Model for Estimating Power and Downtime Effects on Teletherapy Units in Low-Resource Settings

Purpose: More than 6,500 megavoltage teletherapy units are needed worldwide, many in low-resource settings. Cobalt-60 units or linear accelerators (linacs) can fill this need. We have evaluated machine performance on the basis of patient throughput to provide insight into machine viability under various conditions in such a way that conclusions can be generalized to a vast array of clinical scenarios. Materials and Methods: Data from patient treatment plans, peer-reviewed studies, and international organizations were combined to assess the relative patient throughput of linacs and cobalt-60 units that deliver radiotherapy with standard techniques under various power and maintenance support conditions. Data concerning the frequency and duration of power outages and downtime characteristics of the machines were used to model teletherapy operation in low-resource settings. Results: Modeled average daily throughput was decreased for linacs because of lack of power infrastructure and for cobalt-60 units because of limited and decaying source strength. For conformal radiotherapy delivered with multileaf collimators, average daily patient throughput over 8 years of operation was equal for cobalt-60 units and linacs when an average of 1.83 hours of power outage occurred per 10-hour working day. Relative to conformal treatments delivered with multileaf collimators on the respective machines, the use of advanced techniques on linacs decreased throughput between 20% and 32% and, for cobalt machines, the need to manually place blocks reduced throughput up to 37%. Conclusion: Our patient throughput data indicate that cobalt-60 units are generally best suited for implementation when machine operation might be 70% or less of total operable time because of power outages or mechanical repair. However, each implementation scenario is unique and requires consideration of all variables affecting implementation

Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience

Purpose: The aim of this work was to describe the design and implementation of a more robust workflow for communicating outcomes from a peer-review chart rounds conference. We also provide information regarding cycle times, plan revisions, and other key metrics that we have observed since initial implementation. Methods and Materials: A multidisciplinary team of stakeholders including physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists developed a revised peer-review workflow that addressed key needs to improve the prior process. Consensus terminology was developed to reduce ambiguity regarding the priority of peer-review outcomes and to clarify expectations of the treating physician in response to peer-review outcomes. A custom workflow software tool was developed to facilitate both upstream and downstream processes from the chart rounds conference. The peer-review outcomes of the chart rounds conference and resulting plan changes for the first 18 months of implementation were summarized. Results: In the first 18 months after implementation of the revised processes, 2294 plans were reviewed, and feedback priority levels assigned. Across all cases with feedback, the median time for the treating attending physician to acknowledge conference comments was 1 day and was within 7 calendar days for 89.1% of cases. Conference feedback was acknowledged within 1 day for 74 of 115 (64.3%) cases with level 2 comments and for 18 of 21 (85.7%) cases with level 3 comments (P = .054). Contours were modified in 13 of 116 (11%) cases receiving level 2 feedback and 10 of 21 (48%) cases receiving level 3 feedback (P < .001). The treatment plan was revised in 18 of 116 (16%) cases receiving level 2 feedback and 13 of 21 (61%) cases receiving level 3 feedback (P < .001). Conclusions: We successfully implemented a workflow to improve upstream and downstream processes for a chart rounds conference. Standardizing how peer-review outcomes were communicated and recording physician responses allow for improved ability to monitor conference activities