The introduction of advanced techniques and technology in radiotherapy has greatly improved our ability to deliver highly conformal tumor doses while minimizing the dose to adjacent organs at risk. ...Despite these tremendous improvements, there remains a general concern about doses to normal tissues that are not the target of the radiation treatment; any “nontarget” radiation should be minimized as it offers no therapeutic benefit. As patients live longer after treatment, there is increased opportunity for late effects including second cancers and cardiac toxicity to manifest. Complicating the management of these issues, there are unique challenges with measuring, calculating, reducing, and reporting nontarget doses that many medical physicists may have limited experience with. Treatment planning systems become dramatically inaccurate outside the treatment field, necessitating a measurement or some other means of assessing the dose. However, measurements are challenging because outside the treatment field, the radiation energy spectrum, dose rate, and general shape of the dose distribution (particularly the percent depth dose) are very different and often require special consideration. Neutron dosimetry is also particularly challenging, and common errors in methodology can easily manifest as errors of several orders of magnitude. Task Group 158 was, therefore, formed to provide guidance for physicists in terms of assessing and managing nontarget doses. In particular, the report: (a) highlights major concerns with nontarget radiation; (b) provides a rough estimate of doses associated with different treatment approaches in clinical practice; (c) discusses the uses of dosimeters for measuring photon, electron, and neutron doses; (d) discusses the use of calculation techniques for dosimetric evaluations; (e) highlights techniques that may be considered for reducing nontarget doses; (f) discusses dose reporting; and (g) makes recommendations for both clinical and research practice.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Summary Background Improvements in cancer survival have made the long-term risks from treatments more important, including the risk of developing a second cancer after radiotherapy. We aimed to ...estimate the proportion of second cancers attributable to radiotherapy in adults with data from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registries. Methods We used nine of the SEER registries to systematically analyse 15 cancer sites that are routinely treated with radiotherapy (oral and pharynx, salivary gland, rectum, anus, larynx, lung, soft tissue, female breast, cervix, endometrial, prostate, testes, eye and orbit, brain and CNS, and thyroid). The cohort we studied was composed of patients aged 20 years or older who were diagnosed with a first primary invasive solid cancer reported in the SEER registries between Jan 1, 1973, and Dec 31, 2002. Relative risks (RRs) for second cancer in patients treated with radiotherapy versus patients not treated with radiotherapy were estimated with Poisson regression adjusted for age, stage, and other potential confounders. Findings 647 672 cancer patients who were 5-year survivors were followed up for a mean 12 years (SD 4·5, range 5–34); 60 271 (9%) developed a second solid cancer. For each of the first cancer sites the RR of developing a second cancer associated with radiotherapy exceeded 1, and varied from 1·08 (95% CI 0·79–1·46) after cancers of the eye and orbit to 1·43 (1·13–1·84) after cancer of the testes. In general, the RR was highest for organs that typically received greater than 5 Gy, decreased with increasing age at diagnosis, and increased with time since diagnosis. We estimated a total of 3266 (2862–3670) excess second solid cancers that could be related to radiotherapy, that is 8% (7–9) of the total in all radiotherapy patients (≥1 year survivors) and five excess cancers per 1000 patients treated with radiotherapy by 15 years after diagnosis. Interpretation A relatively small proportion of second cancers are related to radiotherapy in adults, suggesting that most are due to other factors, such as lifestyle or genetics. Funding US National Cancer Institute.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLD) are practical, accurate, and precise tools for point dosimetry in medical physics applications. The charges ...of Task Group 191 were to detail the methodologies for practical and optimal luminescence dosimetry in a clinical setting. This includes: (a) to review the variety of TLD/OSLD materials available, including features and limitations of each; (b) to outline the optimal steps to achieve accurate and precise dosimetry with luminescent detectors and to evaluate the uncertainty induced when less rigorous procedures are used; (c) to develop consensus guidelines on the optimal use of luminescent dosimeters for clinical practice; and (d) to develop guidelines for special medically relevant uses of TLDs/OSLDs such as mixed photon/neutron field dosimetry, particle beam dosimetry, and skin dosimetry. While this report provides general guidelines for TLD and OSLD processes, the report provides specific details for TLD‐100 and nanoDotTM dosimeters because of their prevalence in clinical practice.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Purpose
Using 3D printing to fabricate patient‐specific devices such as tissue compensators, boluses, and phantoms is inexpensive and relatively simple. However, most 3D printing materials have not ...been well characterized, including their radiologic tissue equivalence. The purposes of this study were to (a) determine the variance in Hounsfield Units (HU) for printed objects, (b) determine if HU varies over time, and (c) calculate the clinical dose uncertainty caused by these material variations.
