Identifying risk characteristics using failure mode and effect analysis for risk management in online magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiation therapy.

Background and purpose: Online magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART) is a new technology of radiotherapy and requires a new quality control program in many aspects. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of risks in online MRgART through the application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) for more enhanced and effective quality assurance (QA) programs. Materials and methods: We present an FMEA conducted by a multidisciplinary team with more than two years of experience. A process map describing the whole process of online MRgART was developed and potential failure modes were identified. High-risk failure modes and their potential causes and corrective measures were also identified. Failure modes were classified into three categories, MRgRT, online ART, and conventional RT, to investigate their features. A comparison with previous studies was also conducted to gain a general perspective. Results: In total, 153 failure modes and 49 high risks were identified. Among all failure modes, 51, 63, and 66 were related to MRgRT, online ART, and conventional RT, respectively. The hazardous processes were structure segmentation, treatment planning, and treatment beam delivery. Lists of failure modes identified in this study and previous studies were presented. Based on the results, characteristics and general aspects of the risks were discussed. Conclusion: Exploring the results of the FMEA enhanced our understanding of risk characteristics to improve QA program of online MRgART.

Monte Carlo simulation of tilted contact plaque brachytherapy placement for juxtapapillary retinoblastoma.

BACKGROUND: The 106-Ruthenium contact plaque applicator is utilized for the treatment of intraocular tumor within a thickness of less than 6 mm. If anything obstructs the placement of the plaque applicator, the treatment is generally difficult because the applicator has to be temporarily located just on the opposite side of the retinal tumor. Furthermore, the plaque applicator edge of approximately 1 mm does not contain 106Ru, estimating the delivered radiation dose for eccentric tumor is challenging because the lateral dose profile is inadequately provided by the manufacture's certification. This study aims to simulate tumor coverage of the tilted applicator placement for treating an infant with juxtapapillary retinoblastoma and to achieve the effective treatment. CASE PRESENTATION: We present an infant with retinoblastoma whose tumor involved macular and was invading just temporal side of the optic disc. Additionally, posterior staphyloma was induced by a series of previous treatments, making it more difficult to treat the standard plaque placement. Thus, the applicator type of CCA was intentionally tilted to the eyeball and the distance between the posterior edge of the applicator and the eyeball had to be then equal to or more than 2 mm based on the dose distribution of the applicator calculated using Monte Carlo simulation to minimize damage to surrounding tissues while covering the tumor. It was then comparable to the certification and previous reports. Based on the acquired dose distribution, the optimal placement of the applicator was derived from varying the distance between the applicator's edge and the eyeball, and the distance was then determined to be 2 mm. In this case, the minimum dose rate in the tumor was 25.5 mGy/min, and the time required to deliver the prescribed dose was 26.2 h. Therefore, the tilted 106Ru plaque applicator placement could deliver the required dose for the treatment. The physical examination revealed no active tumor as a result of the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing the placement of the 106Ru plaque applicator, it was possible to guarantee that the prescribed dose will be delivered to the tumor even if the standard placement is not possible for the juxtapapillary tumor.

Performance of a newly designed end-to-end phantom compatible with magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy systems.

PURPOSE: In this study, we report on our proposed phantom based on the new end-to-end (E2E) methodology and its results. In addition, we verify whether the proposed phantom can replace conventional phantoms. METHODS: The hexagonal-shaped newly designed phantom has pockets on each side for a film dosimeter of size 80 × 90 mm2 , which is easily removable, considering the 60 Co penumbra. The new phantom comprises water, shell, and auxiliary shell phantoms. The shell and auxiliary shell materials are Solid Water HE. A mock tumor (aluminum oxide) was attached by a single prop in the water phantom and placed at the center of the new phantom. The results of a conventional E2E test were compared with those of the novel E2E test using the newly designed phantom. The irradiated film dosimeter in the novel E2E test was scanned in a flatbed scanner and analyzed using an in-house software developed with MATLAB. The irradiated field center, laser center, and mock tumor center were calculated. In the novel image-matching E2E (IM-E2E) test, image matching is performed by aligning the laser center with ruled lines. In the novel irradiation-field E2E (IF-E2E) test, the displacement of the irradiation-field center was defined as its distance from the laser center. In the composite E2E test, the overall displacement, which included the accuracy of the irradiated field and image matching, was defined as the distance between the irradiated field center and mock tumor center. In addition, using the newly designed phantom, the overall irradiation accuracy of the machine was evaluated by calculating the three-dimensional (3D) center of the irradiated field, phantom, and laser. The composite E2E test could be performed using the newly designed phantom only. RESULTS: In the IM-E2E test, the results of the conventional and novel IM-E2E tests were significantly different in each direction (left-right direction: p-value < < 0.05, anterior-posterior direction: p-value = 0.002, and superior-inferior direction: p-value = 0.002). The displacement directions were the same in both the conventional and novel IM-E2E tests. In the analysis of the IF-E2E test, no significant difference was evident between the results in each direction. Moreover, the displacement directions were the same in the conventional and novel IF-E2E tests, except for the left-right lateral direction of head three. In addition, the 3D analysis results of the novel IF-E2E test were less than 1 mm in all directions. In the analysis of the composite E2E test, the maximum displacement was 1.4 mm in all directions. In addition, almost all results of 3D analysis for the composite E2E test were less than 1 mm in all directions. CONCLUSION: The newly designed E2E phantom simplifies the E2E test for MRIdian, and is a possible alternative to the conventional E2E test. Furthermore, we can perform the previously unfeasible composite E2E tests that include the entire treatment process.

Dosimetric effect of the intestinal gas of online adaptive stereotactic body radiotherapy on target and critical organs without online electron density correction for pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the dosimetric effect of intestinal gas of stereotactic magnetic resonance (MR)-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) on target and critical organs for pancreatic cancer without online electron density correction (EDC). METHODS: Thirty pancreatic cancer patients who underwent online SMART were selected for this study. The treatment time of each stage and the total treatment time were recorded and analyzed. The concerned dose-volume parameters of target and organs-at-risk (OAR) were compared with and without an intestinal gas EDC using the Wilcoxon-signed rank test. Analysis items with p value < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The relationships between dosimetric differences and intestinal gas volume variations were investigated using the Spearman test. RESULTS: The average treatment time was 82 min, and the average EDC time was 8 min, which accounted for 10% of the overall treatment time. There were no significant differences in CTV (GTV), PTV, bowel, stomach, duodenum, and skin (p > 0.05) with respect to dose volume parameters. For the Dmax of gastrointestinal organs (p = 0.03), the mean dose of the liver (p = 0.002) and kidneys (p = 0.03 and p = 0.04 for the left and right kidneys, respectively), there may be a risk of slight overestimation compared with EDC, and for the Dmax of the spinal cord (p = 0.02), there may be a risk of slight underestimation compared with EDC. A weak correlation for D95 in the PTV and D0.5 cc in the duodenum was observed. CONCLUSION: For patients with similar inter-fractional intestinal gas distribution, EDC had little dosimetric effects on the D0.5 cc of all GI organs and dose volume parameters of target in most plans. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: By omitting the EDC of intestinal gas, the online SMART treatment time can be shortened.