Medical Physics Procedures
Medical Physics Procedures
Medical Physics Procedures
March 2007
IAEA-TECDOC-1543
March 2007
The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Dosimetry and Medical Radiation Physics Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria
ON-SITE VISITS TO RADIOTHERAPY CENTRES: MEDICAL PHYSICS PROCEDURES IAEA, VIENNA, 2007 IAEA-TECDOC-1543 ISBN 9201026072 ISSN 10114289
IAEA, 2007 Printed by the IAEA in Austria March 2007
FOREWORD The IAEA has a long standing history of providing support and assistance for radiotherapy dosimetry audits in Member States, for educating and training radiotherapy professionals, and for reviewing the radiotherapy process in a variety of situations. Since 1969, and in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), the IAEA has implemented a dosimetry audit service using mailed thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) to verify the calibration of radiotherapy beams in hospitals in Member States. The IAEA/WHO TLD service aims at improving the accuracy and consistency of clinical radiotherapy dosimetry worldwide. Detailed follow-up procedures have been implemented for correcting incorrect beam calibrations. When necessary, on-site visits by IAEA experts in radiotherapy physics are organized to identify and rectify dosimetry problems in hospitals. The IAEA has also been requested to organize expert missions in response to problems found during the radiation treatment planning process. Assessment of the doses received by affected patients and a medical assessment were undertaken when appropriate. Although vital for the radiotherapy process, accurate beam dosimetry and treatment planning alone cannot guarantee the successful treatment of a patient. The quality assurance (QA) of the entire radiotherapy process has to be taken into account. Hence, a new approach has been developed and named Quality Assurance Team for Radiation Oncology (QUATRO). The principal aim of QUATRO is to review the radiotherapy process, including the organization, infrastructure, clinical and medical physics aspects of the radiotherapy services. It also includes reviewing the hospitals professional competence, with a view to quality improvement. The QUATRO methodology is described in the IAEA publication Comprehensive Audits of Radiotherapy Practices: A Tool for Quality Improvement. QUATRO, in addition, offers assistance in the resolution of suspected or actual dose misadministrations (over and under-exposures) in radiotherapy. It includes the follow-up of inconsistent results detected with the IAEA/WHO TLD postal service and helps Member States at a very early stage in the problem-solving process, focusing on prevention of incidents or accidents in radiotherapy. The structure and systematic approach of QUATRO combined with its low-key problem-solving mode provide a complement to the operations of the IAEA Response and Assistance Network which deals with nuclear and radiological accidents and emergencies through the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency. QUATRO involves audits both pro-active, i.e. comprehensive reviews of the radiotherapy practice, and reactive, i.e. focused investigations in response to suspected or actual incidents during radiotherapy. This publication describes the audit technique for medical physics aspects of the operation of radiotherapy hospitals in Member States. The audit methodology was developed by a group of international experts through a series of IAEA consultants meetings conducted 19992005. The IAEA officers responsible for these meetings were J. Izewska for standardized procedures for resolving discrepancies in radiotherapy dosimetry and S. Vatnitskiy for the methodology for the auditing of clinical treatment planning. The IAEA officer responsible for this publication is J. Izewska of the Division of Human Health.
EDITORIAL NOTE
The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1. Quality assurance in radiotherapy........................................................................................1 1.2. Discrepancies in radiation treatment....................................................................................1 1.3. Quality audit ........................................................................................................................2 1.4. Purpose and structure of this PUBLICATION ....................................................................2 IAEA SUPPORT IN REVIEWING THE RADIOTHERAPY PROCESS IN HOSPITALS ........2 2.1. IAEA activities in the audit and review of radiotherapy dosimetry ....................................2 2.2. IAEA activities in the review of radiotherapy incidents......................................................2 2.3. IAEA activities in a comprehensive audit of radiotherapy practice ....................................3 CLASSIFICATION OF ON-SITE VISITS BY IAEA EXPERTS TO REVIEW THE RADIOTHERAPY PROCESS .......................................................................................................3 3.1. Levels of review visit...........................................................................................................3 3.2. Scope or type of review visit ...............................................................................................4 COMPOSITION OF THE ON-SITE VISIT TEAM.......................................................................4 ROUTES OF REQUEST TO THE IAEA FOR AN ON-SITE VISIT ...........................................6 PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY IAEA EXPERTS DURING ON-SITE REVIEW VISITS............................................................................................................................6 PREPARATION FOR, CARRYING OUT AND REPORTING ON-SITE REVIEW VISITS ............................................................................................................................................7 7.1. The preparation for a visit....................................................................................................7 7.2. Content and structure of the on-site review visit .................................................................7 7.2.1. Interview with the institutions staff .......................................................................8 7.2.2. Assessment ..............................................................................................................9 7.2.3. Exit interview ........................................................................................................10 7.2.4. Training .................................................................................................................10 7.3. Confidentiality ...................................................................................................................11 7.4. Reporting ...........................................................................................................................11 ON-SITE DOSIMETRY VISITS TO RADIOTHERAPY HOSPITALS
2.
3.
4. 5. 6. 7.
BACKGROUND FOR DOSIMETRY ON-SITE VISITS............................................................12 PREPARATION FOR A VISIT ...................................................................................................12 INTERVIEW OF THE INSTITUTIONS STAFF .......................................................................13 SAFETY AND MECHANICAL TESTS......................................................................................13 11.1. Safety tests .........................................................................................................................13 11.2. Mechanical tests.................................................................................................................14 DOSIMETRY EQUIPMENT COMPARISON ............................................................................15 DOSIMETRY CALIBRATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS......................................................15 13.1. Beam output calibration.....................................................................................................15 13.2. Additional measurements ..................................................................................................16
12. 13.
14.
CLINICAL DOSIMETRY............................................................................................................17 14.1. Basic dosimetry data..........................................................................................................17 14.2. Monitor units/time set calculation .....................................................................................17 14.3. Check of treatment planning system..................................................................................18 BRACHYTHERAPY ON-SITE VISITS
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN BRACHYTHERAPY ...................................................................19 SCOPE OF BRACHYTHERAPY REVIEW VISITS ..................................................................19 GUIDELINES FOR A BRACHYTHERAPY REVIEW..............................................................20 PREPARATION FOR THE REVIEW VISIT ..............................................................................20 BRACHYTHERAPY TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS............................................................21 19.1. Safety, physics parameters, operation and organization....................................................21 19.1.1. Safety Tests ...........................................................................................................21 19.1.2. Mechanical and functional tests ............................................................................21 19.1.3. Organization..........................................................................................................21 19.2. Verification of the source strength.....................................................................................22 19.3. Verification of brachytherapy dose calculation procedures...............................................22 19.3.1. Reconstruction of implant geometry .....................................................................22 19.3.2. Brachytherapy benchmark cases ...........................................................................23 ON-SITE VISITS FOR REVIEWING THE TREATMENT PLANNING PROCESS
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN TREATMENT PLANNING ........................................................24 SCOPE OF REVIEWS OF TREATMENT PLANNING FOR EXTERNAL RADIOTHERAPY........................................................................................................................24 21.1. Steps in the treatment planning process.............................................................................25 21.2. Issues in QA of the treatment planning..............................................................................27 Preparation for the on-site visit to review the treatment planning process ..................................27 On-site procedures for the review of the treatment planning process...........................................27 23.1. Review of institutions treatment planning Quality Assurance Programme......................29 23.2. Comparison of the beam data ............................................................................................29 23.3. Evaluation of benchmark in-water cases and anatomical cases.........................................29 23.3.1. Photon in-water phantom benchmark cases ..........................................................30 23.3.2. Photon anatomical cases........................................................................................36 23.3.3. Electron in-water-phantom benchmark cases........................................................41 23.4. Review the records of all involved or affected patients ..................................................43
22. 23.
APPENDIX I: FORMS FOR PART I....................................................................................................45 I.1. DIRAC questionnaire ........................................................................................................45 I.2. Institution contact list.........................................................................................................49 I.3. On-site visit expert checklist of activities..........................................................................50 I.4. End-of-mission report experts checklist ...........................................................................52 APPENDIX II: FORMS FOR PART II .................................................................................................53 II.1. A typical on-site dosimetry review visit ............................................................................53 II.2. Staff interview data collection forms.................................................................................55
II.3.
II.4.
II.2.1. Instrumentation......................................................................................................55 II.2.2. 60Co unit data.........................................................................................................56 II.2.3. Accelerator data (photons) ....................................................................................58 II.2.4. Accelerator data (electrons)...................................................................................60 II.2.5. Clinical dosimetry .................................................................................................62 II.2.6. TLD discrepancy interview record........................................................................64 Measurement records and forms for dosimetry .................................................................66 II.3.1. Safety and mechanical measurements...................................................................66 II.3.2. Dosimetry equipment comparison.........................................................................68 II.3.3. Dose measurement record (photons and electrons)...............................................70 II.3.4. Photon beam output reporting form ......................................................................71 II.3.5. Electron beam output reporting form ....................................................................72 II.3.6. Clinical dosimetry test #____................................................................................73 Template of the report on a dosimetry review visit to a radiotherapy hospital..................74
APPENDIX III: FORMS FOR PART III...............................................................................................84 III.1. Information form A typical on-site review visit for Brachytherapy................................84 III.2. Procedures for Quality Control of the Afterloading Equipment........................................85 III.3. Worksheet for expert's well-type chamber measurement ..................................................89 III.4. Validation of the dose calculation procedures in brachytherapy .......................................91 III.5. Worksheet on the geometric reconstruction techniques ....................................................95 III.6. Report on a brachytherapy review visit to a radiotherapy hospital....................................97 APPENDIX IV: FORMS FOR PART IV ............................................................................................105 IV.1. A typical on-site visit for treatment planning ..................................................................105 IV.2. Institution questionnaire for treatment planning..............................................................107 IV.3. Questionnaire for photon benchmark cases .....................................................................114 IV.4. Questionnaire for electron benchmark cases ...................................................................118 IV.5. Interview forms for treatment planning ...........................................................................120 IV.6. Exit interview checklist for treatment planning ...............................................................123 IV.7. Report on a treatment planning review visit to a radiotherapy hospital ..........................126 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................141 CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW..........................................................................143
Significant effort has been put into quality assurance (QA) in radiotherapy. It is generally understood that the aim of QA is to ensure high and continued quality in radiation treatment for all patients, in order to optimise clinical outcomes. The radiation treatment process is complicated and has many stages and many parameters, as well as requiring input from different professional groups. There is potential for error and uncertainty at every point, particularly at the many interfaces between different staff groups, between different stages and between different processes where information and data are passed back and forth. QA is necessary in all areas of radiotherapy and for all processes and procedures and various recommendations exist for comprehensive and consistent QA programmes, or quality systems, in radiotherapy and radiotherapy physics, e.g. [14]. This emphasis in QA has in part been to minimise the possibility of accidental exposure (in this report referred to as dose misadministration, to indicate situations where the treatment doses are substantially higher or lower than intended [56]). This is particularly important for radiotherapy as it is a potentially high-risk procedure. A significant underdose can cause failure to control the disease and a significant overdose increases the risk of damage to normal tissues. It should be noted that in radiotherapy underdoses are as important for the overall quality of treatment outcome as overdoses whereas, in a radiation protection context, only overdoses are generally considered to be of significance. 1.2. DISCREPANCIES IN RADIATION TREATMENT
Despite the widespread recommendations for QA, circumstances arise where discrepancies have been reported during radiation treatment or where the possibility of discrepancies may be indicated from measurement or observation of part of the radiotherapy process. For example, the IAEA and ICRP [5, 6] have analysed a series of accidental exposures during radiotherapy to draw lessons in methods of prevention of such occurrences. Other evaluations are reported in the literature from the results of in vivo dosimetry programmes or from audits of radiotherapy practice. Discrepancies between the delivered and intended treatment have been identified within the context of such QA activities and have therefore been rectified. These have been of various magnitudes below the level of accidental exposure, including near misses. Their causes have been catalogued to help others review their QA programmes. Examples include Essers and Mijnheer [7] in vivo dosimetry), Thwaites et al. [8], (dosimetry audit), Williams et al. [9] (chart review, planning calculations), but many others can be given. In any wide-ranging analysis of such events a number of general observations can be made: (a) Errors may occur at any stage and be made by any staff group. (b) Besides direct causes of errors, there are a number of general contributing factors, including complacency, a lack of knowledge or experience, overconfidence, time pressures, lack of resources, lack of staff, failures in communication, etc. (c) Most of the direct and contributing causes of discrepancies in radiation treatment are also compounded by the lack of an adequate QA programme or a failure in its application. (d) Errors in any activity are always possible, including radiotherapy. However a comprehensive, systematic and consistently applied QA programme has the potential to minimise the number of occurrences and also to identify them at the earliest possible opportunity when they do occur, thereby also minimising their consequences in patient treatment.
PART I
1.3.
QUALITY AUDIT
As part of a comprehensive approach to QA, the independent external audit is widely recognised as an effective method of checking that the quality of activities in an individual institution is suitable for achieving the required objectives. Quality audits can be of a wide range of types and levels, either reviewing the whole process or specific critical parts of it. Quality audits may be proactive, i.e. routine review of on-going procedures with the aim of improving the quality and preventing or minimizing the probability of errors and accidents, or they may be reactive, i.e., focused on response to a suspected or reported incident. Examples of proactive and reactive quality audits are the IAEA/WHO TLD mailed dose programme [1011], and on-site review visits of radiotherapy institutions by IAEA experts, respectively. Quality audit testing and review can aid in providing advice on improvement, where appropriate. 1.4. PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS PUBLICATION
A comprehensive review of the complete radiation treatment process is discussed in the IAEA Comprehensive audits of radiotherapy practices: a tool for quality improvement [12]. The present technical report provides general as well as detailed guidelines for on-site visits to radiotherapy hospitals by IAEA experts, for the purposes of a quality audit, a specific review of dosimetry or treatment planning, and assessment of radiotherapy incidents. Part I of this publication gives general guidelines for on-site visits, to be read in conjunction with the detailed sets of procedures given in Parts II, III and IV, which correspond to external beam dosimetry visits (photon and electron beams), brachytherapy visits and visits for the review of the external beam treatment planning process, respectively. The procedures in this publication are limited to the medical physics part of the review and cover all steps from the request for review to final reporting and distribution of the lessons learned; however they do not extend to medical (radiation oncology) aspects. The medical aspects are reviewed in the QUATRO guidelines for comprehensive audit [12].
Since 1969, together with the World Health Organization (WHO), the IAEA has undertaken postal TLD audits to verify the calibration of radiotherapy beams in developing countries. Detailed follow-up procedures for poor TLD results have been implemented since 1996. As part of these procedures, if observed discrepancies cannot be resolved by the local institution or the national experts, then on-site visits are offered by the IAEA to help to identify and rectify the problem. Such visits are made by an IAEA expert in radiotherapy physics and the IAEA has developed a standardized set of procedures to aid the expert during the visit (see [13] and Part II of this publication). Procedures carried out include a review of the dosimetry data and techniques, corrective measurements and ad hoc training. The reasons for the observed discrepancy are then traced, explained, corrected and reported. 2.2. IAEA ACTIVITIES IN THE REVIEW OF RADIOTHERAPY INCIDENTS
The IAEA has also been requested to provide experts for visits following observed problems in, or misadministration arising from, the treatment planning process, e.g. the incident in Panama [14]. In these cases a similar general approach has been taken. The reasons for any identified problems have been traced, explained, corrected and reported. In addition, an assessment of the doses incurred by affected patients and a medical assessment and evaluation of the group of affected patients has been
undertaken where appropriate. These examples of visits have highlighted the need for additional guidelines for the review process and to provide a structure for recommending the type and level of review, and also for additional procedures to aid the IAEA expert(s) carrying out the review visit. 2.3. IAEA ACTIVITIES IN A COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT OF RADIOTHERAPY PRACTICE
The IAEA, through its Technical Cooperation Programme, has received numerous requests from developing countries to perform a comprehensive audit to assess the whole radiotherapy process, i.e. the organization, infrastructure, and clinical and medical physics aspects of radiotherapy services. The objectives of a comprehensive audit are to review and evaluate the quality of all components of the practice of radiation therapy at the institution, including its professional competence, with a view to quality improvement. A multidisciplinary team comprising a radiation oncologist, medical physicist and radiotherapy technologist (RTT) carries out the audits. In response to the requests, the IAEA has prepared guidelines for IAEA audit teams to initiate, perform and report on such audits [12].
Three levels of on-site review visits are envisaged: Level A A formal on-site visit to review the radiotherapy process of an institution by an IAEA expert team to investigate a reported dose misadministration. A dose misadministration in this context is a deviation of the delivered dose by more than 25 % [6] from that intended, whether this is an overdose or an underdose. Under some circumstances a lower deviation may also be termed as a dose misadministration since a lower deviation may be considered by a given government to be a misadministration or may have had a serious impact on the patients health. Examples of Level A review visits have been reported recently [14 16]. They were set up and carried out after formal requests by Member States had been submitted to the IAEA in terms of the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency. It is to be expected that other similar requests to the IAEA will arise. Level B A general assistance on-site review of the radiotherapy process, or part of the radiotherapy process, in an institution by one or more IAEA experts. The purpose of a Level B visit may be to assess QA systems and procedures, to provide advice and general assistance, or specifically for education and training. This may be in response to suspected or confirmed problems but not necessarily so. It may also be as part of the regular process in the IAEA Technical Cooperation Programme to strengthen QA in radiotherapy. The situation with Level B visits is similar in approach to those IAEA on-site visits carried out by radiotherapy physics experts as part of the follow-up procedures established to support the mailed TLD dosimetry audit system [13]. Level C Comprehensive audit of all components of radiotherapy practice at an institution or in a Member State to enhance the quality of the practice.
PART I
This level of audit is discussed in another IAEA publication [12] and is not addressed specifically in this report. However, many of the procedures in that report are also applicable here. 3.2. SCOPE OR TYPE OF REVIEW VISIT
On-site review visits may be directly related to certain types of problems in the radiotherapy process in which case the scope of the visit will be related to that part of the process. The main expected areas are: (a) Problems with the radiotherapy beam or brachytherapy source calibration, or dosimetry parameters used to calculate the beam-on time, or in the performance of radiation treatment machines or related radiation treatment equipment including information systems. (b) Problems in the treatment planning process, including the transfer of information from the treatment planning stage to the treatment delivery stage. (c) Problems in medical procedures in the radiotherapy process. (d) Problems may also occur in the treatment delivery process, but if they are systematic they will typically be linked to medical procedures, equipment, dosimetry, treatment planning or information transfer from treatment planning to treatment delivery and so will be covered by one or other of the above. In addition, it may be that a request for an on-site visit arises from non-specific suspected or reported problems, which may overlap some or all of these various areas or where it may not be immediately clear which areas are involved. Depending on the level of the problem involved and the route by which the review visit has been set up, problems in any of these areas may require review visits at either Level A or B (cf. Table 1).
Formal Level A
Scope or type
Suspected or confirmed problem in beam (or source) calibration or performance of equipment Suspected or confirmed problem in medical procedures Audit of medical physics procedures No pre-identified problems To assess QA systems and procedures, to provide advice or assistance, to provide education and training
General assistance visit Level B Suspected or confirmed problem Suspected or in beam (or source) confirmed problem in treatment calibration or performance of planning process equipment
Purpose
12 medical physics experts, radiation oncologist, radiation protection physicist 1-2 medical physics experts, radiation oncologist, if needed to assess impact on patients 12 medical physics experts, radiation oncologist
12 medical physics experts, radiation oncologist, radiation protection physicist, other professionals as needed 12 medical physics experts, radiation oncologist, radiation protection physicist 12 medical physics experts, radiation oncologist, if needed to assess impact on patients, other professionals as required
Radiation oncologist medical physics expert dosimetrist, radiation therapy technologist or engineer
Routes of request
From the oncology department From institution administration From national Ministry of Health
PART I
(e) In addition, for treatment planning review visits, the mission team may include other experts representing some of the other professions involved in the treatment planning process. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the need for the visit the following persons may be needed: (i) A dosimetrist, depending on the nature of the problem; (ii) A radiotherapy technologist (RTT, therapy radiographer, radiation therapist), if it is felt necessary to investigate operational procedures on the simulator or CT scanner, or procedures involved directly in treatment delivery at the treatment unit; (iii) A radiation oncologist, if there is a need to assess clinical aspects of the treatment planning processes, such as prescription, volume outlining, etc. (f) If the visit is organised through regulatory structures in the Member State and between the Member State and the IAEA (Level A), then it is necessary to include a radiation protection physicist in the team. However, in the event of general assistance visits (Level B) this should normally not be needed. (g) In specific circumstances, it may be useful to include at least one radiotherapy physics expert from the IAEA staff. This has been shown to be valuable in previous visits investigating dose misadministrations or radiotherapy accidents [1416].
This publication does not address on-site visits focusing on problems in medical procedures. The general procedures for review of radiation oncology practice are partially available in the QUATRO guidelines [12].
