The Value of On-Site Proton Audits.
Journal
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
ISSN: 1879-355X
Titre abrégé: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7603616
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 03 2022
15 03 2022
Historique:
received:
25
06
2021
revised:
06
10
2021
accepted:
22
10
2021
pubmed:
16
11
2021
medline:
8
3
2022
entrez:
15
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to highlight the value and key findings of on-site proton audits. The authors performed 38 on-site measurement-based peer reviews of proton centers participating in National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials. The reviews covered beam calibration, lateral and depth measurements, mechanical checks, treatment planning and clinical practice, and quality assurance (QA) practices. Program deficiencies were noted, and recommendations were made about ways institutions could improve their practices. Institutions received an average of 3 (range, 1-8) recommendations for practice improvements. The number of deficiencies did not decrease over time, highlighting the continued need for this type of peer review. The most common deficiencies were for Task Group-recommended QA compliance (97% of centers), computed tomography number (CTN) to relative linear stopping power conversion (59%), and QA procedures (53%). In addition, 32% of institutions assessed failed at least 1 lateral beam profile measurement (<90% of pixels passing 3% [global]/3 mm; 10% threshold), despite passing internal QA measurements. These failures occurred for several different plan configurations (large, small, shallow, and deep targets) and at different depths in the beam path (proximal to target, central, and distal). CTN to relative linear stopping power conversion curves showed deviations at low, mid, and high CTNs and highlighted areas of inconsistency between proton centers, with many centers falling outside of 2 sigma of the mean curve of their peers. All deficiencies from the peer review were discussed with the institutions, and many implemented dosimetric treatment planning and practice changes to improve the accuracy of their system and consistency with other institutions. This peer review program has been integral in confirming and promoting consistency and best practice across proton centers for clinical trials, minimizing deviations for outcomes data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34780973
pii: S0360-3016(21)03068-6
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.10.145
pmc: PMC8863623
mid: NIHMS1756242
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1004-1011Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : C06 CA059267
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA010953
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U24 CA081647
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U24 CA180803
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Nov;140:98-104
pubmed: 31265942
Forensic Sci Int. 2019 Jul;300:164-169
pubmed: 31125761
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014 Mar 06;15(2):4523
pubmed: 24710437
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Feb 1;82(2):809-16
pubmed: 21277694
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012 Sep 06;13(5):3939
pubmed: 22955659
Z Med Phys. 2021 May;31(2):145-153
pubmed: 33712295
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Apr 1;49(5):1429-38
pubmed: 11286851
J Radiat Res. 2020 Nov 16;61(6):999-1008
pubmed: 32989445
Med Dosim. 2010 Autumn;35(3):179-94
pubmed: 19931030
Int J Part Ther. 2018 Winter;4(3):40-47
pubmed: 31773010
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Jul;21(7):70-76
pubmed: 32351006
Med Phys. 2009 Sep;36(9):4197-212
pubmed: 19810494
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Nov 1;99(3):750-756
pubmed: 28843371
Int J Part Ther. 2018 Spring;4(4):20-27
pubmed: 30214913
Med Phys. 1994 Apr;21(4):581-618
pubmed: 8058027
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2020 Feb;11(1):212-224
pubmed: 32175124
Phys Med Biol. 1998 Jun;43(6):1579-92
pubmed: 9651027
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Dec 1;90(5):1195-201
pubmed: 25442044
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Oct 1;81(2):552-9
pubmed: 21300457
Med Phys. 2019 Aug;46(8):e678-e705
pubmed: 31125441
Med Phys. 2016 Jul;43(7):4209
pubmed: 27370140
Phys Med Biol. 1996 Jan;41(1):111-24
pubmed: 8685250
Med Phys. 2014 Jun;41(6):061705
pubmed: 24877800
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):242-248
pubmed: 27084644
Med Phys. 2014 Jan;41(1):012103
pubmed: 24387521
Int J Med Phys Clin Eng Radiat Oncol. 2017 May;6(2):111-123
pubmed: 28620561
Leg Med (Tokyo). 2016 Mar;19:96-100
pubmed: 26297243
Radiother Oncol. 2012 Oct;105(1):4-8
pubmed: 22985777
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Mar 20;105(6):387-93
pubmed: 23468460
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Feb 26;63(5):055001
pubmed: 29384730
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 14;14(2):e0212412
pubmed: 30763390
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun 20;28(18):2996-3001
pubmed: 20479390
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014 Sep 08;15(5):4935
pubmed: 25207581
Med Phys. 2013 Feb;40(2):022101
pubmed: 23387762