plans (IMRT-IMRT and IMRT-3DCRT) were evaluated for target and avoidance coverage, monitor units and integral dose. Finally, we evaluated the plans for time to completion. The IMRT-IMRT and IMRT-3-DCRT techniques were equivalent for target coverage. 100% coverage of the GTV and PTV was achieved with 97% of the prescription dose. Hot spots were seen 104% to 108% with IMRT-IMRT plan and from 102-111% with the IMRT-3DCRT plans. The IMRT-IMRT boost had double the monitor units as the 3-DCRT boosts. When the total monitor units from both the initial and boost portions of the plans were e combined there was not a significant difference. There was a slight increase in integral dose with the IMRT-IMRT plans of mean 3.8%. Planning time was increased for the 3-DCRT boost as opposed to the IMRT boost (mean 3.5 hours vs. 1.5 hours). More time was needed for quality assurance of the IMRT-IMRT plans (3.0 hours vs. 1.5 hours for IMRT-3-DCRT). We found that both IMRT-based concomitant-boost strategies are achievable and produce good dosimetric results.

A multiparameter optimization of digital mammography.

Multiparameter optimizations have been carried out for a wide range of digital mammography system configurations and requirements, with the aim of optimizing the image quality for a given patient dose. These conditions include a range of slot widths for scanning mammography systems, exposure times from 1 to 10 s, focal spot sizes from 80 to 800 microns, a range of detector resolutions and noise levels, dose restrictions, patient thicknesses and targets, and x-ray tube targets. The influences of these on the optimum system configuration in terms of tube potential, filtration, source to patient distance and target magnification are discussed. It is demonstrated that x-ray tube power constraints can significantly restrict the optimum magnification for slot scanning systems, with the result that poor-resolution detectors are not suited for use in a scanning configuration, and that large-focal-spot-good-detector resolution combinations are more suitable. The use of a detector with increased width, raised tube potential and reduced amount of added filtration is shown to be helpful in reducing x-ray tube power limitations. It is shown that, in many cases, correct optimization can bring the detail SNR for an examination using a given detector-x-ray tube configuration to within 10-15% of the SNR achieved with the optimum combination. This gives the designer some scope to consider other factors such as cost and the implications of image size on storage space.