Careful structured preparation for the visit by the IAEA and by the expert(s) is required. This includes sending questionnaires to the institution, to be returned before the visit, sending other appropriate information beforehand to allow the institution to prepare for the visit and having the expert(s) review any information available about the institution. The various forms given in the appendices IIV are intended to help experts in data collection and later in the reporting of the results of the visit. The IAEA is in charge of the organization of the visit including the contacts with the expert(s) and the institution to be visited. The IAEA arranges for the on-site visit to the institution and for recruiting the expert(s), referring clearly to the request from the institution itself, from other requesting bodies or from any other indication, when the visit is a consequence of an assumed or proven radiotherapy misadministration. Upon confirmation from the institution, the IAEA contacts the expert(s) and provides him/her with a set of the data on the institutions radiotherapy and dosimetry equipment, and staff available (based on the IAEA directory of radiotherapy centres, DIRAC Appendices I.1I.2, [17]). These data are confidential and cannot be distributed other than to the authorised individuals, i.e. the IAEA staff involved, the experts and the relevant WHO staff, when the mission results from discrepancies in the IAEA/WHO TLD audits. At this stage the arrangements are made for the practical aspects of the visit, including a request for the local staff to assist the expert. In addition, staff interview data collection forms (Appendices II.2, IV.5 and [12]) are made available to the expert prior to the on-site visit. If information is missing regarding the detailed circumstances relating to the request for an on-site visit, the IAEA will request any additional necessary information from the institution. The IAEA will arrange to send questionnaires to the relevant staff members involved in the radiation therapy process at the institution. These questionnaires will need to be completed and returned to the IAEA promptly. The IAEA will forward the completed questionnaires to the expert(s) prior to the visit. By completing the questionnaires, some weaknesses in dosimetry, brachytherapy and treatment planning processes related to education, documentation and communication might be identified before the visit. Any ambiguity in the answers can be resolved, or additional information obtained, during the visit. 7.2. CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE ON-SITE REVIEW VISIT The aim of on-site review visits in the case of suspected or reported problems in the radiotherapy process, is primarily to verify that a problem exists or existed in the past. If a problem is confirmed, then the review must determine the time frame over which the problem existed, the magnitude of the problem, and all factors which contributed. The review should also help to provide solutions to avoid the same problems in the future. It should be emphasized that the aim of the review is to carry out a fact-finding process intended to improve the quality of radiotherapy and retain as much confidentiality as possible. The data collected by QUATRO may include the fact that there is/was a deviation between the dose received by a patient or a group of patients versus that intended. These data may be involved in regulatory or legal processes but the team members may not give opinions, with respect to regulatory or legal actions, on the culpability of any of the staff member implicated in the propagation of the discrepancy. Parts II to IV give procedures that the expert(s) can use as a guide in reviewing processes and procedures and obtaining data. These guidelines have been designed to enable the efficient resolution of any problems, including identification of possible contributing factors. However, the expert(s) must
PART I
be flexible in their approach and be prepared to modify the procedures to meet the specific circumstances at the time of the visit. The expert(s) must keep in mind that although there may be one primary failure there are usually other contributing factors. As many of these contributing factors as possible should be identified. The detailed content of a review visit will depend on the circumstances giving rise to the visit and will follow the procedural frameworks in Parts II to IV of this publication. However, the general methods used in any such review visit will include: (a) An entrance briefing to introduce the members of QUATRO and to inform the institutions various staff members of the objectives and the details of the audit. (b) Assessing the infrastructure of the institution. (c) Interviewing local staff. If a team of experts is involved then interview duties should be distributed by the appropriate QUATRO expert. (d) Reviewing and evaluating operational and QA procedures and processes, including documentation, data and records. Attention should also be paid to any information or records on the education and training of the staff on the relevant procedures of the radiotherapy process, including the adequacy of the training done before implementing the use of new methods or equipment. (e) Carrying out measurements and other practical tests of the performance of local systems and procedures, where appropriate and relevant. (f) Investigating causes of observed problems and contributing factors. (g) Reporting back to the local staff in an interactive exit briefing while maintaining as much confidentiality as possible. The briefing should present and explain the results and findings of the review, pointing out the causes of problems and contributing factors that were identified in the treatment and QA processes and procedures. When appropriate, the expert will emphasize that problems in radiotherapy are typically the result of the failure of multiple components in the QA system. (h) Providing recommendations to correct the identified problems and avoid them in the future, and recommendations that could lead to improvement in the total treatment and quality assurance programme. Besides practical steps, this should always emphasise education, training and communication issues. 7.2.1. Interview with the institutions staff The first step in the review process is to perform a series of interviews with the institutions staff. The purpose of these interviews is to assess the infrastructure of the department (equipment, staff, resources, training, etc.) and to determine the role of each staff member in the patient management and treatment process. The interviews should also be used to assess the level and quality of communication, with particular attention to the possibility that poor communication may contribute to any identified problems. Interviews are normally done individually with one or more IAEA expert(s) in attendance. Documentation of the interview must be completed by the IAEA expert(s). The staff to be interviewed will include: Medical radiation physicist(s) (radiotherapy physicist, medical physicist); Radiation oncologist(s); Representative from the administration (responsible for staffing, equipment purchases, etc.); Dosimetrist(s) when needed (in many systems there is no separate group of dosimetrists and these functions are carried out by medical physicists, medical physics assistants or technologists, radiation dosimetry technicians or therapy radiographers); (e) Radiotherapy technologist(s) when needed (in some systems they are referred to as radiation therapists, therapy technologists, radiographers, radiation therapy technologists or radiotherapy nurses). (a) (b) (c) (d)
7.2.2. Assessment 7.2.2.1. Review of institutions quality assurance programme The second main step is to review the QA programme of the institution. Based on the information gained in the interviews, the IAEA expert(s) will review written information on the quality control (QC) procedures and measurements. Original data are to be consulted whenever possible. The goal of the review is twofold, firstly to gain a general impression of the QA programme at the institution and secondly to focus on those issues that are most likely to bear on reported or suspected problems. This review will typically include the following: (a) The overall radiotherapy QA programme, focusing on those aspects that might be relevant to any actual or potential problems. (b) The commissioning of QC data for imaging equipment, teletherapy machines and brachytherapy system(s). This should include a review of the original measurements obtained during commissioning, the source data for brachytherapy, and data selected to be the reference data set for periodic quality control measurements or calculations. (c) The patient-specific QC checks, including independent verification of monitor units or treatment time, periodic checks of treatment records, in vivo dosimetry records, if available, and the treatment summary at the completion of the treatment. (d) The reviews and calculations that the institution has performed to identify and resolve the reported problems. (e) Current patient treatment records, to become acquainted with the institutions treatment techniques and dose calculation procedures. 7.2.2.2. Measurements Any visit involving dosimetry and medical radiation physics investigations will require a series of measurements to be taken by the medical physics experts. Depending on the nature of the problem, the measurements will focus on various parts of the radiotherapy process. The relevant measurement procedures are addressed in Parts IIIV of this publication. For comprehensive on-site audits of radiotherapy procedures, physics measurements constitute an integral part of the peer-review and the relevant procedures are described in the QUATRO guidelines for comprehensive reviews [12]. 7.2.2.3. Review of patients records If the on-site visit is the result of a reported incident related to a dose misadministration to radiotherapy patients, appropriate records of all involved or affected patients should be studied. Simulator, computer tomography (CT) and portal images, computerized treatment plans and daily treatment records should be reviewed. The expert(s) will usually determine on a case-by-case basis whether this review is to be carried out at the same time as the QA programme review discussed above, or immediately thereafter. Serious effort should be taken to identify all patients whose treatment was adversely affected by any reported or identified incident, and the actual dose received by these patients must be determined where possible. Each member of the expert team will focus on those areas of their specific expertise. The radiation oncologist in the expert team will arrange for a medical review of all affected patients. The institution will be advised of the necessity to inform affected patients (or their families). The local physicians will be given advice and support on how to manage the care of the affected patients. For dosimetry errors exceeding 5% but not large enough to have obvious visible effects on the patient (such as those occurring from serious overexposures), the effects on the patient may be subtle. If the effects have persisted over a long time, the radiation oncologist may have adjusted prescriptions to compensate clinically (in principle, by increasing or decreasing the prescription). In these situations, the radiation oncologist expert must assess whether the institution has compensated clinically and advise the local physician on how to modify the prescription when the dosimetry error is corrected. If
PART I
there was no radiation oncologist on the audit team, the institution should be advised not to change the radiations conditions until the effect on the patient prescription has been assessed. The IAEA may need to send a radiation oncologist to assist in this assessment. 7.2.3. Exit interview At the end of the review process, the expert(s) must present the results of the on-site review to the institutions radiotherapy physicist(s) and others deemed appropriate by the expert(s), in the form of an exit interview, while maintaining as much confidentiality as possible. It is usually desirable for the local radiation oncologist and an appropriate administrator also to be present at this exit interview. The exit interview should cover the following points: (a) The results of calculations, measurements, discrepancies identified and methods recommended to resolve them. (b) The components of the total radiation therapy process that have been identified as failing in some fashion. The expert(s) should not focus only on the primary causes but also on all subsequent issues that may be expected to impact on patient treatment. The expert(s) will emphasize that accidents typically happen as the result of the failure of multiple components of the QA system. (c) Discussion of what education or training might be helpful to stimulate improvement in all the components that failed. The whole review process will include an education and communication component. (d) A list of recommendations that will help to correct and avoid any identified problem in the future, and recommendations that could lead to the improvement of the entire QA programme. It is of the utmost importance that the radiotherapy personnel are able to understand the consequences of the observed discrepancies, how they affect patient treatment, and how the implementation of the experts recommendations will impact on future treatments. The institution should be advised to verify all given recommendations through their own measurement or calculation, before implementing recommendations in the clinical practice. Ultimately, the responsibility for operation of the centre must rest with the local staff, not the IAEA experts. The expert(s) will discuss with the radiation oncologist any changes recommended in the beam calibration, treatment planning, treatment machine operation, and patient treatment procedures as they may have an impact on the outcome of future patients treatment. If appropriate, the expert(s) will discuss the ways that the institution reports the detected failures so that a similar problem will not occur at other institutions. Also, if appropriate, the expert(s) will discuss with the institutions staff ways to involve the manufacturer(s) in the identification and evaluation of any observed failure in their radiotherapy equipment. 7.2.4. Training The various types or levels of on-site reviews will all have as one of their significant objectives the identification of the weaknesses in the radiotherapy QA processes, and methods to improve the quality of treatment and care for all subsequent radiotherapy patients at the institution. An important aspect of this is to provide training of the local staff. The training should emphasize quality assurance procedures to help individuals utilize their experience to notice and report any unusual circumstances. This is intended to improve the capability of the staff to identify errors before they impact on the patients treatment. This educational process should be continuous, starting with the contacts before the experts visit, through all the interviews, calculations, measurements and other actions during the visit, at the exit interview and ultimately in the final written report. These processes, the clinical dosimetry measurements and tests, as outlined in Parts IIIV, all have an important educational value for the institutions physicists and other staff involved in the daily treatment of patients.
10
7.3.
CONFIDENTIALITY
All information related to an on-site review visit organised by the IAEA is confidential and may not be distributed to any individuals other than the IAEA staff involved, the appointed IAEA experts, relevant WHO staff (where appropriate), and the staff involved at the institution. The institution will be advised to report misadministrations and other incidents of significant importance regarding the safety of the patients, to the relevant regulatory authority. It should be made clear that reporting these misadministrations and incidents is the responsibility of the institution and not the IAEA experts. If relevant, experts will discuss ways by which the institution can report any identified problems so that other institutions can benefit from the experience and ensure that the same problem does not occur elsewhere. If the problem relates to equipment of any sort, the institution should attempt to involve the manufacturer to ensure rapid notification of potential problems to other users. In particular, the manufacturer should assess methods of improving the equipment, the instructions or whatever other aspect may have been identified as a cause of the dose misadministration or as a contributing factor. If the problem relates to a human error, consideration will be given to whether reporting this error serves any educational value. Any reports regarding human error are anonymous and have to be treated confidentially. 7.4. REPORTING
Typically the report resulting from an on-site review visit consists of two parts, a detailed report and its summary. The detailed report to the institution includes results of all the measurements, calculations and investigations. It contains explanations of all the expert(s) actions, recommendations, etc. The summary report, required for submission to the relevant national authority or other Member State government department, summarises the visit, its main findings and recommendations. At the end of the visit, the expert(s) will present a preliminary report to the local physicist, the head of the radiotherapy department and, if appropriate, to the director of the hospital. The preliminary report will consist of the findings of the investigations undertaken during the visit. The report forms are included in the Appendices IIIV. Any records left at the institution will be clearly marked Preliminary. In addition to the preliminary report, the expert will leave a signed and dated copy of the measurements, calculations, report of results and a copy of the TRS 398 dosimetry code of practice [18], if not available at the institution, for the local physicist. These data and information will provide the institutions physicist with a set of independently measured reference data that can be used later to compare his/her own measurements for possible future dosimetry changes. Following the completion of the on-site review visit, the experts will prepare an end-of-mission report to be sent to the IAEA. This end-of-mission report will contain the following data and information for further quality control and processing: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) The full on-site review visits report and its summary; Records of the tests and measurements undertaken by the expert; Results of any measurements; Results of benchmark cases and clinical dosimetry; Analysis of the results of the measurements; The experts explanation of the reason for the discrepancy; The impact of the discrepancy on patient treatments; Recommendations to the institution and the government; Recommendations to the IAEA.
11
PART II. ON-SITE DOSIMETRY VISITS TO RADIOTHERAPY HOSPITALS 8. BACKGROUND FOR DOSIMETRY ON-SITE VISITS
Since 1969 the IAEA/WHO postal TLD audit service has verified the calibration of more than 6000 clinical photon beams at some 1500 radiotherapy hospitals. When the TLD result of a participating institution falls outside the acceptance limit of 5%, the institution is informed that there is a discrepancy and requested to try to identify the reasons why it occurred. The institution is then offered a second, follow-up TLD audit. If the deviation cannot be resolved by the local radiotherapy institution or the national SSDL, then an on-site visit is offered which, if accepted, will be made by an IAEA expert in clinical dosimetry. The on-site visit includes a review of the dosimetry data and techniques, corrective measurements and ad hoc training. The reasons for the discrepancy will then be traced, explained, corrected and reported. Until the discrepancies are resolved and changes have been implemented by the hospital to ensure that the discrepancies do not recur, the safe and effective delivery of radiation doses to patients may not be assured. This part provides a standardized set of procedures for resolving discrepancies in dosimetry during onsite visits to radiotherapy hospitals by IAEA experts. The table below summarises the acceptance criteria to be applied by the IAEA experts for dosimetry and mechanical parameters of the hospital treatment units. If some of the parameters are outside the acceptance criteria, it will not be possible for an institution to ensure adequate quality of the dosimetry practices in radiotherapy. The criteria are based on analyses of clinical data and the measurement uncertainties for various dosimetry and mechanical parameters.
TABLE 2. PARAMETERS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ON-SITE VISITS
Parameter Beam calibration Relative measurements (e.g. tray, wedge factors, %DD) Electron beam depth dose Brachytherapy source strength calibration Brachytherapy dose calculation Mechanical parameters Criterion 3% 2% 3 mm 5% 15% 3 mm/2
12
(h) Calliper; (i) Multimeter; (j) Simple tools (screwdrivers), adaptor plug; (k) Scotch tape; (l) Seven verification films (pre-packed); (m) Survey meter; (n) Graph paper (millimetre scale); (o) Spare batteries; (p) Telescopic distance indicator for distance and isocentric checks; (q) Stopwatch; (r) Two TLD sets and a TLD holder along with the instruction and data sheets; (s) If electrons are to be measured: a water phantom with provision for holding cylindrical and planeparallel chambers and for varying the chamber position flexibly. The dosimetry equipment is calibrated at the Dosimetry Laboratory of the IAEA and its calibration coefficients are traceable to BIPM. The Dosimetry Laboratory of the IAEA provides the quality assurance and maintenance of the experts equipment. It is the experts responsibility to complement this equipment with additional items which may be needed during the visit, such as a laptop and other items as appropriate. In addition, the expert kit will contain copies of this publication, the QUATRO guidelines for comprehensive audit [12], TRS 398 [18], a CD-ROM with the dose calculation software and supporting data, and other documentation.
13
PART II
The expert must wear a personal radiation monitoring device and, if available, have a radiation survey meter with an active alarm option nearby. 11.2. MECHANICAL TESTS The mechanical tests are designed to evaluate the geometrical accuracy and functionality of the treatment unit prior to the determination of the machine output under reference conditions. The confirmation of the geometrical integrity of the treatment unit is necessary to ensure proper set-up conditions for the calibration of the unit as well as the positioning of patients for daily treatments. To meet the IAEA acceptance criteria for the mechanical tests, the parameters measured or calculated by the expert and those used by the institution must agree within 3 mm (2 for angle indicators). Any differences between the experts measurements and the institutions values may provide the expert with additional information in determining the reason for the 2 discrepancy in the beam output measured with the TLDs or the reported dose misadministration. The minimum list and order of the mechanical tests to be performed by the expert is given below: (a) Collimator Axis of Rotation. The mechanical axis of rotation of the collimator will be determined using the telescopic distance indicator or the institutions mechanical distance indicator if available. (b) Collimator Angle Indicator. The collimator angle indicator will be evaluated at 90 intervals. (c) Gantry Axis of Rotation. The mechanical axis of rotation of the gantry will be determined using the telescopic distance indicator (or the institutions mechanical distance indicator if available). This is accomplished by varying the gantry angles and placing the distance indicator as close as possible to the axis of rotation for each gantry angle, attempting to converge on the axis of rotation. A reference pointer will be used to follow the axis of rotation at each gantry angle. A distance from a fixed point on the treatment head (e.g. the bottom surface of the tray holder) to its centre will be measured and recorded. (d) Gantry Angle Indicator. The gantry angle indicator will be evaluated at 90 intervals using a spirit level. (e) Field Size Indicator. The field size indicator will be compared to the light field at the nominal treatment distance for three field sizes (5 cm 5 cm, 10 cm 10 cm, 20 cm 20 cm) using the millimetre graph paper. (f) Light/Radiation Field Coincidence. The light field and radiation field coincidence will be evaluated using film for a 10 cm 10 cm field at the nominal treatment distance. (g) Lasers. The congruence of the lateral lasers and the isocentre horizontal plane, 20 cm on either side of the isocentre, at the nominal treatment distance will be measured. (h) Optical Distance Indicator (if available). The congruence of the optical distance indicator (ODI) and the mechanical isocentre will be measured. In addition, the ODI at 10 cm and +10 cm from the mechanical isocentre will also be measured. If the ODI is not available then the institutions mechanism for determining the source to skin distance will be verified by the expert. (i) Travel of Treatment Couch. The congruence of the table indicators for vertical, lateral and longitudinal displacement with the measured displacement from isocentre, i.e. 10 cm and +10 cm, will be measured. Once the above measurements have been taken and the comparisons made, the expert will discuss the findings with the institutions responsible physicist/personnel to correct any parameter found to be outside the acceptance criteria. The expert is encouraged to assist the institution staff in performing any additional mechanical tests needed to assess and correct any deviations found. Any parameter found outside the acceptance criteria may require the institution to alter its clinical treatments to account for the corrective actions taken by the institutions physicist or personnel. Once the expert confirms that the geometrical and functional integrity of the treatment unit is acceptable, he/she should proceed to make the dosimetry measurements outlined in the next section. If the integrity of the
14
treatment unit is not acceptable, the expert may wish to consider extending the visit to allow the personnel at the institution time to repair the treatment unit before making the dosimetry measurements. If the unit cannot be repaired, the expert is still encouraged to take as many measurements and collect as much data as possible to resolve the dosimetry problems.
15
PART II
may better identify possible reasons for the TLD discrepancy that pertain to the local calibration procedure or set-up. The expert will calibrate the beam output according to IAEA TRS 398 code of practice [18] and compare the measured output with the institutions specification. The calibration may be done using either: (a) The water phantom from the experts kit, or (b) The water phantom used by the local institution. In either case the measurements will be taken at the reference depth for a 10 cm 10 cm field size at the nominal treatment distance, SSD or SAD, whichever method is used at the institution. The shutter correction for cobalt units will be measured. In addition, the time indicated by the timer of the 60Co unit and the time indicated by the stopwatch will be compared. The linearity of the treatment units timer will also be verified within the minimum and maximum treatment times used at the institution. In the case of a linear accelerator, the monitor end effect will be measured, especially for older accelerator models. The ion recombination correction and polarity effect for the ionization chamber will be determined. The quality index for high-energy X ray beams will be measured according to TRS 398 [18] prior to the beam output calibration. The electron beam calibration will be performed using the institutions standard cone (typically 10 cm 10 cm or 15 cm 15 cm) and a plane-parallel chamber at the reference depth, zref, in the experts water phantom with the variable depth device. The beam quality index, R50, can be determined from the following process: (a) Determine zmax by making measurements near the expected zmax (short exposures of 50 MU, estimated from institutions depth dose data or the electron standard data [19 21]); (b) Determine R50,ion by interpolation between measurements at depths above and below the expected R50,ion. The Excel spreadsheet prepared by the IAEA for TRS 398 (and sent to the expert before the mission) is used by the expert for the calculation of the absorbed dose rate to water under the reference conditions. A comparison of the beam output determined by the institutions physicist and by the IAEA expert will be made to identify any possible reasons for the discrepancy. If the local beam was not calibrated according to the TRS 398 code of practice, the expert must convert the local beam output value to that consistent with TRS 398 for reporting purposes. The difference between the two beam output measurements will be analysed carefully and discussed with the local physicists and other relevant staff. As a quality control check of his/her beam output determination the expert will irradiate a set of TLDs provided by the IAEA and will demonstrate to the institutions staff the IAEAs standard TLD audit methodology. 13.2. ADDITIONAL MEASUREMENTS The expert is encouraged to take a number of additional measurements designed to verify that the institutions use of basic clinical dosimetry data is appropriate. The extent of these additional measurements will depend on the mission time available to the expert. If a large water phantom is not available at the institution, the expert may consider making the appropriate adjustments to his/her water phantom to allow for measurements at a depth of 10 cm. These additional measurements are suggested in order to provide a more complete assessment of the institutions clinical dosimetry practices (the standard data set may be used as a reference [19 21]).
16
For high energy photon beams: (a) Verify the dose variation with field size and depth; (b) Verify the institutions clinical wedge and tray transmission factors (if time does not allow for measurement of all wedges the expert will, as a minimum, verify the two wedges with the largest wedge angles used clinically); (c) Verify the beam output for non-standard SSDs used clinically; (d) Verify the dose at off-axis points for a wedged beam, where appropriate. For electrons, the additional measurements will include: (a) For the most commonly used cone/field size (and the largest cone/field size) (i) cone/field size ratios; (ii) output at an extended treatment distance (gap of 10 cm); (b) Electron depth dose at z90 and z50 ; (c) Any other measurements relevant to the discrepancies found. If the differences between the experts measured and the locally used clinical values exceed the criteria (3% for the beam output determination and 2% for the relative measurements), a detailed analysis and possibly additional measurements will be carried out in order to attempt to explain the differences.
17
PART II
If blocks are used at the institution, the expert and the local physicist will calculate monitor units or time set for a typical blocked field used at the institution. For electron beams the clinical dosimetry tests will be done for a water phantom treated with a single field. The institution will calculate monitor units to deliver 2 Gy for the beam geometries as follows: (a) Standard cone/field size (10 cm 10 cm or 15 cm 15 cm) at z90; (b) Largest cone/field size available at z90. The ion chamber measurements of the basic electron and photon dosimetry parameters as described in section 13.2 will be used to verify the clinical dosimetry tests and calculations as outlined above. This procedure will be discussed with the institutions physicist. 14.3. CHECK OF TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM Resolution of any dosimetry discrepancies may require the expert to verify that the treatment planning system uses the basic dosimetry data appropriately. The expert will, as a minimum, perform a set of tests to verify the following parameters of the treatment planning system (TPS): (a) Confirm that the field sizes on TPS printouts agree to within 2 mm with the input field sizes; (b) Confirm that TPS depth dose data agree with measured data within 2%; (c) Confirm the wedge isodose distributions agree with measured data within 2%.
