PTCOG Treatment Efficiency Subcommittee Risk Assessment Report on Patient-Specific Quality Assurance
Rattachement africain : ch, us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) in pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT) is often treated as a purely technical verification task. This PTCOG Treatment Efficiency Subcommittee White Paper instead frames PSQA as a workflow-embedded risk-control strategy and asks how different PSQA approaches reshape the same clinical risk landscape. Using a generic PBS-PT process-driven Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (pFMEA), 44 validated PSQA-relevant failure modes across 20 process steps were scored under a common no-PSQA baseline and three PSQA pathways: measurement-based PSQA, log file-based PSQA, and independent secondary dose calculation. A staged mathematical formalism separates preparatory data-stage effects, method-specific full-stage verification, cumulative endstate effects, and a Data-to-Cum bridge that quantifies additional verification benefit on the baseline scale. In this expert-scored, baseline-anchored model, log file-based PSQA produced the largest cumulative workflow-level risk-score reduction, followed by measurement-based PSQA and independent secondary dose calculation. The ranking is not a winner-takes-all rule or probability-calibrated risk estimate; instead, each method shows distinct risk-control strengths in different workflow regions. The White Paper therefore supports a risk-informed hybrid PSQA architecture, where log file-based PSQA, measurement-based PSQA, and independent secondary dose calculation are assigned to the workflow segments in which their signatures are strongest. It provides a transparent, semi-quantitative, stage-resolved framework for institutions seeking to evaluate, implement, or evolve PSQA in PBS-PT and emphasizes that log file-based PSQA must itself be supported by validated and governed log data and treatment records.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.