Dataset Information

Improving Management and Compliance of Radiation Therapy Linear Accelerator Quality Assurance Program With Automated Tracking Tools.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Although quality assurance (QA) is crucial in radiation oncology departments, substantial efforts are required to monitor and ensure compliance to high standards. This work aims to analyze the impact of implementing a centralized and automated tracking dashboard on compliance and variance observed in radiation therapy QA results for linear accelerators.

Methods and materials

The study was performed in a large academic center with 7 linear accelerators. An in-house QA Dashboard was implemented in 2019 with design specifications including automated monitoring and visualization of QA progress, ease of use and accessibility, ease of integration, adaptability to new technologies, and facilitation of automated reminders. Monthly QA data were collected between 2016 and 2022 to analyze compliance pre- and post-dashboard implementation. Compliance was characterized as the percentage of tests completed on time. In addition, variance trends for linear accelerator dosimetry measurements and imaging were analyzed over 7 years.

Results

In total, 76,066 records were analyzed. Of these records, 73,187 QA measurements were completed on time. Overall QA compliance increased from 75% in 2016 to >99% in 2019 after successful implementation of the QA Dashboard. The main improvement was observed for tests that were implemented more recently, eg, imaging QA and formal recording of daily QA review by physicists. The coefficient of variation was reduced by approximately a factor of 2 for imaging QA after the implementation of the QA Dashboard. For recorded dosimetry measurements, no substantial change in variance was observed.

Conclusions

Implementation of the QA Dashboard resulted in a distinct increase in QA compliance. Reduction in the variance in QA measurements was observed for all imaging modalities. These findings demonstrate high impact of automated tracking QA tools on improved compliance and accuracy of QA.

SUBMITTER: Lyatskaya Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10972807 | biostudies-literature | 2024 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving Management and Compliance of Radiation Therapy Linear Accelerator Quality Assurance Program With Automated Tracking Tools.

Lyatskaya Yulia Y Killoran Joseph J Kukluk Jacek J Cormack Robert R Quirk Sarah S

Advances in radiation oncology 20240209 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>Although quality assurance (QA) is crucial in radiation oncology departments, substantial efforts are required to monitor and ensure compliance to high standards. This work aims to analyze the impact of implementing a centralized and automated tracking dashboard on compliance and variance observed in radiation therapy QA results for linear accelerators.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>The study was performed in a large academic center with 7 linear accelerators. An in-house QA Dashb ...[more]

PMID: 38550367

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to develop and test a set of illustrated instructions for effective training for mechanical quality assurance (QA) of medical linear accelerators (linac).MethodsIllustrated instructions were created for mechanical QA and underwent several steps of review, testing, and refinement. Eleven testers with no recent QA experience were then recruited from our radiotherapy department (one student, two computational scientists, and eight dosimetrists). This group was selected because they have experience of radiation therapy but no preconceived ideas about how to do QA. The following parameters were progressively decalibrated on a Varian C-series linac: Group A = gantry angle, ceiling laser position, X1 jaw position, couch longitudinal position, physical graticule position (five testers); Group B = Group A + wall laser position, couch lateral and vertical position, collimator angle (three testers); Group C = Group B + couch angle, wall laser angle, and optical distance indicator (three testers). Testers were taught how to use the linac and then used the instructions to try to identify these errors. An experienced physicist observed each session, giving support on machine operation as necessary.ResultsTesters were able to follow the instructions. They determined gantry, collimator, and couch angle errors within 0.4°, 0.3°, and 0.9° of the actual changed values, respectively. Laser positions were determined within 1 mm and jaw positions within 2 mm. Couch position errors were determined within 2 mm and 3 mm for lateral/longitudinal and vertical errors, respectively. Accessory-positioning errors were determined within 1 mm. Optical distance indicator errors were determined within 2 mm when comparing with distance sticks and 6 mm when using blocks, indicating that distance sticks should be the preferred approach for inexperienced staff.ConclusionsInexperienced users were able to follow these instructions and catch errors within the criteria suggested by AAPM TG-142 for linacs used for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. These instructions are, therefore, suitable for QA training.