Methods
For a sample of 10 printed blocks each of PLA, NinjaFlex, ABS, and Cheetah, the average HU and physical density were tracked at initial printing and over the course of 5 weeks, a typical timeframe for a standard course of radiotherapy. After initial printing, half the blocks were stored in open boxes, the other half in sealed bags with desiccant. Variances in HU and density over time were evaluated for the four materials. Various clinical photon and electron beams were used to evaluate potential errors in clinical depth dose as a function of assumptions made during treatment planning. The clinical depth error was defined as the distance between the correctly calculated 90% isodose line and the 90% isodose line calculated using clinically reasonable, but simplified, assumptions.
Results
The average HU measurements of individual blocks of PLA, ABS, NinjaFlex, and Cheetah varied by as much as 121, 30, 178, and 30 HU, respectively. The HU variation over 5 weeks was much smaller for all materials. The magnitude of clinical depth errors depended strongly on the material, energy, and assumptions, but some were as large as 9.0 mm.
Conclusions
If proper quality assurance steps are taken, 3D printed objects can be used accurately and effectively in radiation therapy. It is critically important, however, that the properties of any material being used in patient care be well understood and accounted for.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Independent verification of the dose per monitor unit (MU) to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance (QA). We discuss the role of ...secondary dose/MU calculation programs as part of a comprehensive QA program. This report provides guidelines on calculation‐based dose/MU verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provided by various modalities. We provide a review of various algorithms for “independent/second check” of monitor unit calculations for IMRT/VMAT. The report makes recommendations on the clinical implementation of secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on commissioning and acceptance of various commercially available secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on benchmark QA and periodic QA; and on clinically reasonable action levels for agreement of secondary dose/MU calculation programs.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Purpose
To evaluate the performance of an independent recalculation and compare it against current measurement‐based patient specific intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance ...(QA) in predicting unacceptable phantom results as measured by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC).
Methods
When institutions irradiate the IROC head and neck IMRT phantom, they are also asked to submit their internal IMRT QA results. Separately from this, IROC has previously created reference beam models on the Mobius3D platform to independently recalculate phantom results based on the institution's DICOM plan data. The ability of the institutions’ IMRT QA to predict the IROC phantom result was compared against the independent recalculation for 339 phantom results collected since 2012. This was done to determine the ability of these systems to detect failing phantom results (i.e., large errors) as well as poor phantom results (i.e., modest errors). Sensitivity and specificity were evaluated using common clinical thresholds, and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare across different thresholds.
Results
Overall, based on common clinical criteria, the independent recalculation was 12 times more sensitive at detecting unacceptable (failing) IROC phantom results than clinical measurement‐based IMRT QA. The recalculation was superior, in head‐to‐head comparison, to the EPID, ArcCheck, and MapCheck devices. The superiority of the recalculation vs these array‐based measurements persisted under ROC analysis as the recalculation curve had a greater area under it and was always above that for these measurement devices. For detecting modest errors (poor phantom results rather than failing phantom results), neither the recalculation nor measurement‐based IMRT QA performed well.
Conclusions
A simple recalculation outperformed current measurement‐based IMRT QA methods at detecting unacceptable plans. These findings highlight the value of an independent recalculation, and raise further questions about the current standard of measurement‐based IMRT QA.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
•The GHG identified an unmet need for standardized OAR contouring guidance.•AAPM TG 263 recommendations exist for all but 10 OAR structures.•Here we present consensus guidance on 73 OARs with ...nomenclature and peer-reviewed descriptions.
The Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonization Group (GHG) is a collaborative group of Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance (RTQA) Groups harmonizing and improving RTQA for multi-institutional clinical trials. The objective of the GHG OAR Working Group was to unify OAR contouring guidance across RTQA groups by compiling a single reference list of OARs in line with AAPM TG 263 and ASTRO, together with peer-reviewed, anatomically defined contouring guidance for integration into clinical trial protocols independent of the radiation therapy delivery technique.
The GHG OAR Working Group comprised of 22 multi-professional members from 6 international RTQA Groups and affiliated organizations conducted the work in 3 stages: (1) Clinical trial documentation review and identification of structures of interest (2) Review of existing contouring guidance and survey of proposed OAR contouring guidance (3) Review of survey feedback with recommendations for contouring guidance with standardized OAR nomenclature.
157 clinical trials were examined; 222 OAR structures were identified. Duplicates, non-anatomical, non-specific, structures with more specific alternative nomenclature, and structures identified by one RTQA group were excluded leaving 58 structures of interest. 6 OAR descriptions were accepted with no amendments, 41 required minor amendments, 6 major amendments, 20 developed as a result of feedback, and 5 structures excluded in response to feedback. The final GHG consensus guidance includes 73 OARs with peer-reviewed descriptions (Appendix A).
We provide OAR descriptions with standardized nomenclature for use in clinical trials. A more uniform dataset supports the delivery of clinically relevant and valid conclusions from clinical trials.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Managing radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac devices (implantable cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators) has been a great practical and procedural challenge in ...radiation oncology practice. Since the publication of the AAPM TG‐34 in 1994, large bodies of literature and case reports have been published about different kinds of radiation effects on modern technology implantable cardiac devices and patient management before, during, and after radiotherapy. This task group report provides the framework that analyzes the potential failure modes of these devices and lays out the methodology for patient management in a comprehensive and concise way, in every step of the entire radiotherapy process.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
The Value of On-Site Proton Audits Taylor, Paige A; Lowenstein, Jessica; Followill, David ...
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics,
03/2022, Volume:
112, Issue:
4
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
This study aimed to highlight the value and key findings of on-site proton audits.
The authors performed 38 on-site measurement-based peer reviews of proton centers participating in National Cancer ...Institute-funded clinical trials. The reviews covered beam calibration, lateral and depth measurements, mechanical checks, treatment planning and clinical practice, and quality assurance (QA) practices. Program deficiencies were noted, and recommendations were made about ways institutions could improve their practices.
Institutions received an average of 3 (range, 1-8) recommendations for practice improvements. The number of deficiencies did not decrease over time, highlighting the continued need for this type of peer review. The most common deficiencies were for Task Group-recommended QA compliance (97% of centers), computed tomography number (CTN) to relative linear stopping power conversion (59%), and QA procedures (53%). In addition, 32% of institutions assessed failed at least 1 lateral beam profile measurement (<90% of pixels passing 3% global/3 mm; 10% threshold), despite passing internal QA measurements. These failures occurred for several different plan configurations (large, small, shallow, and deep targets) and at different depths in the beam path (proximal to target, central, and distal). CTN to relative linear stopping power conversion curves showed deviations at low, mid, and high CTNs and highlighted areas of inconsistency between proton centers, with many centers falling outside of 2 sigma of the mean curve of their peers. All deficiencies from the peer review were discussed with the institutions, and many implemented dosimetric treatment planning and practice changes to improve the accuracy of their system and consistency with other institutions.
This peer review program has been integral in confirming and promoting consistency and best practice across proton centers for clinical trials, minimizing deviations for outcomes data.
PDF
