Peer review, especially prospective peer review, has been supported by professional organizations as an important element in optimal Radiation Oncology practice based on its demonstration of efficacy at detecting and preventing errors prior to patient treatment. Implementation of peer review is not without barriers, but solutions do exist to mitigate or eliminate some of those barriers. Peer review practice at our institution involves three key elements: new patient conference, treatment planning conference, and chart rounds. The treatment planning conference is an adaptation of the group consensus peer review model from radiology which utilizes a group of peers reviewing each treatment plan prior to implementation. The peer group in radiation oncology includes Radiation Oncologists, Physician Residents, Medical Physicists, Dosimetrists, and Therapists. Thus, technical and clinical aspects of each plan are evaluated simultaneously. Though peer review is held in high regard in Radiation Oncology, many barriers commonly exist preventing optimal implementation such as time intensiveness, repetition, and distraction from clinic time with patients. Through the use of automated review tools and commitment by individuals and administration in regards to staffing, scheduling, and responsibilities, these barriers have been mitigated to implement this Group Consensus Peer Review model into a Radiation Oncology Clinic. A Group Consensus Peer Review model has been implemented with strategies to address common barriers to effective and efficient peer review.

Peer review systems within radiation oncology are important to ensure quality radiation care. Several individualized methods for radiation oncology peer review have been described. However, despite the importance of peer review in radiation oncology barriers may exist to its effective implementation in practice. The purpose of this study was to quantify the rate of plan changes based on our group peer review process as well as the quantify amount of time and resources needed for this process. Data on cases presented in our institutional group consensus peer review conference were prospectively collected. Cases were then retrospectively analyzed to determine the rate of major change (plan rejection) and any change in plans after presentation as well as the median time of presentation. Univariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with major change and any change. There were 73 cases reviewed over a period of 11 weeks. The rate of major change was 8.2% and the rate of any change was 23.3%. The majority of plans (53.4%) were presented in 6–10 min. Overall, the mean time of presentation was 8 min. On univariable logistic regression, volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were less likely to undergo a plan change but otherwise there were no factors significantly associated with major plan change or any type of change. Group consensus peer review allows for a large amount of informative clinical and technical data to be presented per case prior to the initiation of radiation treatment in a thorough yet efficient manner to ensure plan quality and patient safety.

Positron emission tomography (PET) integrated with computed tomography (CT) has brought revolutionary changes in improving cancer care (CC) for patients. These include improved detection of previously unrecognizable disease, ability to identify oligometastatic status enabling more aggressive treatment strategies when the disease burden is lower, its use in better defining treatment targets in radiotherapy (RT), ability to monitor treatment responses early and thus improve the ability for early interventions of non-responding tumors, and as a prognosticating tool as well as outcome predicting tool. PET/CT has enabled the emergence of new concepts such as radiobiotherapy (RBT), radioimmunotherapy, theranostics, and pharmaco-radiotherapy. This is a rapidly evolving field, and this primer is to help summarize the current status and to give an impetus to developing new ideas, clinical trials, and CC outcome improvements.

Object: The purpose of this study was to compare two methods of stereotactic localization in Gamma Knife treatment planning: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) or fiducial. While the fiducial method is the traditional method of localization, CBCT is now available for use with the Gamma Knife Icon. This study seeks to determine whether a difference exists between the two methods and then whether one is better than the other regarding accuracy and workflow optimization.Methods: Cone beam computed tomography was used to define stereotactic space around the Elekta Film Pinprick phantom and then treated with film in place. The same phantom was offset known amounts from center and then imaged with CBCT and registered with the reference CBCT image to determine if measured offsets matched those known. Ten frameless and 10 frame‐based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to CBCT patient fusions were retrospectively evaluated using the TG‐132 TRE method. The stereotactic coordinates defined by CBCT and traditional fiducials were compared on the Elekta 8 cm Ball phantom, an anthropomorphic phantom, and actual patient data. Offsets were introduced to the anthropomorphic phantom in the stereotactic frame and CBCT's ability to detect those offsets was determined.Results: Cone beam computed tomography defines stereotactic space well within the established limits of the mechanical alignment system. The CBCT to CBCT registration can detect offsets accurately to within 0.1 mm and 0.5°. In all cases, some disagreement existed between fiducial localization and that of CBCT which in some cases was small, but also was as high as 0.43 mm in the phantom domain and as much as 1.54 mm in actual patients.Conclusion: Cone beam computed tomography demonstrates consistent accuracy in defining stereotactic space. Since both localization methods do not agree with each other consistently, the more reliable method must be identified. Cone beam computed tomography can accurately determine offsets occurring within stereotactic space that would be nondiscernible utilizing the fiducial method and seems to be more reliable. Using CBCT localization offers the opportunity to streamline workflow both from a patient and clinic perspective and also shows patient position immediately prior to treatment.

Development of MRI sequences and processing methods for the production of images appropriate for direct use in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment planning. MRI is useful in SRS treatment planning, especially for patients with brain lesions or anatomical targets that are poorly distinguished by CT, but its use requires further refinement. This methodology seeks to optimize MRI sequences to generate distortion-free and clinically relevant MR images for MRI-only SRS treatment planning. We used commercially available SRS MRI-guided radiotherapy phantoms and eight patients to optimize sequences for patient imaging. Workflow involved the choice of correct MRI sequence(s), optimization of the sequence parameters, evaluation of image quality (artifact free and clinically relevant), measurement of geometrical distortion, and evaluation of the accuracy of our offline correction algorithm. CT images showed a maximum deviation of 1.3 mm and minimum deviation of 0.4 mm from true fiducial position for SRS coordinate definition. Interestingly, uncorrected MR images showed maximum deviation of 1.2 mm and minimum of 0.4 mm, comparable to CT images used for SRS coordinate definition. After geometrical correction, we observed a maximum deviation of 1.1 mm and minimum deviation of only 0.3 mm. Our optimized MRI pulse sequences and image correction technique show promising results; MR images produced under these conditions are appropriate for direct use in SRS treatment planning.

Objective: Frameless treatment with the Gamma Knife Icon is still relatively new as a treatment option. As a result, additional confidence/knowledge about the uncertainty that exists within each portion of the treatment workflow could be gained especially regarding steps that have not been previously studied in the literature.Methods: The Icon base delivery device (Perfexion) uncertainty is quantified and validated. The novel portions of the Icon such as mask immobilization, cone‐beam computed tomography image guidance, and the intrafraction motion management methods are studied specifically and to a greater extent to determine a total workflow uncertainty of frameless treatment with the Icon.Results: The uncertainty of each treatment workflow step has been identified with the total workflow uncertainty being identified in this work as 1.3 mm with a standard deviation of 0.51 mm.Conclusion: The total uncertainty of frameless treatment with the Icon has been evaluated and this data may indicate the need for setup margin in this setting with data that could be used by other institutions to calculate needed setup margin per their preferred recipe after validation of this data in their context.