AAPM Task Group 334: A guidance document to using radiotherapy immobilization devices and accessories in an MR environment

Use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in radiation therapy has increased substantially in recent years as more radiotherapy centers are having MR simulators installed, requesting more time on clinical diagnostic MR systems, or even treating with combination MR linear accelerator (MR-linac) systems. With this increased use, to ensure the most accurate integration of images into radiotherapy (RT), RT immobilization devices and accessories must be able to be used safely in the MR environment and produce minimal perturbations. The determination of the safety profile and considerations often falls to the medical physicist or other support staff members who at a minimum should be a Level 2 personnel as per the ACR. The purpose of this guidance document will be to help guide the user in making determinations on MR Safety labeling (i.e., MR Safe, Conditional, or Unsafe) including standard testing, and verification of image quality, when using RT immobilization devices and accessories in an MR environment.

An FDA Guide on Indications for Use and Device Reporting of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Devices: Significance for Pediatric Use

Radiology has been a pioneer in adopting artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled devices into the clinic. However, initial clinical experience has identified concerns of inconsistent device performance across different patient populations. Medical devices, including those using AI, are cleared by the FDA for their specific indications for use (IFUs). IFU describes the disease or condition the device will diagnose or treat, including a description of the intended patient population. Performance data evaluated during the premarket submission support the IFU and include the intended patient population. Understanding the IFUs of a given device is thus critical to ensuring that the device is used properly and performs as expected. When devices do not perform as expected or malfunction, medical device reporting is an important way to provide feedback about the device to the manufacturer, the FDA, and other users. This article describes the ways to retrieve the IFU and performance data information as well as the FDA medical device reporting systems for unexpected performance discrepancy. It is crucial that imaging professionals, including radiologists, know how to access and use these tools to improve the informed use of medical devices for patients of all ages.

Guidelines by the AAPM and GEC-ESTRO on the use of innovative brachytherapy devices and applications: Report of Task Group 167

Although a multicenter, Phase III, prospective, randomized trial is the gold standard for evidence-based medicine, it is rarely used in the evaluation of innovative devices because of many practical and ethical reasons. It is usually sufficient to compare the dose distributions and dose rates for determining the equivalence of the innovative treatment modality to an existing one. Thus, quantitative evaluation of the dosimetric characteristics of innovative radiotherapy devices or applications is a critical part in which physicists should be actively involved. The physicist's role, along with physician colleagues, in this process is highlighted for innovative brachytherapy devices and applications and includes evaluation of (1) dosimetric considerations for clinical implementation (including calibrations, dose calculations, and radiobiological aspects) to comply with existing societal dosimetric prerequisites for sources in routine clinical use, (2) risks and benefits from a regulatory and safety perspective, and (3) resource assessment and preparedness. Further, it is suggested that any developed calibration methods be traceable to a primary standards dosimetry laboratory (PSDL) such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the U.S. or to other PSDLs located elsewhere such as in Europe. Clinical users should follow standards as approved by their country's regulatory agencies that approved such a brachytherapy device. Integration of this system into the medical source calibration infrastructure of secondary standard dosimetry laboratories such as the Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratories in the U.S. is encouraged before a source is introduced into widespread routine clinical use. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine and the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) have developed guidelines for the safe and consistent application of brachytherapy using innovative devices and applications. The current report covers regulatory approvals, calibration, dose calculations, radiobiological issues, and overall safety concerns that should be addressed during the commissioning stage preceding clinical use. These guidelines are based on review of requirements of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Transportation, International Electrotechnical Commission Medical Electrical Equipment Standard 60601, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Commission for CE Marking (Conformité Européenne), and institutional review boards and radiation safety committees.