18
19
PART III
The various questions involved in the review of the treatment planning process are described in Part IV of this publication. These questions are not addressed separately in this Part III where treatment planning for brachytherapy is discussed. In general, it is assumed that the expert(s) will use this publication in conjunction with Part IV, if this is considered necessary in the frame of the visit, and with the other publications mentioned above.
During an on-site visit the expert will verify the brachytherapy procedures and the correct use of the following sources: (a) (b) (c)
137 192
Cs, typically low dose rate (LDR); Ir, as used in high dose rate (HDR), pulsed dose rate (PDR) and LDR techniques; 60 Co, HDR techniques.
It is noted that the physical forms of the sources may be significantly different from each other. The expert must be prepared to take measurements for the various possible physical forms of the brachytherapy sources he/she might encounter at the institution. These preparations may include obtaining catheters or well-type chamber inserts as appropriate. Typical techniques of brachytherapy to be evaluated include: manual loading, manual afterloading and remotely controlled afterloading. The specific contents of a review are determined by the techniques and/or equipment available at and clinically used by the institution. Remotely controlled afterloading systems may originate from different manufacturers or vendors. When there is more than one afterloader unit available at the institution, the expert will test each unit during the visit.
20
A Baltas-type phantom for geometric reconstruction checks; A personal dose/dose rate meter for radiation survey purposes; A pair of long forceps; A finger dosimeter for manual LDR source handling.
The expert will wear a personal radiation monitoring device and will use a radiation survey meter with an active alarm option. 19.1.2. Mechanical and functional tests The mechanical tests are designed to evaluate the geometrical accuracy and functionality of the afterloading device unit prior to the determination of the source strength. The confirmation of the positional accuracy of the source in the catheter of the unit is necessary to ensure proper set-up conditions for the calibration as well as the safe dose delivery to patients during treatment. Acceptance criteria for the mechanical tests, the parameters measured or calculated by the expert and those used by the institution are described in the ESTRO booklet No. 8 [23]. The agreement criteria are 1 mm for the positional accuracy of the source in the catheter, 5% for source strength calibration, and 15% for brachytherapy dose calculations (see also Table 2). The list of the mechanical and safety tests to be performed by the expert is given in Appendix III.2. This list is also used when interviewing the local physicist about the routine QC programme, and the frequency and action levels used. A description of how to perform the safety and physics tests can be found in the ESTRO booklet No. 8 [23], which describes the procedures for HDR/PDR, LDR, and manual brachytherapy. Once these measurements have been taken and evaluated, the expert will discuss the findings with the institutions responsible physicist/personnel to correct any discrepancies. The expert is encouraged to assist the institution staff in performing additional measurements needed to assess and correct any deviations found. Any parameter found outside the acceptance criteria may require the institution to alter its clinical treatments to account for the corrective actions taken by the institutions physicist or personnel. Once the expert believes that the geometrical and functional integrity of the brachytherapy unit is acceptable, he/she should proceed to take the dosimetry measurements outlined in Appendix III.3. If the integrity of the afterloading unit is not acceptable, the expert may wish to extend the visit to allow the personnel at the institution to repair the equipment in a timely fashion before making the dosimetry measurements. If the equipment cannot be repaired, the expert is still encouraged to take as many measurements and collect as much data as possible, to resolve the problems. 19.1.3. Organization The expert must become familiar with the institutions procedures and documentation used in brachytherapy treatments. These items include: (a) Medical protocols;
21
PART III
Physics protocols for commissioning and routine QC; Equipment documentation; Safety checks and personnel dosimetry records; Records of storage and waste disposal.
It is recommended that the expert observe a patients brachytherapy procedure with the aim of ascertaining whether the benchmark cases are representative of the treatment of a patient. These observations will include imaging of the implant, creation of the treatment plan and transfer of treatment data to the treatment unit. 19.2. VERIFICATION OF THE SOURCE STRENGTH The institutions physicist will measure, under the observation of the expert, the source strength calibration of at least one source from each group of nominal strengths according to the local institutions standard procedure. The expert will follow the local procedure carefully step by step and discuss any deficiencies with the institutions physicist. The expert will receive a copy of the vendors source strength certificate for each of the institutions sources. The expert will then measure the source strength of a selection of brachytherapy sources according to IAEA-TECDOC-1274 [24] using a well-type ionization chamber. Inserts for the well-type chamber will be available to place the source(s) centrally in the chamber at or as near as possible to the most sensitive spot of the chamber. A worksheet is provided for the IAEA calibration measurements in Appendix III.3. The expert's chamber will be calibrated to have reference air kerma calibration coefficients for the various sources mentioned above. If for a given source type the reference air kerma calibration coefficient is not available, the expert will not perform a source strength measurement for that source type. The expert will compare his/her measured source strengths with the institutions clinical values. If the institutions source strengths are specified in units other than the reference air kerma rate the expert will make the appropriate conversions from these units into the units of reference air kerma rate [25]. 19.3. VERIFICATION OF BRACHYTHERAPY DOSE CALCULATION PROCEDURES This section deals with the verification of brachytherapy dose calculation procedures including the reconstruction of the implant geometry and completion of brachytherapy benchmark cases. 19.3.1. Reconstruction of implant geometry The standard procedure for the reconstruction of an implant will be checked at the institution. The expert will use a solid Baltas-type phantom to accomplish this test. The institutions physicist will be asked to image the phantom as if it were a patient: i.e. with orthogonal or semi-orthogonal X rays, from a mobile X ray unit, C-arm X ray unit or simulator, or a CT scanner. The images will then be transferred to the treatment planning system using the institutions standard procedure. The institutions physicist will use the TPS software to reconstruct the points in the phantom and will print a list of their coordinates. The expert will enter the set of coordinates onto an Excel spreadsheet, provided by the IAEA on a CDROM, which allows the calculation of the distances between the known coordinates of the phantom and the institutions coordinates for each point. Deviations are shown in the form of the mean deviation, standard deviation of the mean, a confidence level and a graphical representation. Printouts will be made of these results and given to the institutions physicist as part of the audit report. The possible origin of any deviations will be discussed with the institutions staff.
22
19.3.2. Brachytherapy benchmark cases The institutions physicist will be asked to prepare a brachytherapy dose calculation according to the institutions standard calculation method used for patients, at a number of points along the transverse axis of a clinically used source. The configuration of this source arrangement and calculation points can be found in Appendix III.4. The institutions staff will prepare a 2-D plot of the dose distribution around the single source in the plane of the source. Taking into account the actual source strength, the expert will compare the results of the single source calculations with data from an along-and-away table typical for the specific source type [23]. A second benchmark case consisting of a two-source configuration will then be defined in the TPS. The sources are oriented parallel to each other at a typical distance of 2 cm apart. A dose of 10 Gy is prescribed at the 85% isodose line, with a 100% of the dose distribution normalization point in the centre of the configuration (see Appendix III.4.). Keyboard entry is preferred to avoid the possible influence of a reconstruction step. The expert will discuss with the institutions physicist the two-source configuration calculated by the TPS and the conversion of the dose prescription into a treatment time. Any deviations will be discussed with the institutions staff.
23
PART IV. ON-SITE VISITS FOR REVIEWING THE TREATMENT PLANNING PROCESS 20. QUALITY ASSURANCE IN TREATMENT PLANNING
In recent years, increased attention has been paid to QA of radiation treatment planning systems and procedures [22, 26 . The treatment planning process is complicated and has many steps, with many interfaces between professional groups, between humans and machines and between machines and machines. Instructions and data cross these interfaces and are manipulated in complex ways. Human error can occur at any stage. Computer systems can introduce problems, due for example to inherent limitations in the algorithms, erroneous data input, software bugs, data corruption, or problems with hardware and peripheral devices. A review [5] has analysed direct causes and contributing factors of accidental exposures in radiotherapy and indicates that 30% of the incidents listed have causes directly related to the treatment planning process, coupled with failures in the overall QA. One such accident, which resulted in large patient overdoses, was recently reported [14] to have been a result of deficiencies in the treatment planning system and QA procedures. Therefore an adequate level of QA, independent verification and quality audit are necessary for treatment planning as for other steps in the radiotherapy process. In particular, it may be noted that a similar safety philosophy of independent (redundant) checking should be applied to treatment planning calculations and processes as is recommended for all aspects of radiation treatments. Examples of these redundancies include: (a) Dual monitor chambers, back-up timers, independent safety and interlocking systems, etc. in equipment design; (b) Independent checking of beam calibration and external audit of beam dosimetry; (c) The use of more than one measurement technique and the comparison of the sets of results in the measurements of beam characteristics; (d) The comparison of input data to output at many levels in comparing the patient information in a computerised verification system; (e) Independent checking of patient set-up parameters by more than one radiotherapy technologist; (f) The use of in vivo dosimetry. A comprehensive QA system for treatment planning should include checks of the integrity of hardware, software and data transfer. The QA programme should cover software upgrades, changing of peripheral devices, methods of data transfer and any modifications of beam data used for calculations. An important part of periodic QA are independent checks of monitor units (MU)/treatment time calculations. TRS 430 [22] discussed the immediate causes and contributing factors of a few accidental exposures, identifying those related to the treatment planning process from a more extensive list of accidents given in the IAEA Safety Series 17 [5]. From this discussion it was noted that an independent MU or treatment time check would have identified at least 60% of the incidents. It is also believed that such a MU verification procedure would have prevented the dose misadministration reported in the IAEA publication [14].
24
This part builds on the general guidelines for on-site review visits (Part I) and is intended to provide the same structure to the investigations. It refers back to those procedures and expects part or all of those procedures also to be followed, depending on the exact circumstances of the review. It also uses some of the ideas and tests discussed in [22]. It is expected that the expert(s) will refer to Part II of this publication and to the QUATRO guidelines for comprehensive audits of radiotherapy practice [12]. This part outlines the content of the on-site review visit for treatment planning systems. Appendix IV gives more details on specific components of the review, e.g. forms, information sheets, checklists and reports. 21.1. STEPS IN THE TREATMENT PLANNING PROCESS Many steps are involved in the treatment of a cancer patient with radiation therapy, which include the treatment planning process and the treatment delivery process. Figure 1 shows the various steps in the radiation treatment planning process. These steps involve the acquisition of the anatomical information, the delineation of the target volume(s) and organs at risk, the design of the beam arrangement, the dose calculation, the plan evaluation and the transfer of the plan to the treatment machine. All these steps will be reviewed by the IAEAs expert during the on-site visit. For example, the questions to be answered are: (a) Has the anatomical information been correctly transferred from the diagnostic equipment to the treatment planning system (TPS), and are these images / volumes distorted? (b) Is the relative dose distribution calculated and displayed correctly? (c) Are the dose prescription and dose normalisation consistent? (d) Has the treatment plan been correctly transferred to the treatment machine? (e) Is the actual dose delivered at the reference point in agreement with what can be derived from the MU / treatment time calculation? In the following sections the handling of input and output of anatomical information in the TPS will be discussed, without however commenting on the quality of the diagnostic imaging. Furthermore, discussion of the institutions policy with respect to delineation of target volumes and organs at risk is beyond the scope of this publication. Other clinical aspects of the treatment planning process, such as the adequacy of dose/volume constraints of target volumes and organs at risk will not be dealt with in this publication either.
25
PART IV
Dose calculation
Plan evaluation
Optimization
NO
YES
Plan implementation Simulation (plan verification) MU/time calculation Transfer plan to treatment machine
Figure 1. Steps in the radiation treatment planning process (reproduced from [22]).
26
21.2. ISSUES IN QA OF THE TREATMENT PLANNING The major issues that relate to treatment planning errors have been summarized in the IAEA and ICRP publications [5 6]. Any QA programme of the treatment planning process should therefore include the following key elements: (a) Education. These activities should not be restricted only to the technical aspects of the treatment planning process, i.e. knowledge of hardware and software, but should also include adequate professional training of the treatment planning team; (b) Verification. Ideally, all steps involved in the treatment planning process should be verified separately. In some situations it is, however, more efficient to verify several steps at the same time, such as the independent MU/treatment time calculation, specific point measurements in a phantom for complex treatments or alterations due to changes in treatment prescription; (c) Documentation. Inadequate documentation of treatment planning procedures or ambiguities in the actual treatment parameters of an individual patient can lead to errors; (d) Communication. Inadequate communication by the treatment team in areas such as new treatments, procedures, equipment, complex treatment plans, changes in procedures or protocols, changes in the treatment plan of a specific patient or any unusual patient treatment response may result in deviations from the intended dose delivery.
22. PREPARATION FOR THE ON-SITE VISIT TO REVIEW THE TREATMENT PLANNING PROCESS
Prior to the visit, the set of benchmark cases as given in Section 23.3. will be sent to the institution. These benchmark cases will be completed by the institution, to be made available when the expert(s) arrive. It is essential that the treatment plans be prepared by the staff members who normally perform the patient treatment planning following the institutions procedures. These plans will be reviewed and approved by the institutions radiation oncologist and the medical physicist. The benchmark cases include: (a) Three photon in-water-phantom cases; (b) Four photon anatomical cases (pelvis, thorax, breast and head and neck); (c) Four electron in-water-phantom cases. The experts will be equipped with the standard instrumentation kit for on-site dosimetry visits as specified in Part II of this publication. A laptop with treatment planning software will be added to this kit. This software will include the Theraplan Plus TPS version 3.7 from MDS Nordion (2000), a photon beam database for treatment planning with 60Co, 6 MV, 10 MV and 25 MV beams, precalculated dose distributions for the photon benchmark cases. Dose distributions as well as the MU/treatment time for the institutions specific radiotherapy beams will be calculated on the laptop during the on-site visit.
23. ON-SITE PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW OF THE TREATMENT PLANNING PROCESS
A general outline of the treatment planning on-site review visit is shown in Figure 2. In this figure the various review procedures and actions to be followed by the expert are represented by a flowchart.
27
PART IV
The IAEA expert(s) interview with all relevant members of staff Review of: institutional general QA programme treatment planning process The IAEA expert(s) design the framework of the remainder of the review
The IAEA dosimetry expert together with local physicist responsible for dosimetry Detailed review of the dosimetry and treatment machine QA programmes; Mandatory measurements to be performed: Beam output calibration MU / treatment time calculations for in-water benchmark cases Check of TPS (consistency of input data)
The IAEA treatment planning expert together with local staff with responsibility for treatment planning Detailed review of the TPS QA programme Demonstration of the TPS (beam data and planning) Evaluation of treatment plans for anatomical and in-water benchmark cases Review of patients charts and treatment plans
The IAEA expert(s) together with local physicist(s) responsible for dosimetry and TPS Review of anatomical and in-water benchmark cases Improvements to the TPS QA programme Training The IAEA expert(s) prepare the report and conduct the exit interview
The IAEA expert(s) together present to all relevant members of the staff Exit interview PRELIMINARY REPORT Figure 2. Outline of the on-site review of the treatment planning process.
28
23.1. REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONS TREATMENT PLANNING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMME The review of the institutions QA procedures for the treatment planning process will include: (a) The overall radiotherapy QA programme, focusing on those aspects that might bear on any actual or potential problems related to the treatment planning process; (b) The commissioning and QA data for the TPS. This will include a review of the original beam data obtained during commissioning and beam data selected to be a reference data set for periodic quality control measurements or calculations; (c) The patient-specific QA checks, including independent calculation of monitor units or time set for each treatment field, periodic checks of treatment records, and treatment summary at the completion of the treatment; (d) The reviews and calculations that the institution has undertaken to identify and resolve any reported treatment planning problems. The expert will also observe and discuss with the institutions treatment planning team the actual treatment planning procedures at the institution. This will be necessary to help the expert understand fully the details of the institutions treatment process. Additional planning and measurements may be suggested during the visit. Measurements at the treatment unit will help not only to reveal errors in the treatment planning process but also to detect possible problems with the transfer of data from the TPS to the treatment machine or in the performance of that machine. 23.2. COMPARISON OF THE BEAM DATA The expert(s) will compare the institutions tabulated basic beam dosimetry data with those generated by the institutions TPS, to ensure the consistency of the data for patient dose calculations. The expert(s) will also compare the institutions beam data (e.g. depth dose, output factors, off-axis data, wedge data) with the generic beam data [19 21], to search for possible discrepancies. 23.3. EVALUATION OF BENCHMARK IN-WATER CASES AND ANATOMICAL CASES The purpose of the benchmark cases described in this part of the publication is twofold: (a) To trace significant differences between the relative dose distributions calculated with the treatment planning system clinically applied by the institution, and the corresponding dose distributions calculated with the IAEA laptop TPS using generic beam data; (b) To trace significant differences in MU/treatment time calculations made with the clinically applied programme and those determined with the IAEA laptop TPS. To achieve this goal, a set of seven photon benchmark cases and four electron benchmark cases (if appropriate) will be sent to the institution prior to the site visit. The photon cases concern four typical treatments of tumours in the pelvis, lung, breast and head and neck areas using anatomical information (the anatomical cases), as well as three treatments simulated in a water phantom (the in-waterphantom cases). The institution should plan these eleven cases in the routine way. The information provided in the attached test set-ups should be used to design the various treatment plans. The electron cases are the four cases matching measurements made during the dosimetry review in Part II. The following procedures are designed to provide a measured dose rate to compare against the institutions treatment planning calculation for the photon and electron in-water-phantom benchmark cases. The institutions physicist will calibrate, under the observation of the expert, the beam output according to the institutions standard procedure. Next, the expert will undertake a beam output calibration as described in Section 13.1 of this publication. All measurements will be recorded on the DOSE MEASUREMENTS RECORD (Appendix II.3.3), and the final result on the BEAM OUTPUT REPORTING (Appendix II.3.4II.3.5).
29
PART IV
The next step will be the verification of the dose values calculated for the in-water benchmark cases (three photon and four electron cases) using the experts water phantom and dosimetry system. Details of the set-up are given below. For each beam the experts measured dose values will be compared with the corresponding values calculated by the institutions system. All measurements will be recorded on the DOSE MEASUREMENTS RECORD form (Appendix II.3.3), and the final result on the report form (Appendix IV.7). A deviation between calculated and measured dose values might be caused by the validity of the basic beam data used by the institution in its dose calculation (either in the TPS or in the independent MU/treatment time calculation program). The evaluation of the in-water benchmark cases might therefore result in a number of follow-up measurements. These measurements may be focused on resolving possible differences in the beam data used in the TPS and the institutions commissioning beam data, or possible deviations between the data used in the MU/treatment time calculations and the institutions commissioning data. In addition, the experts interview with some of the staff members, or any other observation of the expert(s), might reveal imperfections in the QA programme, which also might necessitate additional measurements. All additional measurements will be recorded in the DOSE MEASUREMENTS RECORD form (Appendix II.3.3). The institution will have been asked to prepare treatment plans for four photon anatomical benchmark cases, and the expert(s) will have had these case results calculated on the IAEA laptop. The expert(s) results will be compared with those obtained by the institution. The plans will be evaluated considering the relative dose distributions, MU or treatment time calculations and any additional calculations done to explain observed differences. If electron beam planning is available at the hospital the electron cases will be compared with measurements made at the time of the visit and must be available for comparison with the measurements while the measurements are being taken. 23.3.1. Photon in-water phantom benchmark cases The goals of the following cases are: (a) To create a patient model based on a set of 1 cm slices (in a 40 cm 40 cm 35 cm water phantom); (b) To provide a calculation of the relative dose distributions for multiple beams with a given normalization; (c) To verify the MU/treatment time calculations from the TPS through a manual check. The treatment plans for the in-water-phantom cases should be prepared in the usual way the institution uses the respective treatment machines. The source-axis-distance (SAD) set up with a SAD of 100 cm should be used for the high-energy photon beams from medical linear accelerators or for 60Co machines with the standard SAD = 100 cm. Fixed source-to-surface distance, the SSD set-up, should be used for other types of 60Co units. To provide standardized comparisons of relative dose distributions at the same set of points in the phantom, the recommended field sizes for SAD = 100 cm should be scaled accordingly for test geometry at the selected SSD. A limited number of points for the verification of the calculated dose distribution for each in-waterphantom case are determined from the analysis of dose distributions measured with the ionization chambers and radiographic films for 60Co and different high-energy photon beams. Points are selected for the testing of as many parameters of the treatment planning system and dose calculation features as possible, based on the following: (a) Points should be at different depths of the phantom with respect to the beams entrance, to check the depth dose characteristics; (b) Points should be at both sides of the central ray to check the symmetry of open profiles as well as the agreement between calculated and measured wedged profiles; (c) Points should be located in areas where the dose distribution is relatively flat, i.e. areas with a small dose gradient.
30
The recommended number of points will require about 2 hours of measurement time to complete all three in-water-phantom cases in linac beams; a similar time might be spent for measurements at the 60 Co machine with appropriate source activity (time of the measurements may be longer for a machine with a low activity source). The coordinate system which is used to indicate the positions of the selected points, is illustrated in Figure 3. For each in-water-phantom case, the origin of the coordinate system is located at the position of the normalization point. Dose calculation will be verified in the XZ-plane (transverse plane) through the isocentre, thus at Y=0. The dose distribution of the first and second case (described below) has to be symmetric with respect to the z-axis. It should be established that this is fulfilled by the calculated distribution prior to comparison with the measured one.
y z
Figure 3: Coordinate system used for describing the position of the measurement points. For each case, the systems origin is located at the normalization point.
23.3.1.1.
