ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S4852

Physics - Quality assurance and auditing

ESTRO 2024

Conclusion:

This work has shown the use of automation can improve compliance and timeliness in radiation oncology chart review. This work has also set up a framework for the periodic review for compliance that will be able to be anonymized and shared at the group level or with individuals. Future work will look over larger time periods and more clinics to see if this work is generalizable to other centers and reproducible at a large scale. Future work will implement automation in a clinic and see if this reduction in non-compliant weekly chart checks can be reproduced. This work has focused on the medical physics weekly chart check but could likely be extended to numerous other critical tasks within radiation oncology.

Keywords: Automation, Quality Assurance, Physics Chart Check

References:

1. Quality Control Quantification (QCQ): A Tool to Measure the Value of Quality Control Checks in Radiation Oncology. Ford, Eric C. et al. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, Volume 84, Issue 3, e263 - e269.

1971

Poster Discussion

Investigate the dosimetric impact from spot position perturbations between SPArc therapy and IMPT

Peilin Liu 1 , Xiaoda Cong 1 , Gang Liu 1,2 , Lewei Zhao 1,3 , Xiaoqiang Li 1 , Xuanfeng Ding 1

1 William Beaumont University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Oak, USA. 2 Union Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Wuhan, USA. 3 Stanford University, Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford, USA

Purpose/Objective:

To quantitatively investigate the dosimetric impact from the spot position perturbations between Spot-scanning arc therapy (SPArc) [1] and Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT).

Material/Methods:

Four representative disease sites, including brain, lung, liver, and prostate cancers, were retrospectively selected. Spot position errors were simulated during dynamic SPArc treatment delivery. Two types of errors were generated, including randomized error and systematic error. For each random error scenario, four sub-scenarios were considered: 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% spots were randomly selected to in various directions in 1 mm and 2mm of Positioning Error (PE). The randomized errors used two categories with and without Gaussian distribution. Systematic