Successful nilotinib treatment in a child with chronic myeloid leukemia

A 16-year-old female was diagnosed incedentally with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in the chronic phase. She showed complete remission after 3 months of nilotinib treatment. CML is a rare malignant neoplasm in pediatric age. It is characterized by a Philadelphia chromosome, which comes from a genetic translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22. This translocation results in an abnormal fusion called BCR-ABL oncogene which encodes a chimeric BCR-ABL protein. This protein is the underlying cause of CML. Nilotinib is a newly licensed drug for CML in adults. Structurally, it is similar to imatinib (the older tyrosine kinase inhibitor), but it is much more potent in inhibiting BCR-ABL due to its much increased affinity for its binding site. Specific guidelines for CML treatment in children have yet to be determined. In our patient, nilotinib was used as an off-label drug because it is not licensed for children. According to the pharmacokinetic response to drugs, children cannot be considered small adults irrespective of their weight. Off-label drug use based on evidence that it is the best treatment available is an important tool in the hands of expert treating physicians.

A survey of Canadian medical physicists: software quality assurance of in-house software

This paper reports on a survey of medical physicists who write and use in-house written software as part of their professional work. The goal of the survey was to assess the extent of in-house software usage and the desire or need for related software quality guidelines. The survey contained eight multiple-choice questions, a ranking question, and seven free text questions. The survey was sent to medical physicists associated with cancer centers across Canada. The respondents to the survey expressed interest in having guidelines to help them in their software-related work, but also demonstrated extensive skills in the area of testing, safety, and communication. These existing skills form a basis for medical physicists to establish a set of software quality guidelines.

Off-label prescribing in palliative care - a cross-sectional national survey of palliative medicine doctors

BACKGROUND

Regulatory bodies including the European Medicines Agency register medications (formulation, route of administration) for specific clinical indications. Once registered, prescription is at clinicians' discretion. Off-label use is beyond the registered use. While off-label prescribing may, at times, be appropriate, efficacy and toxicity data are often lacking.

AIM

The aim of this study was to document off-label use policies (including disclosure and consent) in Australian palliative care units and current practices by palliative care clinicians.

DESIGN

A national, cross-sectional survey was conducted online following an invitation letter. The survey asked clinicians their most frequent off-label medication/indication dyads and unit policies. Dyads were classified into unregistered, off-label and on-label, and for the latter, whether medications were nationally subsidised.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

All Australian palliative medicine Fellows and advanced trainees.

RESULTS

Overall, 105 clinicians responded (53% response rate). The majority did not have policies on off-label medications, and documented consent rarely. In all, 236 medication/indication dyads for 36 medications were noted: 45 dyads (19%) were for two unregistered medications, 118 dyads (50%) were for 26 off-label medications and 73 dyads (31%) were for 12 on-label medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Off-label prescribing with its clinical, legal and ethical implications is common yet poorly recognised by clinicians. A distinction needs to be made between where quality evidence exists but registration has not been updated by the pharmaceutical sponsor and the evidence has not been generated. Further research is required to quantify any iatrogenic harm from off-label prescribing in palliative care.

Quality assurance for nonradiographic radiotherapy localization and positioning systems: report of Task Group 147

New technologies continue to be developed to improve the practice of radiation therapy. As several of these technologies have been implemented clinically, the Therapy Committee and the Quality Assurance and Outcomes Improvement Subcommittee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine commissioned Task Group 147 to review the current nonradiographic technologies used for localization and tracking in radiotherapy. The specific charge of this task group was to make recommendations about the use of nonradiographic methods of localization, specifically; radiofrequency, infrared, laser, and video based patient localization and monitoring systems. The charge of this task group was to review the current use of these technologies and to write quality assurance guidelines for the use of these technologies in the clinical setting. Recommendations include testing of equipment for initial installation as well as ongoing quality assurance. As the equipment included in this task group continues to evolve, both in the type and sophistication of technology and in level of integration with treatment devices, some of the details of how one would conduct such testing will also continue to evolve. This task group, therefore, is focused on providing recommendations on the use of this equipment rather than on the equipment itself, and should be adaptable to each user's situation in helping develop a comprehensive quality assurance program.