The first case is the application of two oblique incident beams, intended to simulate schematically the treatment of a head and neck site. The following set-up should be used: two beams with 45-degree beam incidence (with angles of 45 and 315 on the scale defined by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard [13]), having field sizes of 8 cm 10 cm at SAD = 100 cm and 45 wedges, are irradiating the top of the water phantom. The MU/treatment time set should be calculated to deliver 1 Gy by each field at a point located at 5 cm depth in the phantom. A diagram of the set-up of this test is shown in Figure 4. (a) Create a water phantom with dimensions 40 cm 40 cm 35 cm with a slice thickness of 1 cm; (b) Select two beams with standard SAD set-up (SAD = 100 cm) using the following parameters:
Beam angle (1) 45 Field Size (1): 8 W cm 10 cm Depth (1): 5 cm Wedge (1) angle: 45
o
315
(c) If the SSD set-up is used and the field size at the surface is used as input data in TPS for treatments with SSD set-up, the recommended field sizes should be scaled to provide analysis of dose distributions in the same geometry for high-energy photon beams and the 60Co beam. The values for SSD = 80 cm are given below:
31
PART IV
Beam angle (1) 45 Field Size (1): 7.4 W cm 9.2 cm Depth (1): 5 cm Wedge (1) angle: 45
o
315
Field Size (2): 7.4 W cm 9.2 cm Depth (2): 5 cm Wedge (2) angle: 45 o
(d) Calculate the MU/treatment time to deliver 1 Gy per field at a depth of 5 cm; (e) The dose distribution should be verified in the XZ-plane (transverse plane) through the isocentre, thus at Y = 0. Check that the calculated dose distribution is symmetric with respect to the vertical axis of the phantom for the two-beam combination; fill in data for relative doses at selected points in the form (Appendix IV.7).
5 cm
Figure 4. Geometry for in-water-phantom dosimetry case #1: simulation of a head & neck case. The beam set up consists of two oblique-wedged fields. The depth of the dose specification point is 5 cm.
B C A C X
Figure 5. Dose distribution and selected points for dose verification for the first in-water-phantom case. The radiographic film was exposed in a 10 MV beam set up for case #1.
32
Table 3. presents the coordinates of the points for the verification of the calculated dose distribution for in-water-phantom case #1. Data are given for the SAD set-up at SAD = 100 cm and for the SSD set-up at SSD = 80 cm.
TABLE 3. A SET OF POINTS FOR THE VERIFICATION OF CALCULATED DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS: INWATER-PHANTOM TEST CASE #1.
SAD = 100 cm Label A B C C D X (mm) 0 0 40 -40 0 Z (mm) 0 -20 0 0 40 X (mm) 0 0 30 -30 0 SSD = 80 cm Z (mm) 0 -20 0 0 30
23.3.1.2.
The second in-water case is where three fields, which might be considered to simulate schematically the treatment of a pelvic tumour, are applied. The following set-up should be used: one open anteriorposterior beam and two lateral fields having a 30 wedge. The intersection of the three beams is located in the middle of the phantom. Monitor units or time set should be calculated to deliver 1 Gy by the anterior field and 0.5 Gy by each of the two lateral fields to the beam intersection point (ICRU dose specification point). Figure 6 shows the set-up for this treatment for which the photon beam with the highest energy available in the institution should be applied. (a) Create a water phantom with dimensions 40 cm 40cm 35 cm with a slice thickness of 1 cm. (b) Select three beams with standard SAD set-up using the following parameters:
Beam angle (1) 0 Field Size (1): 12 W cm 18 cm Depth (1): 12 cm Open field Beam angle (2) Field Size (2): 10 W cm 18 cm Depth (2): 15 cm Wedge (1) angle: 30
o
90
270
(c) If only a 60Co beam is available at the institution, the SSD set-up may be used, and the field size at the surface is used as input data in the TPS for treatments with SSD set-up. The recommended field sizes should be scaled. The values for SSD = 80 cm are given below:
Beam angle (1) Field Size (1): 10.4 W cm 15.7 cm Depth (1): 12 cm Open field 0 Beam angle (2) Field Size (2): 8.0 W cm 14.4 cm Depth (2): 20 cm Wedge (1) angle: 30
o
90
270
Field Size (3): 8.0 W cm 14.4 cm Depth (3): 20 cm Wedge (2) angle: 30 o
33
PART IV
12 cm
Figure 6. Geometry for in-water-phantom case #2: simulation of the treatment of a pelvic tumour. The beam setup consists of an open anterior-posterior field and two wedged lateral fields. The depth of the dose specification point is 12 cm.
Figure 7. Dose distribution and selected points for dose verification for the second in-water-phantom case. The dose distribution has been obtained by film measurement in a 10 MV beam set-up.
(d) Calculate the dose distribution with weighting 2:1:1; (e) Calculate the MU/treatment time to deliver 2 Gy to the isocentre (1 Gy per anterior field and 0.5 Gy per each lateral field); (f) The dose distribution should be verified in the XZ plane (transverse plane) through the isocentre, thus at Y = 0. Check that the calculated dose distribution is symmetric with respect to the vertical axis of the phantom for the three-beam combination; fill in data for relative doses at selected points. Figure 7 shows a radiographic film image and the location of the selected points for dose verification for the in-water-phantom dosimetry case #2. Table 4 presents the coordinates of the points for the verification of the calculated dose distribution for in-water phantom test case #2. Data are given for the linac set-up at SAD = 100 cm and for the 60Co unit (SSD = 80 cm).
34
TABLE 4. A SET OF POINTS FOR THE VERIFICATION OF CALCULATED DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS: IN-WATER-PHANTOM CASE #2
SAD = 100 cm (Y = 0 mm) Label A B B C C X (mm) 0 45 -45 50 -50 Z (mm) 0 -35 -35 35 35 SSD = 80 cm (Y= 0 mm) X (mm) 0 35 -35 40 -40 Z (mm) 0 -25 -25 25 25
23.3.1.3.
The third in-water phantom test case is designed to confirm a blocked beam situation. A phantom is irradiated with a field of 20 cm 20 cm in which one shielding block is positioned in the corner of the field, covering a square area with sides of 8 cm. Monitor units or time set should be calculated to deliver 1 Gy at a depth of 10 cm both for the open and shielded situation. A diagram of the set-up of this test is shown in Figure 8. The institution has to choose the energy of the photon beam. (a) Create a water phantom with dimensions 40 cm 40 cm 35 cm with a slice thickness of 1 cm. (b) Select a beam with the standard SAD set-up using the following parameters:
Beam angle: 0 Field Size: 20 cm 20 cm Depth: 10 cm Block dimensions: The shielded area: square, size 8 cm
(c) If the SSD set-up is used, and the field size at the surface is used as input data in the TPS for treatments with the SSD set-up and the recommended field sizes should be scaled. The values for SSD = 80 cm are given below.
Beam angle: 0 Field Size: 17.8 cm 17.8 cm Depth: 10 cm Block dimensions: The shielded area: square, size 8 cm
(d) Calculate the dose distribution for the open and blocked field using the standard SSD set-up. (e) Calculate the MU/treatment time to deliver 1 Gy at a depth of 10 cm for the open and blocked field
35
PART IV
10 cm
20 cm
A
20 cm
8 cm
8 cm
Figure 8. Geometry for in-water-phantom case #3. Left: Blocked beam treatment. One block is partly covering one quadrant of the square field. Upper right: Beams-eye view (BEV). At the depth of the dose specification, the size of the blocked area is 8 cm 8 cm.
Table 5 presents the coordinates of the points for the verification of the calculated dose distribution for in-water-phantom test case #3. Data are given for the set-up at SAD = 100 cm and for the 60Co unit (SSD = 80 cm).
TABLE 5. A SET OF POINTS FOR THE VERIFICATION OF CALCULATED DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS: IN-WATER PHANTOM TEST CASE #3
SAD = 100 cm (Y = 100 mm) Label A B X (mm) 0 60 Z (mm) 0 60 SSD=80 cm (Y = 100 mm) X (mm) 0 60 Z (mm) 0 60
23.3.2. Photon anatomical cases Four transversal cross sections will be distributed through the central part of the target volume of typical patients. The anatomical data indicated in these slices are the outer contour of the patient, the planning target volume (PTV) and some organs at risk, with their specific density. The beam directions, field sizes and points at which the dose should be calculated are indicated. It is assumed that the patient has a cylindrical geometry, i.e. has the same dimensions in other transversal slices outside the plane of planning. The four cross-sections are indicated in Figures 912. These crosssections will be given to the institutions on a 1:1 scale and should be entered in the planning system using a digitizer. The prescribed dose to the isocentre is 2 Gy for all anatomical cases and the set-up information is summarized in Tables 610. Anatomical case #1 for pelvis irradiation has an additional table for the four-beam set-up with a 60Co treatment machine, as the use of four beams is more common with these machines. Treatment plans calculated for the set-ups listed below are stored in the IAEA laptop TPS and can be used for comparison purposes. As in the case of the in-water phantom cases, the SAD set-up and corresponding field sizes are listed for the high-energy photon beams from medical linear accelerators. The SSD set-up (SSD = 80 cm) corresponds to the geometry of the plans for anatomical tests for a 60 Co treatment machine.
36
Figure 9. Transversal cross-sections through the central part of the target volume for the first anatomical case (pelvis). Fourth posterior field (depth 12.0 cm) may be used for additional four-beam set-up with 60Co treatment machine, as the use of four beams is more common with these machines.
37
PART IV
LL 90 9.0 9.0
LL 90 11.0 9.0
38
Figure 10. Transversal cross-sections through the central part of the target volume for the second anatomical case (lung). TABLE 8. ANATOMICAL CASE #2 LUNG
Anatomical Case #2 Lung (Beam weighting 1:1:1:1) Position of normalization point: x = 8.00, y = 0.00, z = 0.00 Set-up: Radiation quality: Beam label Gantry angle [deg] Beam width [cm] Beam length [cm] Wedge type [deg] Set-up: Radiation quality: Beam label Gantry angle [deg] Beam width [cm] Beam length [cm] Wedge type [deg]
39
PART IV
Figure 11. Transversal cross-sections through the central part of the target volume for the third anatomical case (breast). TABLE 9. ANATOMICAL CASE #3 BREAST
Anatomical Case #3 Breast Beam weighting 1:1 Position of normalization point: x = 6.00, y = 0.00, z = 6.00 Set-up: SSD Radiation quality: Beam label Gantry angle [deg] Beam width [cm] Beam length [cm] Wedge type [deg] Set-up: SAD Radiation quality: Beam label Gantry angle [deg] Beam width [cm] Beam length [cm] Wedge type [deg] Linac 6 MV RPO 214 12.6 21.0 15 LAO 41 12.6 21.0 15
60
40
Figure 12. Transversal cross-sections through the central part of the target volume for the fourth anatomical case (head & neck). TABLE 10. ANATOMICAL CASE #4 HEAD & NECK
Anatomical Case #4 Head & Neck Beam weighting 1:1 Position of normalization point: x= 0.0 y = 0.00, z = 0.00 Set-up: SSD Radiation quality: Beam label Gantry angle [deg] Beam width [cm] Beam length [cm] Wedge type [deg] Set-up: SAD Radiation quality: Beam label Gantry angle [deg] Beam width [cm] Beam length [cm] Wedge type [deg]
60
23.3.3. Electron in-water-phantom benchmark cases The goal of the following electron in-water-phantom cases is to verify the MU calculations from the TPS or a manual calculation against the measurements taken by the expert. The treatment plans or manual calculations for the electron in-water phantom cases should be prepared in the usual way the institution uses the respective treatment machines. The time required to perform the verification measurements (as described in sections 13.2 and 14.2) is approximately 3 hours.
41
PART IV
(a) Square beam under normal conditions: (i) Use the 15 cm 15 cm cone, at the standard treatment distance; (ii) Choose the electron energy most frequently used in the institutions treatments; (iii) With the treatment planning system: Generate an isodose distribution along a major axis including the central axis; Identify the depth of maximum dose, and the depth of 80% and 50% of the maximum dose (zmax, z80, and z50); Calculate the MU set to deliver 2 Gy at zmax; Calculate the MU set to deliver 2 Gy at z90. (b) Cone ratio test under normal conditions: (i) Use the institutions 10 cm 10 cm cone at the standard treatment distance; (ii) Use the same energy as used in case (a) above; (iii) With the treatment planning system: Generate an isodose distribution along a major axis including the central axis; Identify the depth of maximum dose, and the depth of 80% and 50% of the maximum dose (zmax, z80, and z50); Calculate the MU set to deliver 2 Gy at zmax; Calculate the MU set to deliver 2 Gy at z90. (c) Extended distance test: (i) Use the 15 cm 15 cm cone, at the standard treatment distance plus 10 cm (i.e. a 10 cm gap); (ii) Use the same energy as used in case (a) above; (iii) With the treatment planning system: Generate an isodose distribution along a major axis including the central axis; Identify the depth of maximum dose, and the depth of 80% and 50% of the maximum dose (zmax, z80, and z50); Calculate the MU set to deliver 2 Gy at zmax; Calculate the MU set to deliver 2 Gy at z90. (d) Triangular-shaped field: (i) Use the 10 cm 10 cm cone, at the standard treatment distance; (ii) Use the same energy as used in case (a) above; (iii) Block one half of the field from along the diagonal (see Figure 13); (iv) With the treatment planning system: Generate an isodose distribution in the plane passing through the irradiated corner perpendicular to the block (see Figure 13); Generate a beams-eye view isodose distribution at zmax; Identify the depth of maximum dose, and the depth of 80% and 50% of the maximum dose (zmax, z80, and z50) in the centre of the treated beam; Calculate the MU set to deliver 2 Gy at zmax in the centre of the treated beam; Calculate the MU set to deliver 2 Gy at z90 in the centre of the treated beam. Plane of calculation Centre of the treated field 10 cm 10 cm field Blocked area
42
23.4. REVIEW THE RECORDS OF ALL INVOLVED OR AFFECTED PATIENTS If the on-site visit is due to a reported misadministration related to the treatment planning, where appropriate, the records of all involved or affected patients should be studied. Simulator and portal images, computerized treatment plans and daily treatment records should be reviewed. The expert(s) will usually determine on a case-by-case basis, whether this review is to be carried out at the same time as the QA programme review discussed above, or following it. Serious effort should be expended to identify all patients who were adversely affected by any reported or identified incident, and the actual dose received by those patients should be determined.
43
This form is to be returned by fax or mail as soon as possible to the following address:
Project DIRAC Dosimetry and Medical Radiation Physics Section Division of Human Health International Atomic Energy Agency P. O. Box 100 Wagramer Strasse 5 A-1400 Vienna, AUSTRIA
Fax: +43 1 26007 21662 For contact or answers: Phone: +43 1 2600 21664 e-mail: DOSIMETRY@IAEA.ORG
45
EQUIPMENT FOR EXTERNAL BEAM RADIOTHERAPY Radionuclide Teletherapy Clinical accelerator (electrons, photons) Model: ____________________________________________________________________ Manufacturer: ______________________________________________________________ Patient Treatment Research Other: ______________________ X ray generator
46
yyyy/mm/dd: _____________________________ Operational Non-operational (e.g. decommissioned, source removed, etc) X rays only X rays + Electrons Other:
60
Type of Machine
Machine Use
Date of Installation:
Operational Status Co
Type of Radiation:
Maximum energy:
For Radionuclide units only ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Distance:___________cm TBq or Gy/min or TBq or Ci Ci RHM yyyy/mm/dd: yyyy/mm/dd: ___________________________ ___________________________ ________ cm x _________ cm
Remarks or comments
Please enter data separately for each therapy unit. Photocopies must be used for additional units.
EQUIPMENT FOR BRACHYTHERAPY Cs-137 Ir-192 MBq Gy h @1m yyyy/mm/dd: __________________________ Patient Treatment Intracavitary Manual Tube Needle Wire Operational Seed Pellet Mini-cylinder Manual afterloading Interstitial Research Other: __________________ Remote afterloading Train of sources Eye applicator Other: __________________
-1
Ra-226
Stored activity or source strength (select units. 192 Ir, give max. For short-lived isotopes, i.e. activity to be stored).
Other: _______
On date:
Type of sources:
Operational Status
For Remote Afterloader only: Model: ______________________________________________________________________ Manufacturer: ________________________________________________________________ LDR (0.4-2 Gy/h approx.) MDR (2-12 Gy/h approx.) HDR (>12Gy/h)
Mode of operation
Date of Installation:
Remarks or comments
Please enter data separately for each brachytherapy unit. Photocopies must be used for additional units.
47
Equipment and Staff strength Make & Model (remarks if any) Date of last calibration or installation yyyy/mm/dd
48
No. of Medical Physicists: _____________ Teletherapy & Brachytherapy: ______ No. of RT technicians (radiographers, technologists, dosimetrists, etc): ___________ Teletherapy alone: _______
Please use photocopies if necessary.
Equipment
Dosimetry:
Electrometer(s)
Others
Monitoring Instruments
Survey meter
Pocket Dosimeters
Others
Manual
Computer assisted
Treatment Planning
Manual
Computerized
Radiographic Facility:
Simulator
CT
Others
STAFF STRENGTH
I.2. INSTITUTION CONTACT LIST This appendix is intended to provide the IAEA and its expert(s) with information concerning the staff, equipment and procedures at the institution to be visited.
Organization or Institution: __________________________________________________
Address
49
APPENDIX I
50
Confirm institutions dosimetry data by ionization chamber measurements Output under reference conditions In-water benchmark cases Measured Compared with institutions data Special measurements taken _______________________________________________ Comments: ________________________________________________________________ Other measurements: Institutions data are sufficiently close to generic data, no measurements made to verify relative dosimetry data Additional measurements taken Field size dependence Depth dose Off-axis factors Wedge factors Identify and review dosimetry for any involved patients Identify all involved patients Review dosimetry on all such patients Exit Interview Interviews held Interview form completed Education efforts All recommendations explained to physicist clearly Clinical implications of recommended changes discussed and explained clearly to Physicist Oncologist Dosimetrists and radiotherapy technologists (when needed) Management Important information copied and presented to institution (sign/initial and date all) Experts measurement data and report Experts calculations Experts benchmark cases Exit interview form Recommendations End-of-Mission report Draft prepared, presented to IAEA ______________________________________________ Final report prepared, signed and submitted _______________________________________
51
APPENDIX I
Draft prepared, circulated to expert team Final report prepared, signed, submitted to the IAEA Report content checklist Institution name, mission dates, expert(s) involved. Reason for on-site visit, nature of request, scope of visit.
The methods used in the visit, how problems were investigated. Information passed in the exit interview (see appendix IV.7, experts checklist for exit interview). Information passed to and left with the institution: Calculations, measurements (signed and dated) All identified causes of and contributing factors to any observed problems The inter-relationships between the various causes and factors Recommendations made to the institution Prevention of the identified problems in the future Improvement of the QA programme Any education and training requirements identified Any structure, resource or communication requirements identified Explanations of the reasons for the recommendations Explanation of the consequences of the recommendations, particularly where they demand a change of data or procedures, or where they impact on the outcome of patient treatment. A strong recommendation that changes should not be implemented on the basis of the IAEA expert(s) recommendations alone. They should only be introduced after the institution has determined that the given recommendations are necessary, justified and acceptable. The implementation of the recommendations should be planned carefully with the proper training of the institutions personnel. Methods of reporting the findings and disseminating any lessons drawn more widely where appropriate: Report to the equipment manufacturers Report to other users of similar equipment General report to the radiotherapy and the medical physics community Feedback to the IAEA on the content and conduct of the visit Recommendations which might be useful for expert(s) on any future visits
52
Appendix II FORMS FOR PART II II.1. A TYPICAL ON-SITE DOSIMETRY REVIEW VISIT As a consequence of the request to the IAEA or because of a persisting TLD deviation, the IAEA will conduct an on-site review at this radiotherapy centre. In general this visit will attempt to trace the origin of the TLD deviation or other discrepancy in radiotherapy dosimetry. This review will be undertaken by expert(s) sent by the IAEA. The information contained in this publication is intended to help to organize the visit efficiently and to minimize the disturbances it might cause in the routine work of the visited institution. The review begins typically with an interview of the physicist (and other appropriate staff) to determine clinical calculation techniques and to provide other relevant information. This interview usually lasts one to two hours. The experts will then review individual treatment records of several patients presently under treatment, to familiarize themselves with treatment techniques and to verify that the dosimetry data being reviewed are those used routinely in the clinic. The measurements will be taken at the end of the day, without need to interrupt patient treatment. Safety and mechanical checks will be done on the treatment units. In addition, the local ionization chamber, barometer and thermometer will be compared with the IAEA experts equipment. Subsequently the local physicist will be asked to proceed with the calibration of the beam following the usual methodology. The local calibration will be followed immediately by the experts measurements, following the IAEA TRS 398 Code of Practice. The local staff will be requested to calculate the treatment time to deliver a dose of 2 Gy in a number of simple clinical set-ups, involving different field sizes, depths and wedges. These calculations will be verified by the expert, using ionization chamber measurements. Finally, the expert will check some clinical dosimetry data (PDDs, output factors, wedge transmission factors, etc.) that is routinely used in the clinic. On the last day of the visit the local staff will be asked to irradiate TLDs according to the standard IAEA procedure. The expert will work 5-6 hours each evening and efforts to adjust the working schedule of the local personnel accordingly will be necessary. On the last day an exit interview will be held where the expert(s) will present a detailed report to the physicist, radiation oncologist and other interested parties. This will encompass a discussion of the results of the measurements and any questions or problems encountered in the patient chart or dosimetry reviews. Where appropriate, the expert will also tender preliminary recommendations for dosimetry changes to help the institution to improve the situation. The first draft of the expert(s) report detailing the results of the measurements will be given to the physicist during the exit interview. After the visit all calculations will be rechecked carefully and a final report will then be sent to the physicist and radiation oncologist. A few points need to be emphasized: (a) This on-site review is at the request by the radiotherapy centre or as a consequence of a persisting deviation observed in the mailed TLD dosimetry. (b) There is no need to reschedule patients; before starting the measurements on the therapy units the expert will wait until all patients have been treated. (c) A physicist or another staff knowledgeable in calibration and treatment techniques, will need to stay with the expert during the measurement sessions to answer any questions and to run the machines. (d) The dosimetry system used for calibration must be available for comparison with the experts system and for beam calibration according to the usual methodology. The expert will also perform barometer and thermometer comparisons. (e) Copies of the records need to be made available at the first interview meeting. These must include the following data: (f) The calibration certificate of the local dosimetry system;
53
APPENDIX II
For each megavoltage unit, photon beams: Output as a function of field size; Central-axis depth dose data such as PDD, TMR, TAR, etc.; Wedge isodose distributions for 10 cm 10 cm fields, or maximum width 10 cm long if maximum width is less than 10 cm; (k) Clinically-used tray and wedge transmission factors. (l) For each megavoltage unit, electron beams: (m) Cone ratios; (n) Central axis depth dose data; Extended treatment distance data (virtual source distance or VSD, gap correction, etc.). The IAEA requests the cooperation of the local staff in helping to explain the observed TLD discrepancy and in maintaining high quality radiotherapy standards.
54
Date: ___/___/___
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
Physicists interviewed: 2.
