Low-Dose Image-Guided Pediatric CNS Radiation Therapy: Final Analysis From a Prospective Low-Dose Cone-Beam CT Protocol From a Multinational Pediatrics Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Lower-dose cone-beam computed tomography protocols for image-guided radiotherapy may permit target localization while minimizing radiation exposure. We prospectively evaluated a lower-dose cone-beam protocol for central nervous system image-guided radiotherapy across a multinational pediatrics consortium. METHODS: Seven institutions prospectively employed a lower-dose cone-beam computed tomography central nervous system protocol (weighted average dose 0.7 mGy) for patients ≤21 years. Treatment table shifts between setup with surface lasers versus cone-beam computed tomography were used to approximate setup accuracy, and vector magnitudes for these shifts were calculated. Setup group mean, interpatient, interinstitution, and random error were estimated, and clinical factors were compared by mixed linear modeling. RESULTS: Among 96 patients, with 2179 pretreatment cone-beam computed tomography acquisitions, median age was 9 years (1-20). Setup parameters were 3.13, 3.02, 1.64, and 1.48 mm for vector magnitude group mean, interpatient, interinstitution, and random error, respectively. On multivariable analysis, there were no significant differences in mean vector magnitude by age, gender, performance status, target location, extent of resection, chemotherapy, or steroid or anesthesia use. Providers rated >99% of images as adequate or better for target localization. CONCLUSIONS: A lower-dose cone-beam computed tomography protocol demonstrated table shift vector magnitude that approximate clinical target volume/planning target volume expansions used in central nervous system radiotherapy. There were no significant clinical predictors of setup accuracy identified, supporting use of this lower-dose cone-beam computed tomography protocol across a diverse pediatric population with brain tumors.

Physician attitudes and practices related to voluntary error and near-miss reporting.

PURPOSE: Incident learning systems are important tools to improve patient safety in radiation oncology, but physician participation in these systems is poor. To understand reporting practices and attitudes, a survey was sent to staff members of four large academic radiation oncology centers, all of which have in-house reporting systems. METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained to send a survey to employees including physicians, dosimetrists, nurses, physicists, and radiation therapists. The survey evaluated barriers to reporting, perceptions of errors, and reporting practices. The responses of physicians were compared with those of other professional groups. RESULTS: There were 274 respondents to the survey, with a response rate of 81.3%. Physicians and other staff agreed that errors and near-misses were happening in their clinics (93.8% v 88.7%, respectively) and that they have a responsibility to report (97% overall). Physicians were significantly less likely to report minor near-misses (P = .001) and minor errors (P = .024) than other groups. Physicians were significantly more concerned about getting colleagues in trouble (P = .015), liability (P = .009), effect on departmental reputation (P = .006), and embarrassment (P < .001) than their colleagues. Regression analysis identified embarrassment among physicians as a critical barrier. If not embarrassed, participants were 2.5 and 4.5 times more likely to report minor errors and major near-miss events, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All members of the radiation oncology team observe errors and near-misses. Physicians, however, are significantly less likely to report events than other colleagues. There are important, specific barriers to physician reporting that need to be addressed to encourage reporting and create a fair culture around reporting.

Measurement of superficial dose from a static tomotherapy beam.

Superficial doses were measured for static TomoTherapy Hi-Art beams for normal and oblique incidence. Dose was measured at depths < or = 2 cm along the central axis of 40 x 5 cm2 and 40 x 2.5 cm2 beams at normal incidence for source to detector distances (SDDs) of 55, 70, and 85 cm. Measurements were also made at depths normal to the phantom surface for the same beams at oblique angles of 30 degrees, 45 degrees, 60 degrees, 75 degrees, and 83 degrees from the normal. Data were collected with a Gammex/RMI model 449 parallel-plate chamber embedded in a solid water phantom and with LiF thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) in the form of powder. For comparison, measurements were made on a conventional 6 MV beam (Varian Clinac 2100C) at normal incidence and at an oblique angle of 60 degrees from the normal. TomoTherapy surface dose varied with the distance from the source and the angle of incidence. For normal incidence, surface dose increased from 0.16 to 0.43 cGy/MU as the distance from the source decreased from 85 to 55 cm for the 40 x 5 cm2 field and increased from 0.12 to 0.32 cGy/MU for the 40 x 2.5 cm2 field. As the angle of incidence increased from 0 degrees to 83 degrees, surface dose increased from 0.24 to 0.63 cGy/MU for the 40 x 5 cm2 field and from 0.18 to 0.58 cGy/MU for the 40 x 2.5 cm2 field. For normal incidence at 55 cm SDD, the surface dose relative to the dose at d(max) for the 40 x 5 cm2 TomoTherapy Hi-Art beam was 31% less than that from a conventional, flattening filter based linear accelerator. These data should prove useful in accessing the accuracy of the TomoTherapy treatment planning system to predict the dose at superficial depths for a static beam delivery.