Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 11.a: Plan and chart review in external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy.

A therapeutic medical physicist is responsible for reviewing radiation therapy treatment plans and patient charts, including initial treatment plans and new chart review, on treatment chart (weekly) review, and end of treatment chart review for both external beam radiation and brachytherapy. Task group report TG 275 examined this topic using a risk-based approach to provide a thorough analysis and guidance for best practice. Considering differences in resources and workflows of various clinical practice settings, the Professional Council of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine assembled this task group to develop a practice guideline on the same topic to provide a minimum standard that balances an appropriate level of safety and resource utilization. This medical physics practice guidelines (MPPG) thus provides a concise set of recommendations for medical physicists and other clinical staff regarding the review of treatment plans and patient charts while providing specific recommendations about who to be involved, and when/what to check in the chart review process. The recommendations, particularly those related to the initial plan review process, are critical for preventing errors and ensuring smooth clinical workflow. We believe that an effective review process for high-risk items should include multiple layers with collective efforts across the department. Therefore, in this report, we make specific recommendations for various roles beyond medical physicists. The recommendations of this MPPG have been reviewed and endorsed by the American Society of Radiologic Technologists and the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

A novel method for radiotherapy patient identification using surface imaging.

Performing a procedure on the wrong patient or site is one of the greatest errors that can occur in medicine. The addition of automation has been shown to reduce errors in many processes. In this work we explore the use of an automated patient identification process using optical surface imaging for radiotherapy treatments. Surface imaging uses visible light to align the patient to a reference surface in the treatment room. It is possible to evaluate the similarity between a daily set-up surface image and the reference image using distance to agreement between the points on the two surfaces. The higher the percentage overlapping points within a defined distance, the more similar the surfaces. This similarity metric was used to intercompare 16 left-sided breast patients. The reference surface for each patient was compared to 10 daily treatment surfaces for the same patient, and 10 surfaces from each of the other 15 patients (for a total of 160 comparisons per patient), looking at the percent of points overlapping. For each patient, the minimum same-patient similarity score was higher than the maximum different-patient score. For the group as a whole a threshold was able to classify correct and incorrect patients with high levels of accuracy. A 10-fold cross-validation using linear discriminant analysis gave cross-validation loss of 0.0074. An automated process using surface imaging is a feasible option to provide nonharmful daily patient identification verification using currently available technology.

Surface imaging-based analysis of intrafraction motion for breast radiotherapy patients.

Breast treatments are becoming increasingly complex as the use of modulated and partial breast therapies becomes more prevalent. These methods are predicated on accurate and precise positioning for treatment. However, the ability to quantify intrafraction motion has been limited by the excessive dose that would result from continuous X-ray imaging throughout treatment. Recently, surface imaging has offered the opportunity to obtain 3D measurements of patient position throughout breast treatments without radiation exposure. Thirty free-breathing breast patients were monitored with surface imaging for 831 monitoring sessions. Mean translations and rotations were calculated over each minute, each session, and over all sessions combined. The percentage of each session that the root mean squares (RMS) of the linear translations were outside of defined tolerances was determined for each patient. Correlations between mean translations per minute and time, and between standard deviation per minute and time, were evaluated using Pearson's r value. The mean RMS translation averaged over all patients was 2.39 mm ± 1.88 mm. The patients spent an average of 34%, 17%, 9%, and 5% of the monitoring time outside of 2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm RMS tolerances, respectively. The RMS values averaged over all patients were 2.71 mm ± 1.83 mm, 2.76 ± 2.27, and 2.98 mm ± 2.30 mm over the 5th, 10th, and 15th minutes of monitoring, respectively. The RMS values (r = 0.73, p = 0) and standard deviations (r = 0.88, p = 0) over all patients showed strong significant correlations with time. We see that the majority of patients' treatment time is spent within 5 mm of the isocenter and that patient position drifts with increasing treatment time. Treatment length should be consid- ered in the planning process. An 8 mm margin on a target volume would account for 2 SDs of motion for a treatment up to 15 minutes in length. 

On the validity of density overrides for VMAT lung SBRT planning.

PURPOSE: Modeling dose to a moving target in lung is a very difficult task. Current approaches to planning lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) generally calculate dose on either free breathing or average computed tomography (CT) scans, which do not always accurately predict dose to parts of the target volume not occupied by tumor on the planning scan. In this work, the authors look at using density overrides of the target volumes to more accurately predict dose for lung SBRT using the analytic anisotropic algorithm (AAA). METHODS: Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were created on free breathing scans (FBP), time average scans (AVGP), free breathing scans with the internal target volume overridden to tumor density (ITVP), free breathing scans with the planning target volume overridden to tumor density (PTVP), and free breathing scan using a hybrid scheme with the internal target volume set to tumor density and the planning target volume minus the internal target volume set to a density intermediate between lung and tumor (HP) for the case of a 4D motion phantom and five patient cases. Radiochromic film measurements were made for the phantom plans, with gamma analysis used to compare the planned to delivered dose. The patient plans were recalculated on each of the phases of a 4DCT to evaluate tumor coverage and conformity index (CI). A modified modulation complexity score (MCSv) and average open area per control point (AA) metrics were used to evaluate multileaf collimator (MLC) modulation for each of the plans. RESULTS: The HP plans showed significantly higher gamma passing rates (p < 0.05) than the FBP, AVGP, and ITVP for criteria of 2 mm/2% and 1 mm/1%. No significant correlation was observed between gamma values and AA or MCSv. The tumor volume was covered by the prescription dose on all phases of the 4DCT for all patient plans. The PTVP and HP yielded lower mean CI than the other plans for all five patients, with three of the cases showing statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). No meaningful correlation was observed between the mean CI and AA or MCSv. CONCLUSIONS: These measurements suggest that the HP planning method may provide more accurate dose modeling and decreased normal lung irradiation for lung SBRT compared to the commonly used FBP and AVG planning methods when used with the AAA. The HP method does not appear to have a strong relationship with MLC modulation.

Commissioning and validation of BrainLAB cones for 6X FFF and 10X FFF beams on a Varian TrueBeam STx.

Small field dosimetry is a challenging task. The difficulties of small field measurements, particularly stereotactic field size measurements, are highlighted by the large interinstitution variability that can be observed for circular cone collimator commissioning measurements. We believe the best way to improve the consistency of small field measurements is to clearly document and share the results of small field measurements. In this work we report on the commissioning and validation of a BrainLAB cone system for 6 MV and 10 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) beams on a Varian TrueBeam STx. Commissioning measurements consisted of output factors, percent depth dose, and off-axis factor measurements with a diode. Validation measurements were made in a polystyrene slab phantom at depths of 5 cm, 10 cm, and 15 cm using radiochromic film. Output factors for the 6xFFF cones are 0.689, 0.790, 0.830, 0.871, 0.890, and 0.901 for 4 mm, 6 mm, 7.5 mm, 10 mm, 12.5 mm, and the 15 mm cones, respectively. Output factors for the 10xFFF cones are 0.566, 0.699, 0.756, 0.826, 0.864, and 0.888 for 4 mm, 6 mm, 7.5 mm, 10 mm, 12.5 mm, and the 15 mm cones, respectively. The full width half maximum values of the off-axis factors agreed with the nominal cone size to within 0.5 mm. Validation measurements showed an agreement of absolute dose between calculation and plan of < 3.6%, and an agreement of field sizes of ≤ 0.3 mm in all cases. Radiochromic film validation measurements show reasonable agreement with beam models for circular collimators based on diode commissioning measurements.