AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 2.b.: Commissioning and quality assurance of X-ray-based image-guided radiotherapy systems

Routine machine quality assurance tests for a self-shielded gyroscopic radiosurgery system

PURPOSE

This report describes routine machine quality assurance (QA) (daily, monthly, and annual QA) tests for the Zap-X® Gyroscopic Radiosurgery® platform.

METHODS

Following the recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group (AAPM TG)-142 and Medical Physics Practice guideline (MPPG) 8.b, routine machine QA tests for the Zap-X system were implemented. The implementation included (1) daily, monthly, and annual QA tests encompassing dosimetry, mechanical, safety and imaging tests, (2) QA methods of each test specific to the Zap-X, (3) a tolerance value for each test, and (4) necessary QA equipment.

RESULTS

Baseline values and key results of daily, monthly, and annual QA tests are presented in this report. This report also discusses QA tests not adopted from TG 142 or MPPG 8.b (e.g., distance indicator) due to unique features of the Zap-X system as well as additional QA tests added from the vendor's recommendations (e.g., self-check) and from TG-135 recommendations (e.g., monthly end-to-end testing) because of similarities between Zap-X and CyberKnife systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The comprehensive information on routine machine QA tests presented in this report will assist Zap-X teams in other Neurosurgery centers or Radiation Oncology clinics in establishing and maintaining their QA programs until AAPM endorsed guidelines become available.

Stereotactic Radiation Therapy Planning, Dose Prescription and Delivery in Veterinary Medicine: A Systematic Review on Completeness of Reporting and Proposed Reporting Items

Increasing numbers of dogs and cats with cancer are treated with stereotactic radiosurgery, stereotactic radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SRS, SRT or SBRT). We provide a systematic review of the current data landscape with a focus on technical and dosimetric data of stereotactic radiotherapy in veterinary oncology. Original peer-reviewed articles on dogs and cats with cancer treated with SRT were included. The systematic search included Medline via PubMed and EMBASE. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) statement. We assessed the manuscripts regarding outcome reporting, treatment planning, dose prescription, -delivery and -reporting as well as quality assurance. As of February 2024, there are 80 peer-reviewed publications on various disease entities on SRS, SRT and SBRT in veterinary medicine. Overall, we found often insufficient or highly variable technical data, with incomplete information to reproduce these treatments. While in some instances, technical factors may not impact clinical outcome, the variability found in protocols, outcome and toxicity assessments precludes accurate and reliable conclusions for a benefit of stereotactic radiotherapy for many of the treated diseases. In line with the extensive recommendations from human stereotactic radiotherapy practise, we propose a draft of reporting items for future stereotactic radiation treatments in veterinary medicine. SRS, SRT and SBRT have specific clinical and technological requirements that differ from those of standard radiation therapy. Therefore, a deep understanding of the methodologies, as well as the quality and precision of dose delivery, is essential for effective clinical knowledge transfer.

Quality and Safety Considerations for Adaptive Radiation Therapy: An ASTRO White Paper

PURPOSE

Adaptive radiation therapy (ART) is the latest topic in a series of white papers published by the American Society for Radiation Oncology addressing quality processes and patient safety. ART widens the therapeutic index by improving the precision of radiation dose to targets, allowing for dose escalation and/or minimization of dose to normal tissue. ART is performed via offline or online methods; offline ART is the process of replanning a patient's treatment plan between fractions, whereas online ART involves plan adjustment with the patient on the treatment table. This is achieved with in-room imaging capable of assessing anatomic changes and the ability to reoptimize the treatment plan rapidly during the treatment session. Although ART has occurred in its simplest forms in clinical practice for decades, recent technological developments have enabled more clinical applications of ART. With increased clinical prevalence, compressed timelines, and the associated complexity of ART, quality and safety considerations are an important focus area.

METHODS

The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened an interdisciplinary task force to provide expert consensus on key workflows and processes for ART. Recommendations were created using a consensus-building methodology, and task force members indicated their level of agreement based on a 5-point Likert scale, from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." A prespecified threshold of ≥75% of raters selecting "strongly agree" or "agree" indicated consensus. Content not meeting this threshold was removed or revised.