DOSIMETER SYSTEM USED FOR CALIBRATION Chamber 1 model: Electrometer model Electrometer settings Calibration coefficient Last calibrated by: Chamber 2 model: Electrometer model: Electrometer settings: Calibration coefficient: Last calibrated by:
_____________________________ ___________________________
___________________ ___________________
Date: ___/___/___
___________________ ___________________
_______________________ _______________________
Date: ___/___/___
3.
Co irradiator
90
Sr
Other No
___________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Do you apply a decay correction? If yes, what was the half-life value used? How frequently is this check done? When was leakage last checked?
Yes
Yes
No
________________________________________________________
4.
If mercury, is temperature correction applied? If mercury, is gravity correction applied? Is barometer accuracy verified periodically? Describe method: Type of thermometer:
No No No
____________________________________________________________________
mercury
alcohol
thermocouple
other
55
APPENDIX II
II.2.2.
1.
60
Co unit data
_______________________________________ _______________________________________
INSTITUTION: Manufacturer:
Machine: Model:
___________________ ______________________
Date machine brought into clinical use: Date present source installed: Isocentric? SAD Source diameter: 2. ACCESSORIES Wedges available: Manual? Yes No
cm cm cm
______________________________________________
No No No
________________________________________________________________________
Other accessories available: Method of fixation: Source to tray distance: Size of blocks used: 3.
Blocks?
Yes
No
cm in air cm cm or
SSD or
SAD in phantom
Trimmers:
___
cm
Ionization chamber measurements: Gantry angle: Depth of Time set: Net time: Used during:
_______
___ ___
___
cm
________________
g/cm
hundredths of a minute hundredths of a minute TLD irradiation than set time patient treatment
seconds less
56
FACTORS USED TO CALCULATE ABSORBED DOSE RATE (Gy/min) FROM DOSIMETER READING (give equation, define all factors and give numerical values; if a standard form is used, attach a copy. If a consolidated factor is used (i.e. if all correction factors are included in one unique factor), attach copy of its calculation.)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________
4.
DOSE SPECIFICATION INFORMATION Reference beam output as stated for the clinical data: Water dmax at
______
Other cm SAD
______________________________________
SSD
Comment if necessary
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________
5.
QUALITY ASSURANCE INFORMATION How often is the calibration done? How often is dose rate updated for decay? What method of decay calculation is used?
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ____________________________
Distance from isocentre to the reference point on machine: Reference point: Distance to isocentre:
_______________________________________________________________________ ______________
cm
________________________________________________________
How is treatment distance determined for patients? Using ODI Using lasers Other
_______
How often are ODI and lasers compared with the mechanical indicator? Who is responsible for QA checks following machine repair/maintenance?
_________________________
______________________________________________
57
APPENDIX II
Machine: Model:
__________________________________ __________________________________
Date machine brought into clinical use: Nominal treatment distance: Photon energies available: Quality index: Other: 2.
_____
___/___/___ cm MV
__________________________________________
__________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
_____
___
cm,
_____
cm
SSD
or
SAD
in air
_____ ___
Phantom material:
_______________
g/cm
FACTORS USED TO CALCULATE ABSORBED DOSE RATE (Gy/mu) FROM DOSIMETER READING (give equation, define all factors and give numerical values; attach extra sheet if necessary; attach detailed calculation from most recent annual calibration.)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________
58
3.
DOSE SPECIFICATION INFORMATION Reference beam output as stated for the clinical data: Water dmax At cm Comment, if necessary: Other medium: Other depth: SAD SSD
__________________________________ __________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________
4.
QUALITY ASSURANCE INFORMATION How often is the calibration done? How often is beam output checked? Method: Is the output readjusted? >2% >2% Reference point: Distance to isocentre: >3% >3%
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
No Other Other
If output is allowed to float, what are the criteria for adjusting the monitor set for the patient?
__________________________________
cm
_______________________________________________________ __________________________________
Other
____________________ _______________________
How often are ODI and lasers compared with a mechanical indicator? Who is responsible for QA checks following machine repair/maintenance?
_____________________________________
59
APPENDIX II
1.
INSTITUTION Manufacturer:
_________________________ _________________________
Machine: Model:
__________________________________ __________________________________
Date machine brought into clinical use: Nominal treatment distance: Electron energies available: Quality index (R50): Measurement depth: 2.
______
___/___/___/___/___/___/___/___/ cm cm
__________________________________________________
___/___/___/___/___/___/___/___/ ___/___/___/___/___/___/___/___/
cm x
cm cone/field in air
at ________ in phantom
cm SSD g/cm
3
H2O
_______
FACTORS USED TO CALCULATE ABSORBED DOSE RATE (Gy/mu) FROM DOSIMETER READING (give equation, define all factors and give numerical values; attach extra sheet if necessary. Attach detailed calculation from most recent annual calibration.)
________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________
60
3.
DOSE SPECIFICATION INFORMATION Reference beam output as stated for the clinical data: Water dmax at cm Comment if necessary: Other, specify: SAD
___________________________________________ ___________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________
4.
QUALITY ASSURANCE INFORMATION How often is the calibration verified? How often is beam output checked? Method: Is the output readjusted?
_____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
Yes
No
What are the criteria for readjusting the output? >2% >2% Reference point: Distance to isocentre: >3% >3% >5% >5% Other Other
______________________________
If output is allowed to float, what are the criteria for adjusting the monitor set for the patient?
______________________________
cm
_______________________________________________________ ______________________________________
Other
How often are ODI and lasers compared with the mechanical indicator?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
61
APPENDIX II
No No No
If yes: If yes:
Description:
METHOD OF MONITOR UNIT / MINUTES SET CALCULATION Photons: Treatment Planning System In-house software Manual calculation Other:
_______________________
Comments, if any
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
3.
BASIC DOSIMETRY DATA FOR PHOTONS Depth dose tables? Comments: Yes No
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes
No
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes
No
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes
No
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
62
Yes
No
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes
No
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
4.
DOSE PRESCRIPTION FOR PATIENTS dmax Isocentre Depth of target volume Other:
_______________________________________________________________________________
5.
BASIC DOSIMETRY DATA FOR ELECTRONS Depth dose data tables? Comments: Yes No
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes
No
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes
No
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
For small field sizes, how is beam output determined? Measurement Other, specify:
__________________________________________________
For treatments at distances other than the nominal distance, how is the dose rate determined? Inverse square correction Other, specify: 6. Nominal SSD Virtual Source Distance
______________________________________________________________________
63
APPENDIX II
Date ___/___/___
Treatment unit:
Physicist Interviewed:
Any changes in dosimetry practices since TLD irradiation? Possibilities, if yes New physicist: Qualifications: Has
60
Yes
No
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________
Do routine checks show any change or trend? Co source changed? Major servicing of therapy unit? Any operating problems with therapy unit? Any problems with dosimetry system (e.g. chamber, electrometer, cables, etc.) ? How was TLD set up? Distance set to water surface: Distance set with: laser Field size used Who irradiated TLDs? optical distance indicator
____________
No No No No No
Isocentric
____________________________________________________________
at a source distance of
cm No No
______________________________________________________________________
Is it possible that an incorrect energy was set? Is it possible that an incorrect time / monitor unit was set?
Yes Yes
NOTE: In order to look for the possibility of error ask the physicist to set up the TLD holder as was done for the TLD irradiation,
Other comments:
________________________________________________________________________
Was output measured prior to irradiating TLDs? If yes, does the dose delivered to TLDs reflect this?
Yes Yes
No No
64
TLD history Is this the first TLD audit? Yes No _________________ How do the recent results relate to prior TLD audits for this beam?
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ How do the TLD results relate with other beams checked in the same centre? ___________
65
APPENDIX II
II.3.
Date ___/___/___
Treatment unit:
Door interlock operational? Radiation warning light installed? Radiation warning light operational? Emergency switches installed? Emergency switches operational? Manual means to close the machine down? Measured exposure at the machine console within the room in beam-on condition: Maximum measured exposure (at 1 m from source) within the room in beam-off condition: 2.
MECHANICAL TESTS (acceptance level 3 mm for all measurements) Collimator rotation possible? Collimator angle indicator acceptable? Gantry rotation possible? Gantry angle indicator acceptable? Distance from isocentre to bottom surface of tray holder: Diameter of mechanical isocentre: Field size adjustable? Deviation from indicated value: Light field available? Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No cm mm mm
66
Congruence of light/radiation field: Lasers available? Deviation of laser: Optical distance indicator available? Deviation at isocentre: Deviation at +10 cm: Deviation at 10 cm: Mechanical distance indicator (MDI) available? If yes, agreement between MDI and isocentre: Is there a dedicated fixed treatment couch? Table top movements; scale available? Vertical movements, deviation at 10 cm: Vertical movements, deviation at +10 cm: Lateral movements, deviation at 10 cm: Lateral movements, deviation at +10 cm: Longitudinal movements, deviation at 10 cm: Longitudinal movements, deviation at +10 cm: Fulfils the mechanical requirement? (if No, comment below) 3. COMMENTS:
__________ Yes Yes No __________ No __________ __________ __________ Yes Yes Yes No __________ No No
mm mm mm mm mm mm
mm mm mm mm mm mm
______________________________________________________________
67
APPENDIX II
Date ___/___/___
Physicist Interviewed: 1.
BAROMETER AND THERMOMETER COMPARISON Acceptance criteria: temperature 0.5C, pressure 1% Unit Pressure: Temperature: Comments: ______ ______ Expert ________ ________ Institution ________ ________ Expert/Inst. __________ __________ Within criteria? Yes Yes No No
______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. CONSTANCY CHECK OF THE LOCAL DOSIMETRY SYSTEM Institution expected reading: Expert reading: 3. ______________________________ within 2% Yes No _____________________________
ION CHAMBER COMPARISON In air ( Co beam) In water (experts phantom) In water (institutions phantom, 5 cm depth) Other: ____________________________________________________________________
60
4.
CALIBRATION COEFFICIENTS Reported institutions chamber calibration coefficient NX _______________ NK _____________ Reference pressure: ND,w _____________ Reference temperature: ___________ _________________
Expert chamber calibration coefficient NK _______________________ ND,w __________________________ T = 20C, p. = 101.3 kPa Calculate the calibration coefficient for the institutions chamber ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________
68
69
70
Serial #: ______________ ______________ Serial #: Reference temperature and pressure: 20C, 101.3 kPa (760 mm Hg) ____________ NK ____________ NK Depth (cm) Reading (M) M Temp. Press. Irrad. Time Elect. Scale Mean reading Notes
Date:
____________
Time:
__________
IAEA Expert:
Electrometer:
________________________________________________________________________
Chamber #1:
____________________________
Chamber #2:
____________________________
Electrometer range:
______________________
Dist. (cm)
70
INITIAL DOSE RATE MEASUREMENT BY THE INSTITUTIONS STAFF Conditions: field 10 cm 10 cm, at ___ Date: __________ Taken according to Dose rate converted to TRS 398 cm, SSD TRS 398 SAD other depth = ___ cm Dose rate: TRS 277 ____________________________________
2.
DOSE RATE MEASUREMENT BY THE IAEA EXPERT (TRS 398) Conditions: field 10 cm 10 cm, at ___ Date: __________ Ratio (Expert/Institution) Ratio within the 3% criterion? Reason for the deviation, if any: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Value: Yes cm, SSD SAD depth = ____ cm Dose rate: ___________________________________ No
_______________________________________
3.
FINAL DOSE RATE MEASUREMENT BY THE INSTITUTIONS STAFF Expert: _______________ Institution: ________________ Expert/Institution: _____________________________________
4.
COMMENTS:
_____________________________________________________________
71
APPENDIX II
INITIAL DOSE RATE MEASUREMENT BY THE INSTITUTIONS STAFF Conditions: cone/field ____ cm _____ cm, SSD = ____ cm, depth = Date: ________________________ TRS 277 Dose rate TRS 381 Taken according to TRS 398 ___ cm other ____________________________
_________________
DOSE RATE MEASUREMENT BY THE IAEA EXPERT (TRS 398) Conditions: cone/field ____ cm ____ cm, SSD = ____ cm, depth = ____ cm Date: ______________________ Dose rate: Yes _____________________________ No Ratio (Expert/Institution): Ratio within the 3% criterion? Reason for the deviation, if any _________________________________________
______________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 3. FINAL DOSE RATE MEASUREMENT BY THE INSTITUTIONS STAFF Expert: _____________________ Comments: Institution: _____________________ Expert/Institution: ________________________
________________________________________________________________
72
photons
______________________________________________________________________________ Photons: SSD Field Size: Depth: Wedge? _____ cm Yes No ________ MeV cm ________ cm ; reference (in-house designation) ____________________ ____________________ SAD cm _______ cm MV cm
Cone/Field Size:
_______ cm
_____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Comments on the results: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
73
APPENDIX II
REPORT
ON A DOSIMETRY REVIEW VISIT TO A RADIOTHERAPY HOSPITAL
Institution visited:
_____________________
Restricted
74
1. EXPERTS REVIEW OF THE INSTITUTIONS DOSIMETRY PRACTICES The dosimetry review on-site visit organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency is the result of a persisting discrepancy which occurred in the IAEA/WHO TLD postal dose audit programme at the radiotherapy hospital. The visit was conducted by an expert recruited by the IAEA to resolve the TLD discrepancy and to assist the institution in clinical dosimetry practices. The expert used the IAEA dosimetry protocol for the calibration of high energy photon beams recommended in the Technical Reports Series (TRS) No. 398 [1] published by the IAEA. The expert refers to IAEA-TECDOC-1040 [2] and the Basic Safety Standards [3] for safety, mechanical and other quality assurance measurements. The results of the IAEA experts review of the institutions dosimetry practices resulted in a set of recommendations aimed at the improvement of the radiotherapy standards at the institution. The resulting changes should not be implemented on the basis of the IAEA experts recommendations alone. They should be introduced only after the institution has determined that these changes are necessary, justified and acceptable. Their implementation should be carefully planned with the proper training of the institutions personnel. The details of the experts measurements and calculations forms are attached to this report. 2. INSTITUTIONS RADIATION AND TREATMENT PLANNING EQUIPMENT The _____________________ treatment unit, with a ___________________ nominal photon energy, began clinical use in _____________________. The nominal treatment distance is _______ cm. If the unit uses 60Co, the source was last replaced on __________. The institutions treatment planning system is a _______________________ manufactured by __________________. The software version at the time of the IAEA experts visit was ____________________. 3. DOSIMETRY SYSTEM COMPARISON 3.1. Barometer and thermometer comparison
Expert Institution Expert/Institution
The institutions readings of pressure were obtained using a __________________ barometer. The institutions readings of temperatures was obtained using a __________________ thermometer. 3.2. Dosimetry system comparison A comparison of the institutions dosimetry system with the experts dosimetry system was made by sequential irradiation at the centre of a ______ cm _______ cm field in the _________________ beam of the ___________________ treatment unit at ______ cm SSD SAD in ____________ air water. For the measurement in water, the depth of measurement was _____ g/cm2 at the experts water phantom.
Experts coefficient (Gy/scale unit) _________ Institutions factor (Gy/scale unit) _________
Expert/Institution _________
The reference temperature and pressure are: 20C and 101.3 kPA, respectively.
75
APPENDIX II
Co gamma rays
Treatment unit: ______________________________________________ Beam output The absorbed dose rate to water at _____cm depth in full phantom, at ____ cm gantry vertical on the date ___________ Field Size (cm cm) 10 10 Expert (Gy/min) _________ Institution (Gy/min) _________ SSD SAD,
Expert/Inst. _________
The expert determined the shutter correction to be _____ min. The institutions measured one is ______ min. Output factors SSD SAD in a fullThe output variation with a field size at a depth of dmax = 0.5 cm at ____ cm scatter phantom used by the expert as a reference data set, are derived from the standard data provided by the IAEA. Field Size (cm cm) 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 Expert Output factor _________ _________ _________ _________ Institution Output factor _________ _________ _________ _________ Expert/Inst. _________ _________ _________ _________
Depth dose data The institution uses its own measured or published central axis depth dose data from _________________________________. The expert uses the depth dose data from the BJR-25 [4] in 60 Co units or specific standard data from reporting absorbed dose for ___________________________________ depending on the make/model of the treatment unit. Depth (cm cm) 5 cm 5 cm 5 10 15 20 10 cm 10 cm 5 10 15 _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ Expert %DD Institution %DD
Expert/Inst.
76
Wedge and tray transmission Wedge and tray transmission for a 10 cm 10 cm field at 5 cm depth in water, unless otherwise indicated, _______ cm, SSD SAD. Description _________ tray _________ tray _________ tray Wedges field, depth _________ _________ _________ _________ Expert _________ _________ _________ Institution _________ _________ _________ Expert/Inst. _________ _________ _________
Additional measurements Dose rates for a 10 cm 10 cm field at _______cm depth in water for the following non-standard SSDs. SSD _________ _________ _________ Depth (cm) _________ _________ _________ Expert (cGy/min) _________ _________ _________ Institution (cGy/min) _________ _________ _________ Expert /Inst. _________ _________ _________
Wedge profile measurements Wedge profile measurements were taken in the experts NE 2528 water phantom at ____ cm SSD SAD at a 5 cm depth, 2 cm toward the heel and toe of the wedge with respect to the central axis.
77
APPENDIX II
indicated ratios are the ratios of the values off-axis to the value on the central axis.
Safety and mechanical measurements The results of safety and mechanical measurements are in the attachment _________________. Clinical dosimetry measurements The results of clinical dosimetry measurements are in the attachment _____________________. 3.2. High-energy X rays from a linear accelerator Treatment unit: ______________________________ Beam quality: _________________________________ Beam output The absorbed dose rate to water at _____cm depth in full phantom, at ____ cm measured with the mechanical distance indicator, gantry vertical. Field Size (cm cm) 10 10 Expert (Gy/MU) _________ Institution (Gy/MU) _________ SSD SAD as
Expert/Inst. _________
Output factors SSD SAD in a fullThe output variation with field size at a depth of dmax ____ cm at ____ cm scatter phantom used by the expert as a reference data set, is derived from the standard data provided by the IAEA. Field Size (cm cm) 55 10 10 15 15 20 20 Expert Output factor _________ _________ _________ _________ Institution Output factor _________ _________ _________ _________
Depth dose data The institution uses its own measured or published central axis depth dose data from _________________________________. The expert uses the depth dose data from the BJR-25 [4] in 60 reporting absorbed dose for Co units or specific standard data from ___________________________________ depending on the make/model of the treatment unit.
78
Expert %DD _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
Institution %DD _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
Expert/Inst.
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
Wedge and tray transmission Wedge and tray transmission for a 10 cm 10 cm field at 5 cm depth in water, unless otherwise indicated, _______ cm, SSD SAD. Description _________ tray _________ tray _________ tray Wedges field, depth _________ _________ _________ _________ Expert _________ _________ _________ Institution _________ _________ _________ Expert/Inst. _________ _________ _________
79
APPENDIX II
Additional measurements Dose rates for a 10 cm 10 cm field at _______cm depth in water for the following non-standard SSDs; Depth (cm) _________ _________ _________ Expert (Gy/MU) _________ _________ _________ Institution (Gy/MU) _________ _________ _________
Wedge profile measurement Wedge profile measurements were taken in the experts NE 2528 water phantom at ____ cm SSD SAD at a 5 cm depth, 2 cm towards the heel and toe of the wedge with respect to the central axis. Description towards heel towards toe
*
indicated ratios are the ratios of the values off-axis to the value on the central axis.
Safety and mechanical measurements The results of safety and mechanical measurements are detailed in the attachment __________________________________________________________________________________ Clinical dosimetry measurements The results of clinical dosimetry measurements are detailed in the attachment __________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3. High-energy electrons from a linear accelerator Treatment unit ____________________________________ Beam output Absorbed dose to water per monitor unit at the reference depth (zref) in water phantom at ____ cm SSD, ___ cm ___ cm field size. Nominal Energy R50 (MeV) (cm) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Zref (cm) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ Expert (cGy/MU) ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Institution (cGy/MU) ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ Expert/Inst. _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
80
Cone ratios (CR) The output variation with cone size at a depth of zmax at ____ cm SSD in a full scatter water phantom used by the expert normalized to the institutions reference cone size. Nominal Energy (MeV) ________ Field Size (cm cm) ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ _________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ _________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
*
zmax (cm) ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________
Expert* CR ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________
Institution CR (1.000) ________ ________ ________ ________ (1.000) ________ ________ ________ ________ (1.000) ________ ________ ________ ________
Expert/Ins t. ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________
This value was measured at an extended SSD of 110 cm. The institution's cone ratio was obtained by applying an inverse-square correction, {(VSD+_____)/(VSD+_____+_____)}2, to the CR using its own virtual source distance data (VSD =_____ cm).
Depth dose data Determination of the depths of 90% and 50% doses on the central axis, ____ cm SSD, ___ cm ___ cm cone size. The institution's depth dose data were obtained from (source of institutions depth dose data) __________________________________________________________________________________ Nominal Energy (MeV) _________ Expert* Depth (cm) ______ ______ ______ ______ Institution Depth (cm) ______ ______ ______ ______ Expert Inst. (cm) ______ ______ ______ ______
_________
90% 50%
81
APPENDIX II
_________
90% 50%
_________
90% 50%
_________
90% 50%
_________
90% 50%
Clinical dosimetry measurements The results of the clinical dosimetry measurements are in the attachment _______________________ 4. FINAL REMARKS Analysis of discrepancies
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
Recommendations It is recommended that the institution:
NOTE: The recommendations made by the IAEA expert may influence the treatment of patients. If the recommendations are implemented, the following will be the impact on patient treatments.
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
5. REFERENCES TO THE EXPERTS REPORT [1] [2] [3] [4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Absorbed Dose Determination in External Radiotherapy: an International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water, Technical Reports Series No. 398, IAEA, Vienna (2000). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design and Implementation of a Radiotherapy Programme: Clinical, Medical Physics, Radiation Protection and Safety Aspects, IAEA-TECDOC-1040, IAEA, Vienna (1998). FAO/IAEA/ILO/OECD(NEA)/PAHO/WHO, International Basic Safety Standards for protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources, Safety Series No. 115, IAEA, Vienna (1996). BRITISH INSTITUTE OF RADIOLOGY, Central Axis Depth Dose Data Use in Radiotherapy, Brit. J. Radiol. Supplement No. 25, The British Institute of Radiology, London (1996).
