Medical Physics Leadership Academy Journal Club (Leadership Club) program: Two-year review in building a community of leaders.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine began the Medical Physics Leadership Academy Journal Club in the fall of 2020. The initiative was launched to provide a forum for medical physicists to learn about leadership topics using published material, discuss and reflect on the material, and consider incorporating the discussed skills into their professional practice. This report presents the framework for the MPLA Journal Club program, describes the lessons learned over the last 2 years, summarizes the data collected from attendees, and highlights the roadmap for the program moving forward.

Differences in the Patterns of Failure Between IROC Lung and Spine Phantom Irradiations.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to investigate and classify the reasons why institutions fail the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) spine and moving lung phantoms, which are used to credential institutions for clinical trial participation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All IROC moving lung and SBRT spine phantom irradiation failures recorded from January 2012 to December 2018 were evaluated in this study. A failure was a case where the institution did not meet the established IROC criteria for agreement between planned and delivered dose. We analyzed the reports for all failing irradiations, including point dose disagreement, dose profiles, and gamma analyses. Classes of failure patterns were created and used to categorize each instance. RESULTS: There were 158 failing cases analyzed: 116 of 1052 total lung irradiations and 42 of 263 total spine irradiations. Seven categories were required to describe the lung phantom failures, whereas 4 were required for the spine. Types of errors present in both phantom groups included systematic dose and localization errors. Fifty percent of lung failures were due to a superior-inferior localization error, that is, error in the direction of major motion. Systematic dose errors, however, contributed to only 22% of lung failures. In contrast, the majority (60%) of spine phantom failures were due to systematic dose errors, with localization errors (in any direction) accounting for only 14% of failures. CONCLUSIONS: There were 2 distinct patterns of failure between the IROC moving lung and SBRT spine phantoms. The majority of the lung phantom failures were due to localization errors, whereas the spine phantom failures were largely attributed to systematic dose errors. Both of these errors are clinically relevant and could manifest as errors in patient cases. These findings highlight the value of independent end-to-end dosimetry audits and can help guide the community in improving the quality of radiation therapy by focusing attention on where errors manifest in the community.

Dose calculation errors as a component of failing IROC lung and spine phantom irradiations.

PURPOSE: Between July 2013 and August 2019, 22% of the imaging and radiation oncology core (IROC) spine, and 15% of the moving lung phantom irradiations have failed to meet established acceptability criteria. The spine phantom simulates a highly modulated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) case, whereas the lung phantom represents a low-to-none modulation moving target case. In this study, we assessed the contribution of dose calculation errors to these phantom results and evaluated their effects on failure rates. METHODS: We evaluated dose calculation errors by comparing the calculation accuracy of various institutions' treatment planning systems (TPSs) vs IROC-Houston's previously established independent dose recalculation system (DRS). Each calculation was compared with the measured dose actually delivered to the phantom; cases in which the recalculation was more accurate were interpreted as a deficiency in the institution's TPS. A total of 258 phantom irradiation plans (172 lung and 86 spine) were recomputed. RESULTS: Overall, the DRS performed better than the TPSs in 47% of the spine phantom cases. However, the DRS was more accurate in 93% of failing spine phantom cases (with an average improvement of 2.35%), indicating a deficiency in the institution's treatment planning system. Deficiencies in dose calculation accounted for 60% of the overall discrepancy between measured and planned doses among spine phantoms. In contrast, lung phantom DRS calculations were more accurate in only 35% and 42% of all and failing lung phantom cases respectively, indicating that dose calculation errors were not substantially present. These errors accounted for only 30% of the overall discrepancy between measured and planned doses. CONCLUSIONS: Dose calculation errors are common and substantial in IROC spine phantom irradiations, highlighting a major failure mode in this phantom and in clinical treatment management of these cases. In contrast, dose calculation accuracy had only a minimal contribution to failing lung phantom results, indicating that other failure modes drive problems with this phantom and similar clinical treatments.

Standardization and automation of quality assurance for high-dose-rate brachytherapy planning with application programming interface.

PURPOSE: To standardize and automate the high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy planning quality assurance (QA) process utilizing scripting with application programming interface (API) in a commercially available treatment planning system (TPS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Site- and applicator-dependent plan quality (PQ) evaluation criteria and plan integrity (PI) checklists were established based on published guidelines, clinical protocols, and institutional experience. User designed C# programs ("scripts") were created and executed through the API to access planning information in TPS. A set of standardized quality control reports, focusing on PQ evaluations and PI checks, were automatically generated. Information derived from the TPS was compared against predetermined QA metrics with color-coded pass/fail indicators to aid and enhance the efficiency of plan evaluation. Five independent, blinded observers reviewed mock plans with simulated errors to validate the scripts and to quantify the improvement of plan review efficiency. RESULTS: Scripts were developed for HDR prostate and breast. Forty-one parameters were reported/checked in the PI report; the PQ report returned dose-volume indices and an independent check of dwell time. All simulated errors were detected by the PI scripts with appropriate warning messages displayed, and any values failing to meet the planning constraints were red-flagged successfully in the PQ report. An average time reduction of 16 min for plan review was observed when using the scripts. CONCLUSIONS: API scripting-based automated planning QA for HDR brachytherapy including PI checks and PQ evaluations was designed and implemented. The simulated error study showed promising results in terms of error catching and efficiency improvement.

A snapshot of medical physics practice patterns.

A large number of surveys have been sent to the medical physics community addressing many clinical topics for which the medical physicist is, or may be, responsible. Each survey provides an insight into clinical practice relevant to the medical physics community. The goal of this study was to create a summary of these surveys giving a snapshot of clinical practice patterns. Surveys used in this study were created using SurveyMonkey and distributed between February 6, 2013 and January 2, 2018 via the MEDPHYS and MEDDOS listserv groups. The format of the surveys included questions that were multiple choice and free response. Surveys were included in this analysis if they met the following criteria: more than 20 responses, relevant to radiation therapy physics practice, not single-vendor specific, and formatted as multiple-choice questions (i.e., not exclusively free-text responses). Although the results of free response questions were not explicitly reported, they were carefully reviewed, and the responses were considered in the discussion of each topic. Two-hundred and fifty-two surveys were available, of which 139 passed the inclusion criteria. The mean number of questions per survey was 4. The mean number of respondents per survey was 63. Summaries were made for the following topics: simulation, treatment planning, electron treatments, linac commissioning and quality assurance, setup and treatment verification, IMRT and VMAT treatments, SRS/SBRT, breast treatments, prostate treatments, brachytherapy, TBI, facial lesion treatments, clinical workflow, and after-hours/emergent treatments. We have provided a coherent overview of medical physics practice according to surveys conducted over the last 5 yr, which will be instructive for medical physicists.