Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024 May;25(5):e14336. doi: 10.1002/acm2.14336. Epub 2024 Apr 25.
Ring 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 cases METHODS: Six 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 samples RESULTS: QMPs 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 digitization CONCLUSIONS: This 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.
环加串联(R&T)施源器数字化目前在我院通过手动定义施源器的范围来完成。数字化也可以使用实体施源器来实现:即具有几何约束的预定义、三维模型。本研究通过失效模式和影响分析(FMEA)以及对比时间研究,比较了手动和实体施源器方法对 R&T 的数字化。我们旨在评估实体施源器方法在 R&T 病例中的适用性。方法:6 名合格的医学物理学家(QMP)和 2 名医学物理住院医师按照 TG-100 的建议,对手动数字化的潜在失效模式进行了 FMEA 评分。对受访者的发生、严重程度和可探测性(OSD)值进行了平均,然后相乘得出综合风险优先数(RPN)进行分析。参与者接受了使用开发的实体施源器协议进行治疗计划的培训,并要求对与手动方法不同的过程步骤进行第二次 FMEA 评分。对于两种方法,参与者的数字化时间都进行了计时。对两种方法和参与者样本的 FMEA 和时间数据进行了分析。结果:QMP 对当前手动数字化方法的 RPN 评分明显低于住院医师。当比较两种数字化方法的独特 FMEA 步骤时,QMP 受访者发现两种方法的 RPN 均值没有显著差异。然而,住院医师认为实体施源器方法风险更高。此外,参与者进行了两次实体施源器方法后,数字化计划的时间与手动数字化没有显著差异。结论:根据 QMP 的观点,本研究表明在风险方面,实体施源器方法与手动数字化具有非劣效性,在所有参与者中,时间也相似。在 FMEA 评估和实体施源器技术采用方面存在差异,这取决于接受过的近距离放射治疗经验年限。建议进一步练习实体施源器协议,因为熟悉程度预计会降低 FMEA 发生率评分,并进一步减少数字化时间。