83
Appendix III FORMS FOR PART III III.1. INFORMATION FORM A TYPICAL ON-SITE REVIEW VISIT FOR BRACHYTHERAPY The aim of the on-site visit is twofold: firstly to trace the origin of any deviations in the treatment planning process and to assist the staff of the institution to correct them; secondly to assist the review and improvement of the overall brachytherapy treatment process and its QA. The on-site visit by the IAEA expert includes a review of the source calibrations as well as the treatment planning process. The information contained here is intended to help the institution to organise the visit efficiently and to minimise the disturbance that it might cause in the routine work of the radiotherapy department. This on-site visit focuses on brachytherapy treatment and procedures, but will also include some dosimetry measurements and QA tests of the dose delivery systems. The different steps of the on-site visit are presented in a proposed time sequence; the expert(s) may however modify the sequence of events to meet the needs of the particular circumstances. The visit typically begins with the completion of questionnaires and a series of interviews of some of the staff involved in the treatment planning process: (a) Medical physicist(s) (radiotherapy physicist(s)) (b) Radiation oncologist(s) (c) Dosimetrist(s) when needed (in many institutions there is no separate group of dosimetrists and these functions are carried out by medical physicists, medical physics technicians or technologists, radiation dosimetry technicians or therapy radiographers.) The purpose of these questionnaires and interviews is to determine the role of each staff member in patient management and treatment, and in the QA process and, in particular, to determine the role of those staff involved in the steps in the brachytherapy treatment process where discrepancies occurred. The interviews will help to amplify any reported problems and the role of communication between the involved staff. These interviews usually last from 30 min. to two hours per person. The next step is to conduct a series of safety, mechanical and functionality tests and to identify those issues that are most likely to bear on any reported or suspected problems. For safety reasons these tests will be undertaken prior to any other tests or measurements that the expert might perform. The institutions documented QA procedures should be available for review by the expert. The staff at the institution will be asked to demonstrate the routine use of the brachytherapy afterloaders or manual loading of sources as well as the planning for any patients involved in the review. The manuals for the afterloader units and the relevant source certificate(s) should be available as well as documentation of the routine local procedures for the use of the afterloaders. The staff at the institution will be asked to make available a sample from or all of the brachytherapy sources used by the institution to treat patients. The expert(s) will make source strength calibrations and compare these values with the institutions calibration data and with the data stored in the TPS, in order to assure the consistency of the data throughout the department. The expert will also review the institutions procedure for calibrating source strengths and comment as appropriate. The expert(s) will then review individual treatment plans and records of several patients under treatment, to familiarise themselves with the treatment techniques and the treatment plans used routinely in the clinic. If the visit is a result of a reported treatment planning problem, treatment plans and records of any patients involved will be analysed in detail. The expert will verify the institutions dose calculation procedures including the reconstruction of the implant dosimetry and the basic dose calculation steps. The standard procedure of the implant reconstruction will be reviewed using a special phantom and software that the expert will bring to the institution. The basic dose calculations will be reviewed by asking the staff at the institution to prepare different source configurations and to develop dose distributions. The expert(s) will review them and
84
compare the dose distributions and MU/treatment time calculations with those obtained by manual calculation using the algorithms and dosimetry parameters found in the AAPM Task Group 43 report. An objective of this on-site visit is to identify any weaknesses in the total brachytherapy treatment process, and to help to improve the quality of patient treatment and care. An educational process regarding quality of the whole brachytherapy treatment process will start with the initial contacts and continue throughout the visit. At the end of the visit, the expert(s) will present the results of the review. The medical physicist as well as the radiation oncologist and an appropriate administrator should be present at the exit interview. The exit interview will not only present the results but also focus on the QA programme, education and training. Finally, before they leave the expert(s) will provide the institution with a signed copy of measurement and calculation results, a list of preliminary recommendations, and other information of interest. Some points to be emphasized for brachytherapy: (a) There is no need to reschedule patients for treatment. The measurements of the treatment units will be taken at times when patients are not being treated. (b) The expert(s) will bring all equipment needed for the measurements. (c) At least one member of the institutions staff knowledgeable in brachytherapy (implant reconstruction, planning procedures and source strength determination) needs to remain with the expert(s) during the test session of the treatment units in order to answer questions and operate the unit. III.2. PROCEDURES FOR QUALITY CONTROL OF THE AFTERLOADING EQUIPMENT The following tables show items that are part of a regular QC programme for brachytherapy systems. Forms III.1 III.3 include tests for HDR/PDR equipment, LDR/MDR equipment and manual afterloading systems, respectively. Forms III.1 III.3 should be prepared by the local physicist before the on-site visit takes place. For each afterloading system a corresponding table should be used. The local physicist should complete the last 2 columns indicating test frequency and action level whenever applicable. The first column is reserved for the expert, to be completed during the on-site visit while performing the tests of the equipment. Each test should be marked as completed when done and found to be in order.
85
APPENDIX III
FORM III. 1. FREQUENCIES AND TOLERANCES OF QUALITY CONTROL TESTS FOR HDR/PDR AFTERLOADING EQUIPMENT. Part of the regular QC programme of the local physicist Test frequency ____
Description of the items Safety systems Warning lights Room monitor Communication equipment Emergency stop Treatment interrupt Door interlock Power loss Applicator and catheter attachment Obstructed catheter Integrity of transfer tubes and applicators Timer termination Contamination test Leakage radiation Emergency equipment (forceps, emergency safe, survey meter) Practising emergency procedures Hand-crank functioning Hand-held monitor Protection device, such as movable shield Physics parameters Source calibration Source position Length of treatment tubes Irradiation timer Date, time and source strength in treatment unit Transit time effect
Test frequency
Action level
Note: The expert's column will be ticked if the test is done during the on-site visit and the result is satisfactory. Test frequencies can be indicated by the local physicist as: daily, 3M- quarterly; 6M- biannual; A- annual; SE- source exchange. Action levels can be indicated as % or mm depending on the item
86
FORM III. 2. FREQUENCIES AND TOLERANCES OF QUALITY CONTROL TESTS FOR LDR/MDR AFTERLOADING EQUIPMENT. Checked by the expert during on-site visit (tick if checked) Part of the regular QC programme of the local physicist Test frequency ____
Description of the items Safety systems Warning lights Room monitor, battery back-up and wall-mounted Communication equipment Emergency stop Treatment interrupt Door interlock Power loss Air pressure loss Applicator and catheter attachment Obstructed catheter Integrity of transfer tubes and applicators Timer termination Leakage radiation Contamination test applicators Emergency equipment (forceps, emergency safe, survey meter) Practising emergency procedures Hand-held monitor Protection device, such as movable shield Physics parameters Source calibration, mean of batch Source calibration, individual source; decay Linear uniformity Source position, source length Irradiation timer Date, time and source strength in treatment unit
Test frequency
Action level
Note: The expert's column will be ticked if the test is done during the on-site visit and the result is satisfactory. Test frequencies can be indicated by the local physicist as: daily, 3M- quarterly; 6M- biannual; A- annual; SE- source exchange. Action levels can be indicated as % or mm depending on the item.
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
87
APPENDIX III
FORM III. 3. FREQUENCIES AND TOLERANCES OF QUALITY CONTROL TESTS FOR MANUAL AFTERLOADING. Checked by the expert during on-site visit (tick if checked) Part of the regular QC programme of the local physicist Test frequency
Description of the items Safety systems Room monitor Source preparation area survey Obstructed applicator Integrity of transfer tubes and applicators Leakage radiation Contamination test applicators Emergency equipment (forceps, emergency safe, survey meter) Practising emergency procedures Source inventory Protection device, such as movable shield Physics parameters Source calibration, decay calculation Linear uniformity, source length Source identification
Test frequency
Action level
Note: The expert's column will be ticked if the test is done during the on-site visit and the result is satisfactory. Test frequencies can be indicated by the local physicist as: daily, 3M- quarterly; 6M- biannual; A- annual; SE- source exchange. Action levels can be indicated as % or mm, depending on the item.
General comments of the expert with regard to QC of manual afterloading: _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________
88
Afterloading device, description (vendor, type): ___________________________________________________ Source strength stated on certificate of source vendor: ___________________________________________________ Date______ time______ in units_________ Afterloader source-nuclide and strength: ___________________________________________________ Date_______ time_____ in units________ Date of source installation: _____________________ Institutions clinical source strength is derived from: certificate value certificate value, if in agreement with own measurement within _____% own measurement Comments: _______________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. EXPERT'S MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
Well-type chamber, model _________________________, serial No.: _________________________ Electrometer, model ______________________________, serial No.: _________________________ PSDL/SSDL calibration date: _____/_____/_____ Calibration coefficient ___________________ for combination of measurement system and source type:
Length of catheter used to transfer source from afterloader to chamber: _________mm Type of catheter (vendor_______________; diameter_______________; material _______________) Position of source in catheter for calibration measurement: ____________mm or dwell position _________________ 3. THERMOMETER AND BAROMETER COMPARISON
The expert will allow the measurement system to equilibrate to the room temperature for at least 1 hour before starting the measurement. The experts measurement system is an open-type well chamber requiring pressure and temperature correction. Acceptance limits: temperature 0.5C, pressure 1% Unit Pressure Temperature
___________ ___________
Expert
___________ ___________
Institution
____________ ____________
Expert/Inst.
____________ ____________
Yes Yes
No No
Comments:
______________________________________________________________________
89
APPENDIX III
Readings Dwell position __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ Reading __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
Irradiation time per dwell position _____________ (typically 10-15 seconds for HDR sources, or up to a few minutes for LDR sources)
KR = Mu kTp krecom NKR Nelec where: KR reference air kerma rate Mu electrometer scale unit reading, corrected for transit time (if applicable, see below) kTp correction factor for temperature and air pressure krecom correction factor for recombination effect. Caveat: to be measured according to IAEA TECDOC 1274. NKR calibration coefficient for the air kerma rate Nelec correction factor for use of the electrometer. Caveat: Nelec equals unity in case NKR is given for the combination of the well-type chamber and electrometer. The expert is cautioned that a correction factor may be required to account for catheter-wall absorption, specific to the conditions found at the institution. Note that, dependent on a number of factors, the transit time correction may have to be determined for the local situation by taking measurements of different duration. The
f tr (t ) = 1 M t (t ) M t0
correction factor can be derived from: where t is the dwell time, Mt0 is the electrometer reading at t = 0 (zero dwell time, only dose contribution during source transport) and Mt is the electrometer reading for dwell time t. The value for t = 0, Mt0, is determined for the specific geometry by programming dwell times in the range of 5 to 120 seconds and then extrapolating to t = 0.
90
General comments of the expert with regard to source strength measurement: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________
III.4. VALIDATION OF THE DOSE CALCULATION PROCEDURES IN BRACHYTHERAPY The two benchmark cases illustrated in Figure III.1 are to be used to compare brachytherapy dose / dose rate calculations of the TPS (or the calculations of the local physicist) with a manual calculation by the expert. III.4.1. Two cases of brachytherapy dose / dose rate calculations
1 cm
1 cm
(a)
(b)
Figure III. 1. Schematic of the dose points for source arrangements (a) a single source, (b) two parallel sources.
Two examples of defining dose points for comparing the dose (or dose rate) calculation at the institution with a manual calculation. The source arrangement in (a) represents a single source in water. The source arrangement in (b) represents 2 sources in parallel, spaced 2 cm apart with a calculation point at the centre of the configuration, one cm from each source. Required calculations CASE #1 A source typical for the treatments in the institution should be selected. The dose rates at points along and away from the source in the transversal direction at every cm up to a distance of 10 cm should be calculated.
91
APPENDIX III
CASE #2 Two sources typical for the treatments in the institution should be selected. At the specified point between the 2 sources (see Figure III.1.) the dose rate (100%) should be calculated. The treatment time for a prescribed dose of 1000 cGy at the 85% isodose line should be calculated. If a treatment planning system is used, keyboard entry of source position is preferred to avoid possible influence of reconstruction on outcome. FORM FOR CASE #2 (TWO SOURCES)
For a dose prescription of 1000 cGy at the 85% isodoseline, calculate the treatment time for the 2nd configuration of the figure Source description: nuclide_________________________ Source description: type______________________ length____________________ Source description: strength___________________ in units___________________ Expert Dose rate at the centre point of the 2 sources contributing (= 100%) Treatment time for a dose of 1000 cGy at the 85% isodoseline Institution Expert/Inst
_______________ _______________
________________ ________________
________________ ________________
III.4.2. Guidance for procedural checks for treatment planning in brachytherapy. The following tables provide a number of tasks regarding commissioning and quality control of treatment planning with brachytherapy. The expert should check which of the following tasks is covered in the normal operating procedure of the institution. Comments by the expert should be given at the end of section III.4.2.
92
Printed data of library sources; to be kept in Initially and with each software a logbook update, annually Double checking by a second person of the input of the source strength At each delivery
Calculate the treatment duration in two cases, with the source strength differing by a factor 10; the correction is not included if the treatment duration differs by a factor of 10 exactly
Identify relevant dose points around the Initially and with software updates, source for which a dose rate table is for each source type available, compare results, tolerance level is at 2%, analyse in detail if deviations are > 5% Check that the system performs the source selection from the library correctly Pre-calculated atlas of dose distributions, archive the calculated distributions in a logbook Pre-calculated dose distributions, archive the calculated distributions in a logbook Initially and with software updates, for selected source types Initially and with software updates
Source selection Check dose distribution calculated by TPS against atlas Check dose distribution calculated by TPS of multiple source geometries Source manipulations
Check consistency of outcome of point dose Initially and with software updates calculations after consecutive source transformations (rotations and translations) Check dose distribution of sources near an interface, e.g. near the surface, check dose distribution of sources with applicator shielding enabled (if possible compare with measured data) Initially and with software updates, if applicable
Inhomogeneity, shielding
93
APPENDIX III
TABLE III. 3. CALCULATION OF STANDARD DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS. Item Creation of an atlas Material Define standard geometries, e.g. for single catheter applicators of different lengths; the (pre-) calculated dose distributions should be kept in a logbook Frequency For relevant types of applications check for selected geometries with each new software release
Define a few typical sets of well described For relevant types of applications (keyboard entry) source applications; check for selected geometries with rectangular and triangular implants according each new software release to the Paris dosimetry system are suitable for the purpose, calculate the distributions and archive in a logbook
TABLE III. 4. DOCUMENTATION AND DATA TRANSFER. Item Output completeness, consistency Material Frequency
Transfer of data
Confirm that prints and plots are complete Initially and with software updates with patient ID, dates, use of quantities and units, all treatment data included, information on algorithm used (version), relevant corrections applied, dose prescription, dose to points Confirm that data are properly transferred to Initially and with software updates the afterloader, prints from the afterloader must correspond with planned data, check for decay calculation, test delay between planned and actual treatment (decay included?)
Interrupts
General comments of the expert with regard to dose calculation and treatment planning for brachytherapy: __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
94
Figure III.2. The Baltas type phantom, to check the geometric reconstruction technique(s) in the institution.
General procedure (a) The phantom is placed on the table as if it were a patient. (b) The phantom is then imaged following normal institution procedures, e.g. orthogonal X rays are taken. (c) The images are then used for input in the TPS, e.g. by digitizing. (d) The individual marker points (25 in total) are marked and the TPS reconstructed coordinates are then recorded in TABLE III.5. (e) The coordinates are transferred to an Excel spreadsheet on the experts laptop for analysis. (f) Use copies of TABLE III.5, if more than one reconstruction technique is to be tested.
95
APPENDIX III
Summary of results* mean deviation standard deviation minimum deviation maximum deviation confidence limit
in mm
* Results can be classified by using the mean deviation and the confidence limit, , defined as ( = abs (mean) + 2 standard deviation): (a) Within the optimal level, when the mean deviation is 0.5 mm and when 1.0 mm; (b) Outside the optimal level and within the tolerance level, when the mean deviation is > 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm; or when > 1.0 mm and 2.0 mm; (c) Outside the tolerance level, when the mean deviation is > 1.0 mm; or when > 2.0 mm; (d) In the emergency level, when the mean deviation is > 2.0 mm; or when > 3.0 mm. General comments of the expert with regard to the reconstruction techniques: __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________
96
REPORT
ON A BRACHYTHERAPY REVIEW VISIT TO A RADIOTHERAPY HOSPITAL
Institution visited:
_____________________
Restricted
97
APPENDIX III
1. EXPERT REVIEW OF THE INSTITUTIONS BRACHYTHERAPY PRACTICES The dosimetry review on-site visit organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was the result of a request from the Member State or the institution. The visit was conducted by an expert(s) recruited by the IAEA to assist in the evaluation of the brachytherapy programme and to advise on quality assurance and clinical dosimetry practices. The expert uses the IAEA dosimetry protocol for the calibration photon sources used in brachytherapy recommended in the Technical Reports Series TRS No. 1274 [1] published by the IAEA. Another publication, IAEA-TECDOC-1040 [2], describes the general design and implementation of a radiotherapy programme. The expert refers furthermore to the Basic Safety Standards [3] for safety, mechanical and other quality assurance measurements, and to the ESTRO recommendations for quality control of brachytherapy equipment published in ESTRO Booklet 8 [4]. For evaluation of the brachytherapy treatment planning procedures, the suggestions of IAEA Technical Report Series TRS 430, [5] and ESTRO Booklet 8 [4] are used. The results of the IAEA experts review of the institutions brachytherapy procedures yielded a set of recommendations aimed at the improvement of the radiotherapy standards at the institution. The resulting changes should not be implemented on the basis of the IAEA experts recommendations alone. They should be introduced only after the institution has determined that these changes are necessary, justified and acceptable. Their implementation should be carefully planned with the proper training of the institutions personnel. The details of the experts measurements and calculations are included in this report as attachments. Contents of the report of the brachytherapy review: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Institutions afterloading and treatment planning equipment Safety and mechanical measurements (for different types of equipment) Validation of the brachytherapy dose calculation procedures Clinical dosimetry measurements (source strength verification) Geometric reconstruction techniques
2. INSTITUTIONS AFTERLOADING AND TREATMENT PLANNING EQUIPMENT The following equipment for brachytherapy was available at the institution during the expert's on-site visit for evaluation. HDR /PDR afterloading equipment The (type/vendor)____________________________________________ afterloading unit with a (nominal source strength)__________________Gyh-1m2 (isotope) ___________source began clinical use in ________________. LDR /MDR afterloading equipment The (type/vendor) ____________________________________________ afterloading unit with (total nominal source strength)__________________Gyh-1m2 (isotope) ___________source(s) began clinical use in ________________. Manual afterloading The (system or technique description)_______________________________ with (typical nominal source strength)__________________Gyh-1m2 (isotope) ___________source(s) began clinical use in ________________. The institutions treatment planning system is a _________________________________ manufactured by ___________________________________________________________________. The software version at the time of the IAEA experts visit was ______________________________.
98
The institution's reconstruction technique for implants makes use of (describe X ray or other imaging modality; use of reconstruction box; reconstruction method, e.g. (semi-) orthogonal, variable angle, stereo shift, other) ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 3. SAFETY AND MECHANICAL MEASUREMENTS (HDR/PDR) HDR /PDR afterloading equipment A check of the safety systems of the HDR/PDR afterloading equipment and facilities was done by the expert for the items listed in (the upper part of) FORM III. 1. The results of the check were: Satisfactory for all safety items Not satisfactory; the experts comments: ______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ A check of the physics parameters of the HDR/PDR afterloading equipment was done by the expert for the items listed in (the lower part of) FORM III. 1. The results of the check were: Satisfactory for all physics items Not satisfactory; the expert's comments: : _____________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ According to the interview of the local physicist and the inspection of the logbook of the equipment, the test frequency of the safety systems and the physics parameters (FORM III. 1) were: Satisfactory for all items Not satisfactory; the expert's comments:______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ According to the interview of the local physicist and the inspection of the logbook of the equipment, the action levels used for the physics parameters (FORM III. 1, lower part) were: Satisfactory for all physics items Not satisfactory; the expert's comments:_______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 4. SAFETY AND MECHANICAL MEASUREMENTS (LDR/MDR) LDR /MDR afterloading equipment A check of the safety systems of the LDR/MDR afterloading equipment and facilities was done by the expert for the items listed in (the upper part of) FORM III. 2. The results of the check were: Satisfactory for all safety items Not satisfactory; the expert's comments:______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________
99
APPENDIX III
A check of the physics parameters of the LDR/MDR afterloading equipment was done by the expert for the items listed in (the lower part of) FORM III. 2. The results of the check were: Satisfactory for all physics items Not satisfactory; the expert's comments: ______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ According to the interview of the local physicist and the inspection of the logbook of the equipment, the test frequency of the safety systems and the physics parameters (FORM III. 2) were: Satisfactory for all items Not satisfactory; the expert's comments: ______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ According to the interview of the local physicist and the inspection of the logbook of the equipment, the action levels used for the physics parameters (FORM III. 2, lower part) were: Satisfactory for all physics items Not satisfactory; the expert's comments:_______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 5. SAFETY AND MECHANICAL MEASUREMENTS (MANUAL) Manual afterloading A check of the safety systems of the manual afterloading equipment and facilities was done by the expert for the items listed in (the upper part of) FORM III. 3. The results of the check were: Satisfactory for all safety items Not satisfactory; the expert's comments:______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ A check of the physics parameters of the manual afterloading systems was done by the expert for the items listed in (the lower part of) FORM III. 3. The results of the check were: Satisfactory for all physics items Not satisfactory; the expert's comments: ______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ According to the interview of the local physicist and the inspection of the logbook of the equipment, the test frequency of the safety systems and the physics parameters (FORM III. 3) were: Satisfactory for all items Not satisfactory; the expert's comments:_______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________
100
According to the interview of the local physicist and the inspection of the logbook of the equipment, the action levels used for the physics parameters (FORM III. 3, lower part) were: Satisfactory for all physics items Not satisfactory; the expert's comments:_______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 6. CLINICAL DOSIMETRY MEASUREMENTS (SOURCE STRENGTH VERIFICATION) During the on-site visit a dosimetric check was done by the expert, of a source calibration of which the result was compared with the result of the experiments of the local physicist and the data used clinically. The check regards the following equipment and source: Afterloading unit (type/vendor) ____________________ with source (isotope)____________ with a (nominal source strength) _________________ Gyh-1m2 Barometer and thermometer comparison A comparison of the experts and institutions readings of air pressure and temperature was made. This comparison was found to be: Satisfactory Not satisfactory:________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Source strength verification The institution's source verification system consists of a ________________________ chamber with ____________________ electrometer. The calibration coefficient for converting the reading to reference air kerma rate is ______________, obtained from PSDL, SSDL on the following date ____/______/______. A comparison of the institutions clinical source strength with the experts measured source strength was made by irradiation at the centre position of the expert's well-type chamber for a ____________________ source in the _____________________________________ afterloading equipment. The experts well-type calibration coefficient was assigned at the IAEA SSDL on the following date ___/______/_____. The results of the source strength* comparisons are as follows: Expert _______________________ _ _______________________ _ _______________________ _ _______________________ _
*
101
APPENDIX III
A copy of the vendor's source certificate is attached to this report. General comments of the expert with regard to source strength measurement: ___________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 7. VALIDATION OF THE BRACHYTHERAPY DOSE CALCULATION PROCEDURES A check of the calculation procedures was done by the expert, based on two brachytherapy benchmark cases described in Appendix III.4.1. The results of the comparisons were: Satisfactory; Not satisfactory the expert's comments:___________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ With regard to commissioning and quality control of treatment planning with brachytherapy, the expert took notice of the procedures in the institution guided by the tables in Appendix III.4.2. Satisfactory: Not satisfactory: the expert's comments: ______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 8. GEOMETRIC RECONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES The geometric reconstruction technique(s) used clinically for patient treatment were verified by the expert. The verification was conducted for the following equipment and technique(s): X ray equipment (or other imaging modality): _____________________________________________ Reconstruction technique: _____________________________________________________________ Reconstruction box used? (Yes No ); if yes, type: _____________________________________
in mm
Summary of the reconstruction analysis Mean deviation Standard deviation of the mean Minimum deviation Maximum deviation Confidence limit,
A graphical representation of the results is attached as a scatter diagram of the absolute value of the deviations vs. distance. The results were Satisfactory Not satisfactory; the expert's comments: ______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________
102
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: The recommendations made by the IAEA expert may influence the treatment of patients. If the recommendations are implemented, the following will be the impact on patient treatments.