Project description:PurposeTo describe and report longitudinal quality assurance (QA) measurements for the mechanical and dosimetric performance of an Elekta Unity MR-linac during the first year of clinical use in our institution.Materials and methodsThe mechanical and dosimetric performance of the MR-linac was evaluated with daily, weekly, monthly, and annual QA testing. The measurements monitor the size of the radiation isocenter, the MR-to-MV isocenter concordance, MLC and jaw position, the accuracy and reproducibility of step-and-shoot delivery, radiation output and beam profile constancy, and patient-specific QA for the first 50 treatments in our institution. Results from end-to-end QA using anthropomorphic phantoms are also included as a reference for baseline comparisons. Measurements were performed in water or water-equivalent plastic using ion chambers of various sizes, an ion chamber array, MR-compatible 2D/3D diode array, portal imager, MRI, and radiochromic film.ResultsThe diameter of the radiation isocenter and the distance between the MR/MV isocenters was (μ ± σ) 0.39 ± 0.01 mm and 0.89 ± 0.05 mm, respectively. Trend analysis shows both measurements to be well within the tolerance of 1.0 mm. MLC and jaw positional accuracy was within 1.0 mm while the dosimetric performance of step-and-shoot delivery was within 2.0%, irrespective of gantry angle. Radiation output and beam profile constancy were within 2.0% and 1.0%, respectively. End-to-end testing performed with ion-chamber and radiochromic film showed excellent agreement with treatment plan. Patient-specific QA using a 3D diode array identified gantry angles with low-pass rates allowing for improvements in plan quality after necessary adjustments.ConclusionThe MR-linac operates within the guidelines of current recommendations for linear accelerator performance, stability, and safety. The analysis of the data supports the recently published guidance in establishing clinically acceptable tolerance levels for relative and absolute measurements.

Project description:PurposeTo develop and validate an informatics toolkit that extracts anatomy-specific computed tomography (CT) radiation exposure metrics (volume CT dose index and dose-length product) from existing digital image archives through optical character recognition of CT dose report screen captures (dose screens) combined with Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine attributes.Materials and methodsThis institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study was performed in a large urban health care delivery network. Data were drawn from a random sample of CT encounters that occurred between 2000 and 2010; images from these encounters were contained within the enterprise image archive, which encompassed images obtained at an adult academic tertiary referral hospital and its affiliated sites, including a cancer center, a community hospital, and outpatient imaging centers, as well as images imported from other facilities. Software was validated by using 150 randomly selected encounters for each major CT scanner manufacturer, with outcome measures of dose screen retrieval rate (proportion of correctly located dose screens) and anatomic assignment precision (proportion of extracted exposure data with correctly assigned anatomic region, such as head, chest, or abdomen and pelvis). The 95% binomial confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for discrete proportions, and CIs were derived from the standard error of the mean for continuous variables. After validation, the informatics toolkit was used to populate an exposure repository from a cohort of 54 549 CT encounters; of which 29 948 had available dose screens.ResultsValidation yielded a dose screen retrieval rate of 99% (597 of 605 CT encounters; 95% CI: 98%, 100%) and an anatomic assignment precision of 94% (summed DLP fraction correct 563 in 600 CT encounters; 95% CI: 92%, 96%). Patient safety applications of the resulting data repository include benchmarking between institutions, CT protocol quality control and optimization, and cumulative patient- and anatomy-specific radiation exposure monitoring.ConclusionLarge-scale anatomy-specific radiation exposure data repositories can be created with high fidelity from existing digital image archives by using open-source informatics tools.

Project description:PurposeTo perform quality assurance of non-coplanar, volumetric-modulated arc therapy featuring continuous couch rotation (CCR-VMAT) using a C-arm linear accelerator.MethodsWe planned and delivered CCR-VMAT using the TrueBeam Developer Mode. Treatment plans were created for both a C-shaped phantom and five prostate cancer patients using seven CCR trajectories that lacked collisions; we used RayStation software (ver. 4.7) to this end. Subsequently, verification plans were generated. The mean absolute error (MAE) between the center of an MV-imaged steel ball and the radiation field was calculated using the Winston-Lutz test. The MAEs between planned and actual irradiation values were also calculated from trajectory logs. In addition, correlation coefficients (r values) among the MAEs of gantry angle, couch angle, and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position, and mechanical parameters including gantry speed, couch speed, MLC speed, and beam output, were estimated. The dosimetric accuracies of planned and measured values were also assessed using ArcCHECK.ResultsThe MAEs ±2 standard deviations as revealed by the Winston-Lutz test for all trajectories were 0.3 ± 0.3 mm in two dimensions. The MAEs of the gantry, couch, and MLC positions calculated from all trajectory logs were within 0.04°, 0.08°, and 0.02 mm, respectively. Deviations in the couch angle (r = 0.98, p < 0.05) and MLC position (r = 0.86, p < 0.05) increased significantly with speed. The MAE of the beam output error was less than 0.01 MU. The mean gamma passing rate ± 2 SD (range) of the 3%/3 mm, 3%/1 mm, and 5%/1 mm was 98.1 ± 1.9% (95.7-99.6%), 87.2 ± 2.8% (80.2-96.7%), and 96.3 ± 2.8% (93.9-99.6%), respectively.ConclusionsCCR-VMAT delivered via the TrueBeam Developer Mode was associated with high-level geometric and mechanical accuracy, thus affording to high dosimetric accuracy. The CCR-VMAT performance was stable regardless of the trajectory chosen.

Dataset Information

Improving Management and Compliance of Radiation Therapy Linear Accelerator Quality Assurance Program With Automated Tracking Tools.

Purpose

Methods and materials

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Improving Management and Compliance of Radiation Therapy Linear Accelerator Quality Assurance Program With Automated Tracking Tools.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets