A Method for Evaluating Quality Assurance Needs in Radiation Therapy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI (United States)
- Department of Medical Physics, Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB (Canada)
- Department of Medical Physics, Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA (United States)
- Radiological Physics Center, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE (United States)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, CA (United States)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis, MO (United States)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL (United States)
- Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (United States)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA (United States)
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (United States)
The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery techniques challenges traditional prescriptive quality control and quality assurance programs that ensure safety and reliability of treatment planning and delivery systems under all clinical scenarios. Until now quality management (QM) guidelines published by concerned organizations (e.g., American Association of Physicists in Medicine [AAPM], European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ESTRO], International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]) have focused on monitoring functional performance of radiotherapy equipment by measurable parameters, with tolerances set at strict but achievable values. In the modern environment, however, the number and sophistication of possible tests and measurements have increased dramatically. There is a need to prioritize QM activities in a way that will strike a balance between being reasonably achievable and optimally beneficial to patients. A systematic understanding of possible errors over the course of a radiation therapy treatment and the potential clinical impact of each is needed to direct limited resources in such a way to produce maximal benefit to the quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and is developing a framework for designing QM activities, and hence allocating resources, based on estimates of clinical outcome, risk assessment, and failure modes. The report will provide guidelines on risk assessment approaches with emphasis on failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) and an achievable QM program based on risk analysis. Examples of FMEA to intensity-modulated radiation therapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy are presented. Recommendations on how to apply this new approach to individual clinics and further research and development will also be discussed.
- OSTI ID:
- 21124249
- Journal Information:
- International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 71, Issue 1; Conference: 2007 interorganizational symposium on quality assurance of radiation therapy: Challenges of advanced technology, Dallas, TX (United States), 20-22 Feb 2007; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.081; PII: S0360-3016(07)04268-X; Copyright (c) 2008 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0360-3016
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
WE-A-16A-01: International Medical Physics Symposium: Increasing Access to Medical Physics Education/Training and Research Excellence
TH-E-19A-01: Quality and Safety in Radiation Therapy