103
APPENDIX III
10. REFERENCES TO THE EXPERTS REPORT [1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Calibration of Photon and Beta Ray Sources Used in Brachytherapy: Guidelines on Standardized Procedures at Secondary Standards Dosimetry Laboratories (SSDLs) and Hospitals, IAEA-TECDOC-1274, IAEA, Vienna (2002). [2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design and Implementation of a Radiotherapy Programme: Clinical, Medical Physics, Radiation Protection and Safety Aspects, IAEA-TECDOC-1040, IAEA, Vienna (1998). [3] FAO/IAEA/ILO/OECD(NEA)/PAHO/WHO, International Basic Safety Standards for protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources, Safety Series No. 115, IAEA, Vienna (1996). [4] EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF THERAUPEUTICAL RADIOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY, A practical guide to quality control of brachytherapy equipment, Booklet 8, ESTRO, Brussels (2004). [5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Computerized Treatment Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of Cancer, Technical Reports Series No. 430, IAEA, Vienna (2004).
104
105
APPENDIX IV
The experts will then review individual treatment plans and records for several patients under treatment to familiarise themselves with the treatment techniques and the treatment plans used routinely in the clinic. If the visit is the result of a reported treatment planning problem, the treatment plans and records of any patients involved will be analysed in detail. The anatomical benchmark cases presented to the institution are to be completed prior to the expert(s) visit. The expert(s) will review them and compare the dose distributions and MU/treatment time calculations with those obtained on the IAEA laptop system. The dose distributions calculated on the IAEA laptop are based on generic beam data selected for the purposes of these comparisons; these would not therefore be expected to be exactly the same as the institutions data. The expert(s) will take measurements on the treatment unit(s), for at least the three in-water benchmark cases. Measurements will also be taken evaluating basic dosimetry performance including output calibration, beam quality and other parameters if necessary. Results of the benchmark measurements will be compared with the cases planned at the institution. The following data for each treatment unit should be available: (a) (b) (c) (d) Output as a function of field size Central axis depth dose data such as PDD, TPR, TMR, etc. Clinically used tray, wedge and block transmission factors Beam profiles.
One objective of this on-site visit is to identify any weaknesses in the total treatment planning process, and to help to improve the quality of patient treatment and care. An educational process regarding quality of the whole treatment planning process will start with the initial contacts and continue throughout the visit. At the end of the visit the expert(s) will present the results of the review. The medical physicist as well as the radiation oncologist and an appropriate administrator should be present at the exit interview. The exit interview will not only present the results but also focus on the QA programme, education and training. Finally, before they leave, the expert(s) will provide the institution with a signed copy of the measurement and calculation results, a list of preliminary recommendations, and other information of interest. Points to be emphasized for treatment planning (a) There is no need to reschedule patients for treatment. The measurements on the therapy units will be taken during the evening after the patients have been treated (b) The expert(s) will bring all equipment needed for the measurements. (c) At least one member of the institutions staff knowledgeable in the TPS (planning procedure and beam data configuration) needs to remain with the expert(s) during the test session of the system in order to answer any questions and to operate the system. Also, at least one member of the institutions staff knowledgeable in the treatment machines will be required during any work by the expert(s) on the treatment machines. (d) The TPS will be partly used during the visit of the experts. Planning on the system may therefore be disturbed for some of the time during the visits of the experts.
106
1.2. Secondary Treatment Planning Computer Manufacturer: _____________________________ Original Software Version: Date Installed: ___/____/____ Model: ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Date of acceptance: ___/____/____ Date: ___/____/____ Acceptance testing done? ________________ Commissioning done: _____________________ Photons Institutions measured data Data provided by: __________________________________________________________ Yes Yes No Date installed: ____/____/____ No Commissioning data available? Update verified?
107
APPENDIX IV
Verification data available? Maximum capabilities of the system: IMRT Electrons Institutions measured data
No 2.5-D 2-D
Data provided by: ___________________________________ Commissioning data available? Update verified? Verification data available? Maximum capabilities of the system: Yes Yes Yes 3-D conformal No Date installed: ____/____/____ No No 2.5-D 2-D Latest Software Version: ____________________
2.
INDEPENDENT MONITOR (TIME) SET CALCULATOR Photons Commercial software on desktop or laptop Suppliers name: ___________________________________________________________ Date installed: ____/____/____ Software version: ____________________ Source of dosimetry data: Institutions measured data Data provided by: _________________________________________________________ Maximum capabilities of the system: 2-D 1-D Comment: _____________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Locally written software on desktop or laptop Software package (e.g. Excel spreadsheet): _______________________________________ Developed by: ________________________ Source of dosimetry data Institutions measured data: Data provided by: ________________________________________________________ Describe algorithm (define all symbols used): __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Manual calculation: Source of dosimetry data Institutions measured data: Date ____/____/____
108
Data provided by: _________________________________________________________ Describe equation used (define all symbols used): __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Other: __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Electrons Commercial software on desktop or laptop Suppliers name _________________________________________ Software version: ______________ Source of dosimetry data Institutions measured data Data provided by: __________________________________ Maximum capabilities of the system: 2-D 1-D Comment: ___________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Locally written software on desktop or laptop Software package (e.g. Excel spreadsheet) _____________________________ Developed by ________________________ Source of dosimetry data Institutions measured data: Data provided by: ____________________________________ Describe algorithm (define all symbols used): __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Manual calculation: Source of dosimetry data Institutions measured data Data provided by: ___________________________________ Describe equation used (define all symbols used): _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Date ____/____/____ Date installed: ____/____/____
109
APPENDIX IV
Other: __________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ 3. IMAGING EQUIPMENT (PATIENT CONTOURING) CT Scanner Manufacturer: _____________________________________ Model: ___________________________________________ Software Version: __________________________________ Are CT images used in the TPS? How are images transferred to the TPS? Hard copy images transferred. Transferred on disk Transferred electronically DICOM Other: ____________________________________ MRI Scanner Manufacturer: ____________________________ Date installed: ___/____/____ Model: ________________________________________________________ Software Version: _______________________________________________ Are MR images used in the Treatment Planning System? How are images transferred to the TPS? Hard copy images transferred. Transferred on disk Transferred electronically DICOM Other: _____________________________________ 4. PATIENT ANATOMY INPUT INTO TPS Patient skin contour is entered into TPS by: Digitizing from hardcopy of CT or MRI images Outlined electronically with screen cursor, from CT or MRI images Auto-contouring with TPS software Only in the central plane In multiple planes: typical slice thickness, ____cm; typical slice spacing: _____cm Who does the outlining? _____________________________________________________ Yes No Yes No Date installed: ___/____/____
Internal structures are entered into TPS by: Digitizing from hardcopy of CT or MRI images
110
Outlined electronically with screen cursor, from CT or MRI images Auto-contouring with TPS software Only in the central plane In multiple planes: typical slice thickness, ____cm; typical slice spacing: _____cm Who does the outlining? 5. _____________________________________________________
DEMOGRAPHICS OF TREATMENT PLANNING 5.1. Photons IMRT Treatment sites planned: _______________________________________________________ Primary Secondary Treatment Planning System used
Number of patients planned this way? _____ per annum: _____% Treatments 3-D Conformal Treatment sites planned: ______________________________________________________ Primary Secondary Treatment Planning System used
Number of patients planned this way? _____ per annum: _____% Treatments 2.5-D Treatment sites planned: _______________________________________________________ Primary Secondary Treatments Treatment Planning System used
Number of patients planned this way? _____ per annum: _____% 2-D Treatment sites planned:
Number of patients planned this way? _____ per annum: _____% Manual calculations Treatment sites planned:
_______________________________________________________ Treatments
Number of patients planned this way? _____ per annum: _____% 5.2. Electrons 3-D Conformal: Treatment sites planned:
Number of patients planned this way? _____ per annum: _____% 2.5-D Treatment sites planned:
111
APPENDIX IV
2-D Treatment sites planned: _______________________________________________________ Primary Secondary Treatments Treatment Planning System used
Number of patients planned this way? _____ per annum: _____% 2.4. Manual calculations Treatment sites planned:
_______________________________________________________ Treatments
Number of patients planned this way? ____ per annum: _____% 6. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES Annual QA procedures are undertaken? (attach list and reports) Periodical QA procedures are undertaken? (attach list and reports) Patient-specific QA checks are undertaken? An independent calculation check of MU/treatment time for each treatment field is done? By __________________________ An independent check of the overall treatment plan is done? By __________________________ Is patient treatment reviewed periodically? By __________________________ Frequency: ____________________ Treatment Summary is performed? By __________________________ Simulation and/or portal images are used? By __________________________ Frequency: ____________________ Simulation and portal images are reviewed? By __________________________ Frequency: ____________________ Patients are seen by the physician: every day every week whenever plans or fields are changed other: _________________________________________
No No No
Yes
No
Yes Yes
No No
Yes Yes
No No
Yes
No
112
7.
FOR COMPLEX TREATMENT PLANS (E.G. IMAGE GUIDED TREATMENTS) Transverse images are obtained by: CT MR PET PET/CT Person outlining targets: _____________________________________________
Person preparing the plan: ____________________________________________ Person approving the plan: _____________________________________________ MU/treatment time is determined by: Primary TPS Secondary TPS Independent MU calculator Other: __________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time calculations are verified by Primary TPS Secondary TPS Independent MU calculator Other: __________________________________________________________ 8. TREATMENT PLANNING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE Who undertakes maintenance on the: Primary TPS? ______________________________________________________ Secondary TPS? ____________________________________________________ Other treatment planning devices? ______________________________________ CT? ______________________________________________________________ MRI? ______________________________________________________________ Who is responsible for QA checks following repairs? ___________________________________________________________________ 9. COMMENTS ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Questionnaire completed by: Name (print): __________________________________ Position: _____________________________________ Signature: ____________________________________ Date ____/____/____
113
APPENDIX IV
Wedge transmission (under treatment conditions): __________ Hard copy of the treatment plan available? (Attach a copy of the 2-D plan) MU/treatment time: Calculated by the TPS? Yes No Yes No
Other method (give equation): _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Definition of parameters: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time (give data provided by the TPS or the complete calculation): Fields 1 and 2: 2. ______________________________________________________________
PHOTON IN-WATER PHANTOM CASE #2 (THREE FIELDS) Radiation therapy unit: _______________________________________________________ Beam quality index: __________ or or SAD _______ cm SAD _______ cm SSD _______cm SSD _______cm Energy photon beam:___________MV Treatment distance APPA field: Treatment distance lateral fields: Wedge angle:
Wedge factor (under treatment conditions): ___________ Hard copy of the treatment plan available? (Attach a copy of the 2-D plan) MU/treatment time: Calculated by the TPS? Yes No Yes No
Other method (give equation): _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Definition of parameters: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time (give data provided by the TPS or the complete calculation): APPA field: _________________________________________________________________ Lateral fields: _________________________________________________________________ 3. PHOTON INWATER PHANTOM CASE #3 (BLOCKED FIELD) Radiation therapy unit: ________________________________________________________
114
Hard copy of the treatment plan available? (Attach a copy of the 2-D plan) MU/treatment time: Calculated by the TPS?
Yes
No
Yes
No)
Other method (give equation): _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Definition of parameters: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time (give data provided by the TPS or the complete calculation): Open field and shielded field: ______________________________________________ 4. PHOTON ANATOMICAL CASE #1: PELVIS (THREE-FIELD TECHNIQUE) Radiation therapy unit: ________________________________________________________ Energy photon beam: ___________MV Treatment distance APPA field: Treatment distance left lateral field: Treatment distance right lateral field: Wedges: Left lateral field: wedge angle: _____degrees Wedge transmission (under treatment conditions): ___________ Number of fractions wedge used: ________ Right lateral field: wedge angle: _____degrees Wedge transmission (under treatment conditions): ___________ Number of fractions wedge used: _________ Hard copy of the treatment plan available? (Attach a copy of the 2-D plan) MU/treatment time: Calculated by the TPS? Yes No Yes No Beam quality index: __________ SSD _______cm SSD _______cm SSD _______cm or or or SAD _______cm SAD _______cm SAD _______cm
Other method (give equation): _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Definition of parameters: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time (give data provided by the TPS or the complete calculation): APPA field: ___________________________________________________________ Left lateral field: _________________________________________________________ Right lateral field: _______________________________________________________
115
APPENDIX IV
5.
PHOTON ANATOMICAL CASE #2: LUNG (FOUR-FIELD TECHNIQUE) Radiation therapy unit: ________________________________________________________ Energy photon beam: ___________MV Treatment distance field 1: Treatment distance field 2: Treatment distance field 3: Treatment distance field 4: Wedges: Field 1: wedge angle: _____degrees Wedge transmission (under treatment conditions):___________ Number of fractions wedge used: ________ Field 4: wedge angle: _____degrees Wedge transmission (under treatment conditions):___________ Number of fractions wedge used: _________ Hard copy of the treatment plan available? (Attach a copy of the 2-D plan) MU/treatment time: Calculated by the TPS? Yes No Yes No Beam quality index: __________ or or or or SAD _______cm SAD _______cm SAD _______cm SAD _______cm SSD _______cm SSD _______cm SSD _______cm SSD _______cm
Other method (give equation): _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Definition of parameters: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time (give data provided by the TPS or the complete calculation): Field 1: ________________________________________________________________ Field 2: ________________________________________________________________ Field 3: ________________________________________________________________ Field 4: ________________________________________________________________ 6. PHOTON ANATOMICAL CASE #3: BREAST (TWO TANGENTIAL FIELDS) Radiation therapy unit: ________________________________________________________ Energy photon beam: ___________MV Treatment distance anterior-medial field: Treatment distance posterior-lateral field: Wedges: Field 1: wedge angle: _____degrees Wedge transmission (under treatment conditions):___________ Number of fractions wedge used: _________ Field 2: wedge angle: _____ degrees Wedge transmission (under treatment conditions):___________ Beam quality index: __________ SSD _______cm SSD _______cm or or SAD _______cm SAD _______cm
116
Number of fractions wedge used: _________. Tangential fields are used with: Half-beam block________________ Asymmetric jaws___________ None___________________ Hard copy of the treatment plan available? (Attach a copy of the 2-D plan) MU/treatment time: Calculated by the TPS? Yes No Yes No
Other method (give equation): _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Definition of parameters: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time (give data provided by the TPS or the complete calculation): Anterior-medial field: __________________________________________________________ Posterior-lateral field: __________________________________________________________ 7. PHOTON ANATOMICAL CASE #4: HEAD AND NECK (TWO-FIELD OBLIQUE INCIDENT TECHNIQUE) Radiation therapy unit: ________________________________________________________ Energy photon beam: ___________MV Treatment distance field 1: Treatment distance field 2: Wedges: Field 1: wedge angle :_____degrees Wedge transmission (under treatment conditions): ___________ Number of fractions wedge used: _________ Field 2: wedge angle: _____degrees Wedge transmission (under treatment conditions): ___________ Number of fractions wedge used: _________. Hard copy of the treatment plan available? (Attach a copy of the 2-D plan) MU/treatment time: Calculated by the TPS? Yes No Yes No SSD _______cm SSD _______cm Beam quality index: __________ or or SAD _______cm SAD _______cm
Other method (give equation): _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Definition of parameters: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time (give data provided by the TPS or the complete calculation): Anterior-oblique field: ____________________________________________________ Posterior-oblique field: ___________________________________________________
117
APPENDIX IV
Hard copy of the treatment plan available? (Attach a copy of the 2-D plan) MU calculation: Calculated by the TPS?
Yes
No
Other method (give equation): _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Definition of parameters: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time (give data provided by the TPS or the complete calculation): Depth of maximum dose: ______________________cm Depth of 80% dose: __________________________cm Depth of 50% dose: __________________________cm MU calculation (give data provided by the TPS or the manual calculation): 2 Gy at zmax 2 Gy at z90 2. ________________ MU ________________ MU
ELECTRON INWATER PHANTOM CASE #2 (CONE RATIO) Radiation therapy unit: ________________________________________________________ Energy photon beam: ___________MV Treatment distance: SSD _______cm Beam quality index (R50): __________ Cone/field size ______cm _______ cm Yes No
Hard copy of the treatment plan available? (Attach a copy of the 2-D plan) MU calculation: Calculated by the TPS?
Yes
No
Other method (give equation): _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Definition of parameters: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time (give data provided by the TPS or complete calculations) Depth of maximum dose: ______________________cm Depth of 80% dose: __________________________cm Depth of 50% dose: __________________________cm MU calculation (give data provided by the TPS or the manual calculation): 2 Gy at zmax ________________ MU 2 Gy at z90 ________________ MU
118
3.
ELECTRON INWATER PHANTOM CASE #3 (EXTENDED DISTANCE) Radiation therapy unit: ________________________________________________________ Energy photon beam: ___________MV Extended treatment distance: Beam quality index (R50): __________ Cone/field size ______cm _______ cm Yes No SSD _______cm
Hard copy of the treatment plan available? (Attach a copy of the 2-D plan) MU calculation: Calculated by the TPS?
Yes
No
Other method (give equation): _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Definition of parameters: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time (give data provided by the TPS or complete calculations) Depth of maximum dose: ______________________cm Depth of 80% dose: __________________________cm Depth of 50% dose: __________________________cm MU calculation (give data provided by the TPS or the manual calculation): 2 Gy at zmax ________________ MU 2 Gy at z90 ________________ MU 4. ELECTRON INWATER PHANTOM CASE #4 (TRIANGULAR SHAPED FIELD) Radiation therapy unit: ________________________________________________________ Energy photon beam: ___________MV Treatment distance: SSD _______cm Beam quality index (R50): __________ Cone/field size ______cm _______ cm Yes No
Hard copy of the treatment plan available? (Attach a copy of the 2-D plan) MU calculation: Calculated by the TPS?
Yes
No
Other method (give equation): _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Definition of parameters: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ MU/treatment time (give data provided by the TPS or complete calculations) Depth of maximum dose: ______________________cm Depth of 80% dose: __________________________cm Depth of 50% dose: __________________________cm MU calculation at the centre of the treated field: give data provided by the TPS or the manual calculation 2 Gy at zmax ________________ MU 2 Gy at z90 ________________ MU
119
APPENDIX IV
Percentage of patients treated with curative intent per annum: ______% Other treatment facilities serviced: ________________________________________ Discuss philosophy of dose prescription: (GTV, CTV, PTV, prescribe to point or periphery? ICRU 50 / 62, etc.)______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ If the visit is the result of the reported misadministration (if not, proceed to next item): Does this radiation oncologist prescribe the dose differently for the patients in question? __________________________________________________________________________ Did this radiation oncologist notice unusual clinical results on the patients in question? __________________________________________________________________________ When? ____________________________________________________________________ What was this radiation oncologists role in the discovery of this situation? __________________________________________________________________________ Was the situation discussed within the department, institution (detail discussions)? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ For complex treatments, what is the role of this radiation oncologist in the treatment planning process (drawing targets, working with dosimetrist during planning, approving plan, etc.)? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Detail communications with the rest of the staff (physicist, dosimetrist, radiotherapy technologists, management) ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________
120
The relationship of this radiation oncologist with management (To whom does he/she report? What is the administrative chain of command? Could this have played a role in the present situation?) ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. INTERVIEW WITH MEDICAL PHYSICIST RESPONSIBLE FOR DOSIMETRY MEASUREMENTS AND QUALITY CONTROL. Name: _________________________________________ Time spent at the facility in question (hrs): Date _____/_____/_____
Institution: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Other treatment facilities serviced: ________________________________________________ If the visit is the result of the reported misadministration (if not, proceed to next item): What was this medical physicists role in the discovery of this situation? ________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Detail any special measurements taken with respect to this situation: __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Detail the discussions within the department, institution concerning the situation: __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ With complex treatments, what was this physicists role, if any, in the treatment planning process (redundant calculations, independent MU/treatment time calculations, measurements to verify calculations, etc.)? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Detail communications with the rest of the staff (radiation oncologist, other physicist(s), dosimetrist, radiotherapy technologists, and management) ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ This physicists relationship with management: (To whom does he/she report? What is the administrative chain of command? Could this have played a role in the present situation?) ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 4. INTERVIEW WITH MEDICAL PHYSICIST WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR TREATMENT PLANNING Name: _________________________________________ Time spent at the facility in question (hrs)? Date _____/_____/_____ Institution: ____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ Other treatment facilities serviced? _________________________________________________ If the visit is a result of the reported misadministration (if not, proceed to next item):
121
APPENDIX IV
What was this medical physicists role in the discovery of this situation? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Detail the discussions within the department, institution. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ What level of treatment planning is there and which treatment planning system is used for: Single appositional field? ______________________________________________________ Parallel opposed treatment? __________________________________________________ Four-fields box? ____________________________________________________________ Wedges? _________________________________________________________________ Asymmetric jaws? Irregular fields? __________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
3-D Conformal? _____________________________________________________________ IMRT? ____________________________________________________________________ Electrons? _________________________________________________________________ Describe the role of various imaging modalities (CT, MR, PET) in treatment planning: What modalities were used? ____________________________________________________ How were data transferred to the TPS? ____________________________________________ Who outlined various patient contours (skin, internal organs)? ___________________________ Repair of relevant equipment? ____________________________________________________ Detail QA done after various imaging equipment has been repaired: ______________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ How are treatment plans verified: (redundant calculations, independent MU/treatment time calculation, measurements to verify calculations, etc.)? ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Who performs these verifications?_________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Detail communications with the rest of the staff: (radiation oncologist, other physicist(s), dosimetrist, radiotherapy technologists, management) _____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ This physicists relationship with management: (To whom does he/she report? What is the administrative chain of command? Could this have played a role in the present situation?) ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Describe the original data taken during commissioning of the TPS: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Describe what measurements are taken and calculations done when a new software version is installed. _____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________
122
Describe the steps taken to verify that the treatment plans are correct (redundant checks) ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Describe the process for redundant checks of the monitor set (either MU or time): ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Describe any in vivo dosimetry performed on patients. ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________
123
APPENDIX IV
Results of the in-water photon benchmark cases Two oblique fields Three-field treatment Blocked field Results of the anatomical benchmark cases (photons) Pelvic Thorax Breast Head and neck Results obtained from other special cases Type of cases: ____________________________________________________________ Measurements compared with institutions data Comments: ______________________________________________________________ Results of the electron in-water benchmark cases Standard square field: ________________________________ Small field: _________________________________________ Extended SSD: ______________________________________ Triangular field: _____________________________________ Review of the treatment planning for any involved patients. All involved patients identified All treatment plans for such patients reviewed Comments on the actions taken by the institution to resolve the present problem. Measurements Comments: _________________________________________________________________ Calculations Comments: _________________________________________________________________ Other actions Comments: _________________________________________________________________ Comments on institutions QA Programme Commissioning and QA data for the treatment planning system Beam data obtained during commissioning Periodic QA measurements or calculations Overall QA programme QA of individual patient treatments, [including MU/treatment time checks] Individual patient checks Periodic checks Treatment summary
124
Education efforts All recommendations explained to physicist Clinical implications of recommended changes explained clearly to: Physicist? Oncologist Dosimetrists and radiotherapy technologists (when needed)? All recommendations explained to management?
