Do we need patient-specific QA for adaptively generated plans? Retrospective evaluation of delivered online adaptive treatment plans on Varian Ethos

BACKGROUND

The clinical introduction of dedicated treatment units for online adaptive radiation therapy (OART) has led to widespread adoption of daily adaptive radiotherapy. OART allows for rapid generation of treatment plans using daily patient anatomy, potentially leading to reduction of treatment margins and increased normal tissue sparing. However, the OART workflow does not allow for measurement of patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) during treatment delivery sessions and instead relies on secondary dose calculations for verification of adapted plans. It remains unknown if independent dose verification is a sufficient surrogate for PSQA measurements.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the plan quality of previously treated adaptive plans through multiple standard PSQA measurements.

METHODS

This IRB-approved retrospective study included sixteen patients previously treated with OART at our institution. PSQA measurements were performed for each patient's scheduled and adaptive plans: five adaptive plans were randomly selected to perform ion chamber measurements and two adaptive plans were randomly selected for ArcCHECK measurements. The same ArcCHECK 3D dose distribution was also sent to Mobius3D to evaluate the second-check dosimetry system.

RESULTS

All (n = 96) ion chamber measurements agreed with the planned dose within 3% with a mean of 1.4% (± 0.7%). All (n = 48) plans passed ArcCHECK measurements using a 95% gamma passing threshold and 3%/2 mm criteria with a mean of 99.1% (± 0.7%). All (n = 48) plans passed Mobius3D second-check performed with 95% gamma passing threshold and 5%/3 mm criteria with a mean of 99.0% (± 0.2%).

CONCLUSION

Plan measurement for PSQA may not be necessary for every online-adaptive treatment verification. We recommend the establishment of a periodic PSQA check to better understand trends in passing rates for delivered adaptive treatments.

Process-based quality management for clinical implementation of adaptive radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Intensity-modulated adaptive radiotherapy (ART) has been the focus of considerable research and developmental work due to its potential therapeutic benefits. However, in light of its unique quality assurance (QA) challenges, no one has described a robust framework for its clinical implementation. In fact, recent position papers by ASTRO and AAPM have firmly endorsed pretreatment patient-specific IMRT QA, which limits the feasibility of online ART. The authors aim to address these obstacles by applying failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to identify high-priority errors and appropriate risk-mitigation strategies for clinical implementation of intensity-modulated ART.

METHODS

An experienced team of two clinical medical physicists, one clinical engineer, and one radiation oncologist was assembled to perform a standard FMEA for intensity-modulated ART. A set of 216 potential radiotherapy failures composed by the forthcoming AAPM task group 100 (TG-100) was used as the basis. Of the 216 failures, 127 were identified as most relevant to an ART scheme. Using the associated TG-100 FMEA values as a baseline, the team considered how the likeliness of occurrence (O), outcome severity (S), and likeliness of failure being undetected (D) would change for ART. New risk priority numbers (RPN) were calculated. Failures characterized by RPN ≥ 200 were identified as potentially critical.

RESULTS

FMEA revealed that ART RPN increased for 38% (n = 48/127) of potential failures, with 75% (n = 36/48) attributed to failures in the segmentation and treatment planning processes. Forty-three of 127 failures were identified as potentially critical. Risk-mitigation strategies include implementing a suite of quality control and decision support software, specialty QA software/hardware tools, and an increase in specially trained personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the FMEA-based risk assessment demonstrate that intensity-modulated ART introduces different (but not necessarily more) risks than standard IMRT and may be safely implemented with the proper mitigations.