Quality assurance needs for modern image-based radiotherapy: Recommendations from 2007 interorganizational symposium on "Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy: Challenges of Advanced Technology"

被引:47
作者
Williamson, Jeffrey F. [1 ]
Dunscombe, Peter B. [2 ]
Sharpe, Michael B. [3 ]
Thomadsen, Bruce R. [4 ]
Purdy, James A. [5 ]
Deye, James A. [6 ]
机构
[1] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Dept Radiat Oncol, Richmond, VA 23298 USA
[2] Univ Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
[3] Princess Margaret Hosp, Toronto, ON M4X 1K9, Canada
[4] Univ Wisconsin, Madison, WI USA
[5] Univ Calif Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817 USA
[6] Natl Canc Inst, Bethesda, MD USA
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS | 2008年 / 71卷 / 01期
关键词
quality assurance; intensity-modulated radiotherapy; image-guided radiotherapy; brachytherapy; advanced technology radiotherapy;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.08.080
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
This report summarizes the consensus findings and recommendations emerging from 2007 Symposium, "Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy: Challenges of Advanced Technology." The Symposium was held in Dallas February 20-22, 2007. The 3-day program, which was sponsored jointly by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO), American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), and National Cancer Institute (NCI), included >40 invited speakers from the radiation oncology and industrial engineering/human factor communities and attracted nearly 350 attendees, mostly medical physicists. A summary of the major findings follows. The current process of developing consensus recommendations for prescriptive quality assurance (QA) tests remains valid for many of the devices and software systems used in modern radiotherapy (RT), although for some technologies, QA guidance is incomplete or out of date. The current approach to QA does not seem feasible for image-based planning, image-guided therapies, or computer-controlled therapy. In these areas, additional scientific investigation and innovative approaches are needed to manage risk and mitigate errors, including a better balance between mitigating the risk of catastrophic error and maintaining treatment quality, complimenting the current device-centered QA perspective by a more process-centered approach, and broadening community participation in QA guidance formulation and implementation. Industrial engineers and human factor experts can make significant contributions toward advancing a broader, more process-oriented, risk-based formulation of RT QA. Healthcare administrators need to appropriately increase personnel and ancillary equipment resources, as well as capital resources, when new advanced technology RT modalities are implemented. The pace of formalizing clinical physics training must rapidly increase to provide an adequately trained physics workforce for advanced technology RT. The specific recommendations of the Symposium included the following. First, the AAPM, in cooperation with other advisory bodies, should undertake a systematic program to update conventional QA guidance using available risk-assessment methods. Second, the AAPM advanced technology RT Task Groups should better balance clinical process vs. device operation aspects-encouraging greater levels of multidisciplinary participation such as industrial engineering consultants and use-risk assessment and process-flow techniques. Third, ASTRO should form a multidisciplinary subcommittee, consisting of physician, physicist, vendor, and industrial engineering representatives, to better address modern RT quality management and QA needs. Finally, government and private entities committed to improved healthcare quality and safety should support research directed toward addressing QA problems in image-guided therapies. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:S2 / S12
页数:11
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]  
*ABT ASS, 2003, ABT STUD MED PHYS WO
[2]  
Abt Associates, 1995, ABT STUD MED PHYS WO
[3]   AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams [J].
Almond, PR ;
Biggs, PJ ;
Coursey, BM ;
Hanson, WF ;
Huq, MS ;
Nath, R ;
Rogers, DWO .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1999, 26 (09) :1847-1870
[4]  
*AM ASS PHYS MED, 1990, 36 AM ASS PHYS MED A
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1983, MED PHYS, V10, P741
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2004, TECHN REP SER INT AT, V430
[7]  
[Anonymous], RAD ONCOLOGY SAFETY
[8]   Helical tomotherapy quality assurance [J].
Balog, John ;
Soisson, Emilie .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2008, 71 (01) :S113-S117
[9]   Siemens multileaf collimator characterization and quality assurance approaches for intensity-modulated radiotherapy [J].
Bayouth, John E. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2008, 71 (01) :S93-S97
[10]   Quality assurance for the geometric accuracy of cone-beam CT guidance in radiation therapy [J].
Bissonnette, Jean-Pierre ;
Moseley, Doug ;
White, Elizabeth ;
Sharpe, Michael ;
Purdie, Tom ;
Jaffray, David A. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2008, 71 (01) :S57-S61