125
APPENDIX IV
REPORT
ON A TREATMENT PLANNING REVIEW VISIT TO A RADIOTHERAPY HOSPITAL
Institution visited:
_____________________
Restricted
126
1.
The treatment planning review on-site visit organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was the result of a request from the Member State or the institution. The visit was conducted by an expert(s) recruited by the IAEA to assist in the evaluation of the treatment planning process and to advise on quality assurance and clinical practices. The expert used the IAEA dosimetry protocols for the calibration of photon and electron beams, Technical Reports Series (TRS) No. 398 [1] published by the IAEA. Another publication, IAEA-TECDOC-1040 [2], describes the general design and implementation of a radiotherapy programme. For evaluation of the treatment planning procedures, the guidelines of IAEA Technical Report Series TRS 430 [3] were used. The results of the IAEA experts review of the institutions treatment planning procedures yielded a set of recommendations aimed at improving the radiotherapy standards in the institution. The resulting changes should not be implemented on the basis of the IAEA experts recommendations alone. They should be introduced only after the institution has determined that these changes are necessary, justified and acceptable. Their implementation should be carefully planned with the proper training of the institutions personnel. The details of the experts measurements and calculations are included in this report as attachments. Contents of the report on the treatment planning review visit: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Institutions treatment planning equipment The treatment planning system in clinical practice, responsibilities, maintenance Report on the in-water photon benchmark cases Report on the photon anatomical cases Report on the in-water electron benchmark cases Final remarks
2. INSTITUTIONS TREATMENT PLANNING EQUIPMENT The following equipment for treatment planning was available at the institution for evaluation during the expert's on-site visit. TP system Primary Treatment Planning Computer (Computerized Treatment Planning System) Manufacturer: _________________________________________ Date installed: ___/____/____ Model: ____________________________________________________________________________ Original Software Version: ___________________________________________________________________ Capability of the software: IMRT 3-D conformal 2.5-D 2-D
A secondary Treatment Planning Computer is available at the institution Manufacturer: ______________________________________________ Date installed: ___/____/____ Model: ____________________________________________________________________________ Original Software Version: ___________________________________________________________ Capability of the software: IMRT 3-D conformal 2.5-D 2-D
Implementation of the beam data in the TPS The implementation of the photon beam data in the TPS was checked by the expert. Institutions measured data was used; these data were available to the expert. If not, comment: _________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________
127
APPENDIX IV
The implementation of the electron beam data in the TPS was checked by the expert. Institutions measured data was used; these data were available to the expert. If not, comment: _________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Independent monitor (time) set calculator For independent calculation of the monitor units or treatment time for photon and electron treatments, another system is available to the institution, based on: Commercial software on desktop or laptop Locally written software Tabular data, own measurements Data from elsewhere None or other:____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Comments: ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Imaging equipment Imaging equipment for treatment planning is available to the institution. CT scanning MRI scanning PET scanning PET/CT scanning Other, specify: ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Comments: ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Image transfer Images are transferred to the TPS as: Hard copy images On disk Electronically DICOM Other, specify: ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Comments: ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________
128
3. THE TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, RESPONSIBILITIES, MAINTENANCE Responsibility for contouring According to the interviewee, patient outer contouring in the TPS is generally performed by the: Radiation oncologist Medical physicist Other, (e.g. radiation technologist) specify: ____________________________________________ According to the interviewee, tumour and internal organ contouring in the TPS is generally performed by the Radiation oncologist Medical physicist Other, (e.g. radiation technologist) specify: ____________________________________________ Comments: ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Treatment planning system quality assurance procedures Quality assurance procedures regarding the treatment planning process were discussed during the interview. The result of the observations about the periodical QA procedures was: Satisfactory Not satisfactory; the experts comments: ______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ The result of the observations about the patient-specific QA checks was: Satisfactory Not satisfactory; the experts comments: ______________________________________________ Maintenance of the system Maintenance of the treatment planning system was discussed during the interview. The result of the observations on regular preventive and corrective maintenance procedures was: Satisfactory Not satisfactory; the experts comments: _____________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________
129
APPENDIX IV
Institution: _________________________________________________________________________ Treatment unit: _____________________________________________________________________ Institutions staff: ___________________________________________________________________ Describe reference conditions for output (1 MU = 1 cGy; Dose rate/min with 60Co beam at date of calculation of the cases)
60
__________ cGy/min
on date ____/____/____
Beam output The absorbed dose rate to water at _____cm depth, for a field of ______ cm _______cm in a water phantom, at ____ cm SSD SAD, gantry vertical on the date ___________. The institution calibrated according to: TRS 277, TRS 398. The institution value listed below is the dose rate converted to TRS 398. The experts calibration was according to TRS 398.
Field size (cm cm) 10 10 Expert calculations (cGy/min or MU) _____________________ Institution calculations (cGy/min or MU) _____________________ Expert/Inst. _____________________
Comments: ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ In-water photon benchmark case #1 (2 oblique fields, if SAD set-up was used) Beam energy: ______________MV/ 60Co Field size (1): 8 W cm 10 cm Beam angle (1): 45 Wedge (1) angle: 45 Wedge angle : 45 SAD: _______________cm Field size (2): 8 W cm 10 cm Beam angle (2): 315 Wedge (2) angle: 45 Reference (in-house designation): ____________________
Monitor units / time to deliver 1 Gy per field at a depth of 5 cm Experts calculations Beam 1 Beam 2 _____________________ _ _____________________ _ Institutions calculations _____________________ _ _____________________ _ Experts measurements _____________________ _ _____________________ _
130
Experts calculation: _________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Relative doses at selected points Point A B C C Institutions calculations ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Experts measurements ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Expert/Institution ratio ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________
In-water photon benchmark case #1 (2 oblique fields, if SSD set-up was used) Beam energy: _____________MV/ 60Co Field size (1): 7.4 W cm 9.2 cm Beam angle (1): 45 Wedge (1) angle: 45 Wedge angle : 45 SSD: _______ cm Field size (2): 7.4 W cm 9.2 cm Beam angle (2): 315 Wedge (2) angle: 45 Reference (in-house designation): __________________
MU / time to deliver 1 Gy per field at a depth of 5 cm Experts calculations Beam 1 Beam 2 ____________________ ____________________ Institutions calculations ____________________ ____________________ Experts measurements ____________________ ____________________
Institutions calculation: _____________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Experts calculation: _______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Relative doses at selected points Point A Institutions calculations ____________________ Experts measurements ____________________ Expert/Institution ____________________
131
APPENDIX IV
B C C
In-water photon benchmark case #2 (three fields technique, if SAD set-up was used)
Beam energy: ___________________ MV/ 60Co Beam angle (1): 0 Field size (1): 12 W cm 18 cm Depth (1): 12 cm Open field Beam angle (2): 90 Field size (2): 10 W cm 18 cm Depth (2): 20 cm Wedge (1) angle: 30
o
SSD: _____________ cm Beam angle (3): 270 Field size (3): 10 W cm 18 cm Depth (3): 20 cm Wedge (2) angle: 30 o
Wedge angle: 30 o
Monitor units / time to deliver 1 Gy per posterior field and 0.5 Gy per each lateral beam at the depth of interest Experts calculations Beam 1 Beam 2 Beam 3 ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Institutions calculations ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Experts measurements _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
Institutions calculation: _____________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Experts calculation: ________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Comments on the results: ____________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________
132
Case #2 continued (if SAD set-up was used) RELATIVE DOSES IN SELECTED POINTS Point A B B C C Institutions calculation ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Experts measurements ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Expert/Institution ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________
In-water photon benchmark case #2 (Three fields technique, if SSD set-up was used) Beam energy: ______________MV/ 60Co Beam angle (1): 0
SSD: ____________ cm Beam angle (3): 270 Field size (3): 8 W cm 14.4 cm Depth (3): 20 cm Different font size! Wedge (2) angle: 30 o
Beam angle (2): 90 Field size (2): 8 W cm 14.4 cm Depth (2): 20 cm different font size! Wedge (1) angle: 30 o
Field size (1): 10.4 W cm 15.7 cm Depth (1): 12 cm Open field Wedge angle: 30 o
Monitor units / time to deliver 1 Gy per posterior field and 0.5 Gy per each lateral beam at the depth of interest Experts calculations Beam 1 Beam 2 Beam 3 ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Institutions calculations ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Experts measurements ____________________ ____________________ ____________________
133
APPENDIX IV
Experts calculations: ______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Comments on the results: ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Case #2 continued (if SSD set-up was used) Relative doses at selected points Point A B B C C Institutions calculations ____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ Experts measurements ____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ Expert/Institution _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
Comments on the results: ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ In-water photon benchmark dosimetry case #3 (blocked field) Beam energy: _____________________ MV/60Co SAD SSD ________cm Depth: 10 cm Field size (1): 20 cm 20 cm
Beam angle (1): 0 Block dimensions: the size of shielded area: square, side of 8 cm
Monitor units / time to deliver 2 Gy at a depth of 10 cm for blocked and open field Experts calculations Beam 1 ____________________ Institutions calculations ______________________ Experts measurements _________________
134
Experts calculations: ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Comments on the results: ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Relative doses in selected points Point A B Institutions calculations _____________________ _ _____________________ _ Experts measurements _____________________ _ _____________________ _ Expert/Institution _____________________ _ _____________________ _
Comments on the results: ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 5. REPORT ON THE PHOTON ANATOMICAL CASES The expert reviewed the institutions calculations of tumour dose delivery for four anatomical benchmark cases. The comparison of monitor units / treatment time between the expert and the institution is given below. In addition a visual comparison of the relative dose distributions generated by the expert and by the institution was performed by the expert. Anatomical case Pelvis Lung Breast Head & neck Treatment machine (beam energy) ______________ ( ________MV) ______________ ( ________MV) ______________ ( ________MV) ______________ ( ________MV) Expert/Institution ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________
Details of the specific anatomical cases are listed in the photon questionnaire for benchmark cases reference. The dose distributions for these anatomical cases were generated by the institution using its ____________________ TPS. The expert generated dose distributions using the IAEA laptop with the Theraplan-Plus software. Comments by the expert: _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ The expert also reviewed several patient treatment records in order to become acquainted with the institutions treatment techniques and treatment planning procedures as well as establishing the consistency between TPS dosimetry data and the dosimetry data provided to the expert. Comments by the expert: _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________
135
APPENDIX IV
6. REPORT ON THE IN-WATER ELECTRON BENCHMARK CASES Expert: __________________________________________________ Date:___/___/___ Institution: ________________________________________________ Treatment unit: ___________________________________________ Beam energy : _____ MeV Institutions staff: __________________________________________ Beam Output Absorbed dose-to-water per monitor unit at the depth of maximum dose (zmax) in the water phantom at ____ cm SSD, ___ cm ___ cm field size. The institution performed its calibration according to: TRS 277 TRS 381 TRS 398 The institution value listed below is the dose rate converted to TRS 398. The experts calibration was performed according to TRS 398. Nominal Energy (MeV) __________ R50 (cm) __________ Zref (cm) __________ Expert (cGy/MU) __________ Institution (cGy/MU) __________
Expert/Institution __________
Comments:_________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ In-water electron benchmark case #1 (square field) Field/cone size: __ cm __ cm Depth of interest zmax z90 z50 Experts depth (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________ SSD ________ cm Institutions depth (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________ Expert Institution (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________
Dose verification at the depth of interest Institution MU to deliver 2 Gy zmax z90 ________________ ________________ Experts measured dose (Gy) ________________ ________________ Institutions calculated dose (Gy) ________________ ________________ Expert/Institution ________________ ________________
136
__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Comments on discrepancies: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ In-water electron benchmark case #2 (cone ratio) Field/cone size: __ cm __ cm Depth of interest zmax z90 z50 Experts depth (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________ SSD ________ cm Institutions depth (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________ Expert Institution (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________
Dose verification at the depth of interest Inst. MU to deliver 2 Gy zmax z90 _______________ ________________ Experts measured dose (Gy) _______________ ________________ Institutions calculated dose (Gy) ________________ ________________ Expert/Inst. ________________ ________________
Comments on dose distribution: ________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Comments on discrepancies: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________
137
APPENDIX IV
In-water electron benchmark case #3 (extended SSD) Field/cone size: __ cm __ cm Depth of interest zmax z90 z50 Experts depth (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________ SSD ________ cm Institutions depth (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________ Expert Institution (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________
Dose verification at the depth of interest Inst. MU to deliver 2 Gy zmax z90 _______________ ________________ Experts measured dose (Gy) _______________ ________________ Institutions calculated dose (Gy) _______________ ________________ Expert/Inst. _______________ _______________
Comments on dose distribution: ________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Comments on discrepancies: ___________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ In-water electron benchmark case #4 (triangular shaped field) Field/cone size: __ cm __ cm Depth of interest zmax z90 z50 Experts depth (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________ SSD ________ cm Institutions depth (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________ Expert Institution (cm) _________________ _________________ _________________
138
Dose verification at the depth of interest Inst. MU to deliver 2 Gy zmax z90 ________________ _ ________________ _ Experts measured dose (Gy) ________________ _ ________________ _ Institutions calculated dose (Gy) ________________ _ ________________ _ Expert/Institution ________________ _ ________________ _
Comments on dose distribution: ________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Comments on discrepancies: ___________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 7. FINAL REMARKS Analysis of discrepancies
139
APPENDIX IV
NOTE: The recommendations made by the IAEA expert may influence the treatment of patients. If the recommendations are implemented, the following will be the impact on patient treatments.
8. REFERENCES TO THE EXPERTS REPORT [1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Absorbed Dose Determination in External Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water, Technical Reports Series No. 398, IAEA, Vienna (2000). [2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design and Implementation of a Radiotherapy Programme: Clinical, Medical Physics, Radiation Protection and Safety Aspects, IAEA-TECDOC-1040, IAEA, Vienna (1998). [3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Computerized Treatment Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of Cancer, Technical Reports Series No. 430, IAEA, Vienna (2004).
140
REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICISTS IN MEDICINE, Report of AAPM TG 40, Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology, Med. Phys. 21 (1994) 581618. EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF THERAPEUTICAL RADIOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY, Quality assurance in radiotherapy, Radioth. Oncol. 35 (1995) 6173. EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF THERAPEUTICAL RADIOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY, Practical guidelines for the implementation of a quality system in radiotherapy, ESTRO Physics for Clinical Radiotherapy Booklet No. 4, ESTRO, Brussels (1998). INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE, Physics aspects of quality control in radiotherapy, IPEM, York, (1998). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Lessons Learned from Accidental Exposures in Radiotherapy, Safety Report Series No. 17, IAEA, Vienna (2000). INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, Prevention of Accidental Exposures to Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy, ICRP report 86, Annals of the ICRP 30 (2000). ESSERS, M., MIJNHEER, B. J., In vivo dosimetry during external beam radiotherapy, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 43 (1999) 245259. THWAITES, D.I., WILLIAMS, J.R., AIRD, E.G.A., KLEVENHAGEN, S.C., WILLIAMS, P.C., A dosimetric intercomparison of megavoltage photon beams in UK radiotherapy centres, Phys. Med. Biol. 37 (1992) 445461. WILLIAMS, J.R., BRADNAM, M.S., MCCURROCH, G.M., DEEHAN, C., JOHNSTON, S., A system for the quality audit of treatment dose delivery in radiotherapy, Radioth. Oncol. 20 (1991) 197202. IZEWSKA, J., ANDREO, P., The IAEA/WHO TLD postal programme for radiotherapy hospitals, Radioth. Oncol. 34 (2000) 6572. IZEWSKA, J., ANDREO, P., VATNITSKY, S., SHORTT, K.R., The IAEA/WHO TLD postal dose quality audits for radiotherapy: a perspective of dosimetry practices at hospitals in developing countries, Radioth. Oncol. 69 (2003) 9197. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Comprehensive Audits of Radiotherapy Practices: A Tool for Quality Improvement, Quality Assurance Team for Radiation Oncology (QUATRO). IAEA, in press. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Standardized Quality Audit Procedures for On-site Dosimetry Visits to Radiotherapy Hospitals, SSDL Newsletter No. 46, IAEA, Vienna (2002). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Investigation of an Accidental Exposure of Radiotherapy Patients in Panama, IAEA, Vienna (2001). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Accidental Overexposure of Radiotherapy Patients in San Jos, Costa Rica, IAEA, Vienna (1998). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Accidental Overexposure of Radiotherapy Patients in Biaystok, IAEA, Vienna (2004). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Directory of Radiotherapy Centres (DIRAC), http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nahu/dirac/default.shtm. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Absorbed Dose Determination in External Radiotherapy: an International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water, Technical Reports Series No. 398, IAEA, Vienna (2000). BRITISH INSTITUTE OF RADIOLOGY, Central Axis Depth Dose Data Use in Radiotherapy, Brit. J. Radiol. Supplement No. 25, British Institute of Radiology, London (1996). FOLLOWILL, D., DAVIS, D., IBBOTT, G., Comparison of Electron Beam Characteristics from Multiple Accelerators. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 59 (2004) 905910. TAILOR, R.C., FOLLOWILL, D.S., HERNANDEZ, N., IBBOTT, G.I., HANSON, W.F., Predictability of electron cone ratios with respect to linac make and model, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 4, 2 (2003) 173178.
141
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Computerized Treatment Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of Cancer, Technical Reports Series No. 430, IAEA, Vienna (2004). EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF THERAPEUTICAL RADIOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY, A practical guide to quality control of brachytherapy equipment, ESTRO Booklet 8, Brussels (2004). INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Calibration of Photon and Beta Ray Sources Used in Brachytherapy: Guidelines on Standardized Procedures at Secondary Standards Dosimetry Laboratories (SSDLs) and Hospitals, IAEA-TECDOC-1274, IAEA, Vienna (2002). DUTREIX, A., MARINELLO, G., WAMBERSIE, A., Dosimtrie en Curiethrapie, Masson, Paris (1982). VAN DYK, J. et al., Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 26 (1993) 261273. MILLER, D. W., BLOCH, P. H., CUNNINGHAM, J. R., Radiation treatment planning dosimetry verification, AAPM Report Number 55, American Institute of Physics, New York (1995). AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICISTS IN MEDICINE, Report of AAPM TG 53, Quality assurance for clinical radiation treatment planning, Med. Phys 25 (1998) 17731829. INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE, A guide to commissioning and quality control of treatment planning systems, IPEM Report 68, York (1996). NETHERLANDS COMMISSION ON RADIATION DOSIMETRY, Quality assurance of 3-D treatment planning systems, NCS (2002). EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF THERAPEUTICAL RADIOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY, Quality Assurance of treatment planning systems, ESTRO Booklet 7, Brussels (2004). INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSION, Radiotherapy Equipment Coordinates, Movements and Scales, IEC 61217, Geneva (2002).
142
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW Chavaudra, J. Dutreix, A. Followill, D.S. Georg, D. Hanson, W. Izewska, J. Jarvinen, H. Johansson, K.A. Mijnheer, B.J Nisbet, A. Novotny, J. Rosenwald, J.C. Sernb, G. Sipila, P. Shortt, K. Thwaites, D. Van Dam, J. Vatnitsky, S. Venselaar, J. Winkler, P. Institut Gustave Roussy, France Institut Gustave Roussy, France M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, United States of America Allgemeines Krankenhaus der Stadt Wien, Austria M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, United States of America International Atomic Energy Agency Finnish Center for Radiation and Nuclear Safety (STUK), Finland Sahlgren Hospital, Sweden Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Netherlands Churchill Hospital, United Kingdom Homolka Hospital, Czech Republic Institut Curie, France Sahlgren Hospital, Sweden Finnish Center for Radiation and Nuclear Safety (STUK), Finland International Atomic Energy Agency Yorkshire Cancer Center, University of Leeds, United Kingdom University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Belgium International Atomic Energy Agency Dr. Bernard Verbeeten Institute, Netherlands Allgemeines Krankenhaus der Stadt Wien, Austria
Consultants meetings Vienna, Austria: 27 September1 October 1999, 511 December 2001, 30 August3 September 2004, 28 November2 December 2005
143