| pubmed-article:18406911 | pubmed:abstractText | The traditional prescriptive quality assurance (QA) programs that attempt to ensure the safety and reliability of traditional external beam radiation therapy are limited in their applicability to such advanced radiation therapy techniques as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, inverse treatment planning, stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy, and image-guided radiation therapy. The conventional QA paradigm, illustrated by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40 (TG-40) report, consists of developing a consensus menu of tests and device performance specifications from a generic process model that is assumed to apply to all clinical applications of the device. The complexity, variation in practice patterns, and level of automation of high-technology radiotherapy renders this "one-size-fits-all" prescriptive QA paradigm ineffective or cost prohibitive if the high-probability error pathways of all possible clinical applications of the device are to be covered. The current approaches to developing comprehensive prescriptive QA protocols can be prohibitively time consuming and cost ineffective and may sometimes fail to adequately safeguard patients. It therefore is important to evaluate more formal error mitigation and process analysis methods of industrial engineering to more optimally focus available QA resources on process components that have a significant likelihood of compromising patient safety or treatment outcomes. | lld:pubmed |
