The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 15 June 2016
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Medical Physics
- Vol. 43 (7), 4209-4262
- https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4947547
Abstract
The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery challenges traditional prescriptive quality management (QM) methods, such as many of those included in guidelines published by organizations such as the AAPM, ASTRO, ACR, ESTRO, and IAEA. These prescriptive guidelines have traditionally focused on monitoring all aspects of the functional performance of radiotherapy (RT) equipment by comparing parameters against tolerances set at strict but achievable values. Many errors that occur in radiation oncology are not due to failures in devices and software; rather they are failures in workflow and process. A systematic understanding of the likelihood and clinical impact of possible failures throughout a course of radiotherapy is needed to direct limit QM resources efficiently to produce maximum safety and quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and has developed a framework for designing QM activities, based on estimates of the probability of identified failures and their clinical outcome through the RT planning and delivery process. The Task Group has chosen a specific radiotherapy process required for “intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)” as a case study. The goal of this work is to apply modern risk‐based analysis techniques to this complex RT process in order to demonstrate to the RT community that such techniques may help identify more effective and efficient ways to enhance the safety and quality of our treatment processes. The task group generated by consensus an example quality management program strategy for the IMRT process performed at the institution of one of the authors. This report describes the methodology and nomenclature developed, presents the process maps, FMEAs, fault trees, and QM programs developed, and makes suggestions on how this information could be used in the clinic. The development and implementation of risk‐assessment techniques will make radiation therapy safer and more efficient.Keywords
This publication has 110 references indexed in Scilit:
- Safety considerations for IGRT: Executive summaryPractical Radiation Oncology, 2013
- Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: Executive summaryPractical Radiation Oncology, 2013
- Application of failure mode and effects analysis to treatment planning in scanned proton beam radiotherapyRadiation Oncology, 2013
- Prevention of a wrong‐location misadministration through the use of an intradepartmental incident learning systemMedical Physics, 2012
- QA for helical tomotherapy: Report of the AAPM Task Group 148a)Medical Physics, 2010
- Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101Medical Physics, 2010
- Evaluation of Safety in a Radiation Oncology Setting Using Failure Mode and Effects AnalysisInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 2009
- An extensive log‐file analysis of step‐and‐shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy segment delivery errorsMedical Physics, 2004
- Verification of dynamic and segmental IMRT delivery by dynamic log file analysisJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2002
- Reduction of the “horns” observed on the beam profiles of a 6-MV linear acceleratorMedical Physics, 1984