SUMMARY

Establishing and maintaining an adaptive program requires a team-based approach, appropriately trained and credentialed specialists, significant resources, specialized technology, and implementation time. A comprehensive quality assurance program must be developed, using established guidance, to make sure all forms of ART are performed in a safe and effective manner. Patient safety when delivering ART is everyone's responsibility, and professional organizations, regulators, vendors, and end users must demonstrate a clear commitment to working together to deliver the highest levels of quality and safety.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.b: Linear accelerator performance tests

The purpose of this guideline is to provide a list of critical performance tests to assist the Qualified Medical Physicist (QMP) in establishing and maintaining a safe and effective quality assurance (QA) program. The performance tests on a linear accelerator (linac) should be selected to fit the clinical patterns of use of the accelerator and care should be given to perform tests which are relevant to detecting errors related to the specific use of the accelerator. Current recommendations for linac QA were reviewed to determine any changes required to those tests highlighted by the original report as well as considering new components of the treatment process that have become common since its publication. Recommendations are made on the acquisition of reference data, routine establishment of machine isocenter, basing performance tests on clinical use of the linac, working with vendors to establish QA tests and performing tests after maintenance and upgrades. The recommended tests proposed in this guideline were chosen based on consensus of the guideline's committee after assessing necessary changes from the previous report. The tests are grouped together by class of test (e.g., dosimetry, mechanical, etc.) and clinical parameter tested. Implementation notes are included for each test so that the QMP can understand the overall goal of each test. This guideline will assist the QMP in developing a comprehensive QA program for linacs in the external beam radiation therapy setting. The committee sought to prioritize tests by their implication on quality and patient safety. The QMP is ultimately responsible for implementing appropriate tests. In the spirit of the report from American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100, individual institutions are encouraged to analyze the risks involved in their own clinical practice and determine which performance tests are relevant in their own radiotherapy clinics.

Long-term experience in quality assurance of on-rail computed tomography systems for image-guided radiotherapy using in-house multifunctional phantoms

To report the long-term quality assurance (QA) experience of an on-rail computed tomography (CT) system for image-guided radiotherapy using an in-house phantom. An on-rail CT system combining the Elekta Synergy and Canon Aquilion LB was used. The treatment couch was shared by the linear accelerators and CT, and the couch was rotated by 180° when using the on-rail-CT system to ensure that the CT direction was toward the head. All QA analyses were performed by radiation technologists on CBCT or on-rail CT images of the in-house phantom. The CBCT center accuracy from the linac laser, couch rotational accuracy (CBCT center vs. on-rail CT center), horizontal accuracy by CT gantry shift, and remote couch shift accuracy were evaluated. This study reported the QA status of the system during the period 2014-2021. The absolute mean accuracy of couch rotation was 0.4 ± 0.28 mm, 0.44 ± 0.36 mm, and 0.37 ± 0.27 mm in the SI, RL, and AP directions, respectively. Horizontal and remote movement accuracies of the treatment couch were also within 0.5 mm of the absolute mean value. A decrease in the accuracy of couch rotation was also observed due to aging deterioration of related parts caused by the frequent use of couch rotation. The three-dimensional accuracy of on-rail CT systems derived mainly from treatment couches can be maintained within 0.5 mm with appropriate accuracy assurance for at least > 8 years.

Quality and Safety Considerations in Image Guided Radiation Therapy: An ASTRO Safety White Paper Update

PURPOSE

This updated report on image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) is part of a series of consensus-based white papers previously published by the American Society for Radiation Oncology addressing patient safety. Since the first white papers were published, IGRT technology and procedures have progressed significantly such that these procedures are now more commonly used. The use of IGRT has now extended beyond high-precision treatments, such as stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy, and into routine clinical practice for many treatment techniques and anatomic sites. Therefore, quality and patient safety considerations for these techniques remain an important area of focus.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened an interdisciplinary task force to assess the original IGRT white paper and update content where appropriate. Recommendations were created using a consensus-building methodology, and task force members indicated their level of agreement based on a 5-point Likert scale from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." A prespecified threshold of ≥75% of raters who selected "strongly agree" or "agree" indicated consensus.

SUMMARY

This IGRT white paper builds on the previous version and uses other guidance documents to primarily focus on processes related to quality and safety. IGRT requires an interdisciplinary team-based approach, staffed by appropriately trained specialists, as well as significant personnel resources, specialized technology, and implementation time. A thorough feasibility analysis of resources is required to achieve the clinical and technical goals and should be discussed with all personnel before undertaking new imaging techniques. A comprehensive quality-assurance program must be developed, using established guidance, to ensure IGRT is performed in a safe and effective manner. As IGRT technologies continue to improve or emerge, existing practice guidelines should be reviewed or updated regularly according to the latest American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group reports or guidelines. Patient safety in the application of IGRT is everyone's responsibility, and professional organizations, regulators, vendors, and end-users must demonstrate a clear commitment to working together to ensure the highest levels of safety.

