Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Sep 6;14(5):265-77.
doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i5.4329.

Application of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to pretreatment phases in tomotherapy

Sara Broggi  1 , Marie Claire Cantone, Anna Chiara, Nadia Di Muzio, Barbara Longobardi, Paola Mangili, Ivan Veronese
Affiliations

Application of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to pretreatment phases in tomotherapy

Sara Broggi et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. .

Abstract

The aim of this paper was the application of the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) approach to assess the risks for patients undergoing radiotherapy treatments performed by means of a helical tomotherapy unit. FMEA was applied to the preplanning imaging, volume determination, and treatment planning stages of the tomotherapy process and consisted of three steps: 1) identification of the involved subprocesses; 2) identification and ranking of the potential failure modes, together with their causes and effects, using the risk probability number (RPN) scoring system; and 3) identification of additional safety measures to be proposed for process quality and safety improvement. RPN upper threshold for little concern of risk was set at 125. A total of 74 failure modes were identified: 38 in the stage of preplanning imaging and volume determination, and 36 in the stage of planning. The threshold of 125 for RPN was exceeded in four cases: one case only in the phase of preplanning imaging and volume determination, and three cases in the stage of planning. The most critical failures appeared related to (i) the wrong or missing definition and contouring of the overlapping regions, (ii) the wrong assignment of the overlap priority to each anatomical structure, (iii) the wrong choice of the computed tomography calibration curve for dose calculation, and (iv) the wrong (or not performed) choice of the number of fractions in the planning station. On the basis of these findings, in addition to the safety strategies already adopted in the clinical practice, novel solutions have been proposed for mitigating the risk of these failures and to increase patient safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Subprocesses of the preplanning imaging and volume determination stage in tomotherapy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Subprocesses of the planning stage in tomotherapy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hoeschen C, Mattsson S, Cantone MC, et al. Minimising activity and dose with enhanced image quality by radiopharmaceutical administrations. Rad Prot Dosimetry. 2010;139(1–3):250–53. - PubMed
    1. Mancosu P, Cozzi L, Fogliata A, et al. Collimator angle influence on dose distribution optimization for vertebral metastases using volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2010;37(8):4133–37. - PubMed
    1. Korreman S, Rasch C, McNair H, et al. The European Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology‐European Institute of Radiotherapy (ESTRO‐EIR) report on 3D CT‐based in‐room image guidance systems: a practical and technical review and guide. Radiother Oncol. 2010;94(2):129–44. - PubMed
    1. Reggiori G, Mancosu P, Tozzi A, et al. Cone beam CT pre‐ and post‐daily treatment for assessing geometrical and dosimetry intrafraction variability during radiotherapy of prostate cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2011;12(1):141–52. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Broggi S, Cattaneo GM, Molinelli S, et al. Results of a two‐year quality control program for a helical tomotherapy unit. Radiother Oncol. 2008;86(2):231–41. - PubMed