COMPREHENSIVE CALCULATION-BASED IMRT QA USING R&V DATA, TREATMENT RECORDS, AND A SECOND TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM

Purpose: Traditional patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are labor intensive and consume machine time. Calculation-based IMRT QA methods typically are not comprehensive. We have developed a comprehensive calculation-based IMRT QA method to detect uncertainties introduced by the initial dose calculation, the data transfer through the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system, and various aspects of the physical delivery. Methods: We recomputed the treatment plans in the patient geometry for 48 cases using data from the R&V, and from the delivery unit to calculate the “as-transferred” and “as-delivered” doses respectively. These data were sent to the original TPS to verify transfer and delivery or to a second TPS to verify the original calculation. For each dataset we examined the dose computed from the R&V record (RV) and from the delivery records (Tx), and the dose computed with a second verification TPS (vTPS). Each verification dose was compared to the clinical dose distribution using 3D gamma analysis and by comparison of mean dose and ROI-specific dose levels to target volumes. Plans were also compared to IMRT QA absolute and relative dose measurements. Results: The average 3D gamma passing percentages using 3%-3mm, 2%-2mm, and 1%-1mm criteria for the RV plan were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 100.0 (σ=0.1); for the Tx plan they were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 99.0 (σ=1.4); and for the vTPS plan they were 99.3 (σ=0.6), 97.2 (σ=1.5), and 79.0 (σ=8.6). When comparing target volume doses in the RV, Tx, and vTPS plans to the clinical plans, the average ratios of ROI mean doses were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.990 (σ=0.009) and ROI-specific dose levels were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.980 (σ=0.043), respectively. Comparing the clinical, RV, TR, and vTPS calculated doses to the IMRT QA measurements for all 48 patients, the average ratios for absolute doses were 0.999 (σ=0.013), 0.998 (σ=0.013), 0.999 σ=0.015), and 0.990 (σ=0.012), respectively, and the average 2D gamma(5%-3mm) passing percentages for relative doses for 9 patients was were 99.36 (σ=0.68), 99.50 (σ=0.49), 99.13 (σ=0.84), and 98.76 (σ=1.66), respectively. Conclusions: Together with mechanical and dosimetric QA, our calculation-based IMRT QA method promises to minimize the need for patient-specific QA measurements by identifying outliers in need of further review.

A survey of the implementation status of environmental management systems in U.S. colleges and universities, and, An environmental management system implementation model for U.S. colleges and universities

A census of 925 U.S. colleges and universities offering masters and doctorate degrees was conducted in order to study the number of elements of an environmental management system as defined by ISO 14001 possessed by small, medium and large institutions. A 30% response rate was received with 273 responses included in the final data analysis. Overall, the number of ISO 14001 elements implemented among the 273 institutions ranged from 0 to 16, with a median of 12. There was no significant association between the number of elements implemented among institutions and the size of the institution (p = 0.18; Kruskal-Wallis test) or among USEPA regions (p = 0.12; Kruskal-Wallis test). The proportion of U.S. colleges and universities that reported having implemented a structured, comprehensive environmental management system, defined by answering yes to all 16 elements, was 10% (95% C.I. 6.6%–14.1%); however 38% (95% C.I. 32.0%–43.8%) reported that they had implemented a structured, comprehensive environmental management system, while 30.0% (95% C.I. 24.7%–35.9%) are planning to implement a comprehensive environmental management system within the next five years. Stratified analyses were performed by institution size, Carnegie Classification and job title. ^ The Osnabruck model, and another under development by the South Carolina Sustainable Universities Initiative, are the only two environmental management system models that have been proposed specifically for colleges and universities, although several guides are now available. The Environmental Management System Implementation Model for U.S. Colleges and Universities developed is an adaptation of the ISO 14001 standard and USEPA recommendations and has been tailored to U.S. colleges and universities for use in streamlining the implementation process. In using this implementation model created for the U.S. research and academic setting, it is hoped that these highly specialized institutions will be provided with a clearer and more cost-effective path towards the implementation of an EMS and greater compliance with local, state and federal environmental legislation. ^