Machine characterization and central axis depth dose data of a superficial x-ray radiotherapy unit

Objectives. The purpose of this study is to present data from the clinical commissioning of an Xstrahl 150 x-ray unit used for superficial radiotherapy,Methods. Commissioning tasks included vendor acceptance tests, timer reproducibility, linearity and end-effect measurements, half-value layer (HVL) measurements, inverse square law verification, head-leakage measurements, and beam output calibration. In addition, percent depth dose (PDD) curves were determined for different combinations of filter/kV settings and applicators. Automated PDD water phantom scans were performed utilizing four contemporary detectors: a microDiamond detector, a microSilicon detector, an EDGE detector, and a PinPoint ionization chamber. The measured PDD data were compared to the published values in BJR Supplement 25,Results. The x-ray unit's mechanical, safety, and radiation characteristics were within vendor-stated specifications. Across sixty commissioned x-ray beams, the PDDs determined in water using solid state detectors were in excellent agreement with the BJR 25 data. For the lower (<100 kVp) and medium-energy (≥100 kVp) superficial beams the average agreement was within [-3.6,+0.4]% and [-3.7,+1.4]% range, respectively. For the high-energy superficial (low-energy orthovoltage) x-rays at 150 kVp, the average difference for the largest 20 × 20 cm²collimator was (-0.7 ± 1.0)%,Conclusions. This study presents machine characterization data collected for clinical use of a superficial x-ray unit. Special focus was placed on utilizing contemporary detectors and techniques for the relative PDD measurements using a motorized water phantom. The results in this study confirm that the aggregate values published in the BJR 25 report still serve as a valid benchmark when comparing data from site-specific measurements, or the reference data for clinical utilization without such measurements,Advances in knowledge. This paper presents comprehensive data from the acceptance and commissioning of a modern kilovoltage superficial x-ray radiotherapy machine. Comparisons between the PDD data measured in this study using different detectors and BJR 25 data are highlighted.

Impact of a Centralized Database System on Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Management at a Large Health Care Network: 5 Years' Experience

PURPOSE

This study reports the impact of using a centralized database system for major equipment quality assurance (QA) at a large institution.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A centralized database system has been implemented for radiation therapy machine QA in our institution at 6 campuses with 11 computed tomographies and 22 linear accelerators (LINACs). The database system was customized to manage monthly and annual computed tomography and LINAC QA. This includes providing the same set of QA procedures across the enterprise, digitally storing all measurement records, and generating trend analyses. Compared with conventional methods (ie, paper forms), the effectiveness of the database system was quantified by changes in the compliance of QA tests and perceptions of staff to the efficiency of data retrieval and analyses. An anonymized questionnaire was provided to physicists enterprise-wide to assess workflow changes.

RESULTS

With the implementation of the database system, the compliance of QA test completion improved from 80% to >99% for the entire institution. This resonates with the 56% of physicists who found the database system helpful in guiding them through QA, and 25% of physicists found the contrary, and 19% reported no difference (n = 16). Meanwhile, 40% of physicists reported longer times needed to record data using the database system compared with conventional methods, and another 40% suggested otherwise. In addition, 87% and 80% found the database more efficient to analyze and retrieve previous data, respectively. This was also reflected by the shorter time taken to generate year-end QA statistics using the software (5 vs 30 min per LINAC). Overall, 94% of physicists preferred the centralized database system over conventional methods and endorsed continued use of the system.

CONCLUSIONS

A centralized database system is useful and can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of QA management in a large institution. With consistent data collection and proper data storage using a database, high-quality data can be obtained for failure modes and effects analyses as per TG 100.

Quality management in radiotherapy treatment delivery

Radiation Oncology continues to rely on accurate delivery of radiation, in particular where patients can benefit from more modulated and hypofractioned treatments that can deliver higher dose to the target while optimising dose to normal structures. These deliveries are more complex, and the treatment units are more computerised, leading to a re-evaluation of quality assurance (QA) to test a larger range of options with more stringent criteria without becoming too time and resource consuming. This review explores how modern approaches of risk management and automation can be used to develop and maintain an effective and efficient QA programme. It considers various tools to control and guide radiation delivery including image guidance and motion management. Links with typical maintenance and repair activities are discussed, as well as patient-specific quality control activities. It is demonstrated that a quality management programme applied to treatment delivery can have an impact on individual patients but also on the quality of treatment techniques and future planning. Developing and customising a QA programme for treatment delivery is an important part of radiotherapy. Using modern multidisciplinary approaches can make this also a useful tool for department management.

AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 2.b.: Commissioning and quality assurance of X-ray-based image-guided radiotherapy systems

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized.