Comparison of failure modes and effects analyses and time for brachytherapy ring and tandem applicator digitization between manual and solid applicator source placement methods

Author:

Holtman Adia L.1,DiCostanzo Dominic J.1ORCID,Zimmerman Charles A.1,Graeper Gavin1ORCID,Woollard Jeffrey1,Christ Daniel F.1,Cetnar Ashley J.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Radiation Oncology The Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA

Abstract

AbstractPurposeRing and tandem (R&T) applicator digitization is currently performed at our institution by manually defining the extent of the applicators. Digitization can also be achieved using solid applicators: predefined, 3D models with geometric constraints. This study compares R&T digitization using manual and solid applicator methods through Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs) and comparative time studies. We aim to assess the suitability of solid applicator method implementation for R&T casesMethodsSix qualified medical physicists (QMPs) and two medical physics residents scored potential modes of failure of manual digitization in an FMEA as recommended by TG‐100. Occurrence, severity, and detectability (OSD) values were averaged across respondents and then multiplied to form combined Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) for analysis. Participants were trained to perform treatment planning using a developed solid applicator protocol and asked to score a second FMEA on the distinct process steps from the manual method. For both methods, participant digitization was timed. FMEA and time data were analyzed across methods and participant samplesResultsQMPs rated the RPNs of the current, manual method of digitization statistically lower than residents did. When comparing the unique FMEA steps between the two digitization methods, QMP respondents found no significant difference in RPN means. Residents, however, rated the solid applicator method as higher risk. Further, after the solid applicator method was performed twice by participants, the time to digitize plans was not significantly different from manual digitizationConclusionsThis study indicates the non‐inferiority of the solid applicator method to manual digitization in terms of risk, according to QMPs, and time, across all participants. Differences were found in FMEA evaluation and solid applicator technique adoption based on years of brachytherapy experience. Further practice with the solid applicator protocol is recommended because familiarity is expected to lower FMEA occurrence ratings and further reduce digitization times.

Publisher

Wiley

Reference15 articles.

1. GYN & Rectal—BEBIG Medical GmbH. Accessed November 18 2023.https://www.bebigmedical.com/products_11/42.html

2. Brachytherapy Techniques and Systems. In:ICRU Report 89: Prescribing Recording and Reporting Brachytherapy for Cancer of the Cervix. Vol 13. Journal of the ICRU;2013:21‐35.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1093/jicru_ndw028

3. GEC‐ESTRO BRAPHYQS. Accessed November 22 2023.https://www.estro.org/About/ESTRO‐Organisation‐Structure/Committees/GEC‐ESTRO‐Committee/GEC‐ESTRO‐BRAPHYQS

4. AAPM Committee Tree—Task Group No. 236 ‐ AAPM Recommendations on 3D Image‐based Treatment Planning Dosimetry and Quality Management for Intracavitary Brachytherapy (TG236). Accessed November 22 2023.https://www.aapm.org/org/structure/?committee_code=TG236

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3