Dose-rate considerations for the INTRABEAM electronic brachytherapy system: Report from the American association of physicists in medicine task group no. 292.

The purpose of this report is to provide detailed guidance on the dosimetry of the INTRABEAM® (Carl Zeiss Medical AG, Jena, Germany) electronic brachytherapy (eBT) system as it stands at the present time. This report has been developed by the members of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 292 and endorsed by the AAPM. Members of AAPM Task Group 292 on Electronic-Brachytherapy Dosimetry have reviewed pertinent publications and user manuals regarding the INTRABEAM system dosimetry and manufacturer-supplied dose calculation protocols. Formal written correspondence with Zeiss has also provided further clarification. Dose-rate calculations for the INTRABEAM system are highly dependent on choice of dosimetry protocol. Even with careful protocol selection, large uncertainties remain due to the incomplete characterization of the ionization chambers used for verification with respect to their energy dependence as well as manufacturing variations. There are two distinct sets of dose-rate data provided by Zeiss for the INTRABEAM system. One dataset (Calibration V4.0) is representative of the physical dose surrounding the source and the other dataset (TARGIT) has been adjusted to be consistent with a clinical trial named TARGIT (TARGeted Intraoperative RadioTherapy). The adjusted TARGIT doses are quite dissimilar to the physical doses, with differences ranging from 14% to 30% at the surface of a spherical applicator, depending on its diameter, and up to a factor of two at closer distances with the smaller needle applicators. In addition, ion chamber selection and associated manufacturing tolerances contribute to significant additional uncertainties. With these substantial differences in dose rates and their associated uncertainties, it is important for users to be aware of how each value is calculated and whether it is appropriate to be used for the intended treatment. If users intend to deliver doses that are the same as they were in 1998 at the onset of the TARGIT trial, then the TARGIT dose-rate tables should be used. The Calibration V4.0 dose rates may be more appropriate to use for applications other than TARGIT trial treatments, since they more closely represent the physical doses being delivered. Users should also be aware of the substantial uncertainties associated with the provided dose rates, which are due to beam hardening, chamber geometry, and selection of the point-of-measurement for a given ionization chamber. This report serves to describe the details and implications of the manufacturer-recommended dosimetry formalism for users of the INTRABEAM system.

Strategies for effective physics plan and chart review in radiation therapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 275.

BACKGROUND: While the review of radiotherapy treatment plans and charts by a medical physicist is a key component of safe, high-quality care, very few specific recommendations currently exist for this task. AIMS: The goal of TG-275 is to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations on physics plan and chart review for radiation therapy. While this report is aimed mainly at medical physicists, others may benefit including dosimetrists, radiation therapists, physicians and other professionals interested in quality management. METHODS: The scope of the report includes photon/electron external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), proton radiotherapy, as well as high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for gynecological applications (currently the highest volume brachytherapy service in most practices). The following review time points are considered: initial review prior to treatment, weekly review, and end-of-treatment review. The Task Group takes a risk-informed approach to developing recommendations. A failure mode and effects analysis was performed to determine the highest-risk aspects of each process. In the case of photon/electron EBRT, a survey of all American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members was also conducted to determine current practices. A draft of this report was provided to the full AAPM membership for comment through a 3-week open-comment period, and the report was revised in response to these comments. RESULTS: The highest-risk failure modes included 112 failure modes in photon/electron EBRT initial review, 55 in weekly and end-of-treatment review, 24 for initial review specific to proton therapy, and 48 in HDR brachytherapy. A 103-question survey on current practices was released to all AAPM members who self-reported as working in the radiation oncology field. The response rate was 33%. The survey data and risk data were used to inform recommendations. DISCUSSION: Tables of recommended checks are presented and recommendations for best practice are discussed. Suggestions to software vendors are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: TG-275 provides specific recommendations for physics plan and chart review which should enhance the safety and quality of care for patients receiving radiation treatments.