ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
A group-based hands-on seminar for teaching failure mode and effects analysis in CyberKnife stereotactic radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRisk analysis is becoming increasingly important in advanced radiotherapy, as treatment workflows grow more complex and require multidisciplinary expertise. Although failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) has been recommended for risk-based quality management, opportunities for users to practically learn and apply FMEA within CyberKnife® workflows remain limited. PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and educational value of a group-based, hands-on seminar for teaching FMEA methodology in CyberKnife® stereotactic radiotherapy, using four representative treatment sites as practical examples.
methodsA half-day seminar was conducted for eight radiation technologists and six medical physicists from CyberKnife® institutions, supported by four facilitators. Following a didactic lecture on risk analysis, participants were divided into four site-specific groups (intracranial, lung, spine, and prostate). Each group utilized institution-prepared process maps and a shared Excel-based worksheet to identify potential failure modes, score them using a five-point FMEA scale for occurrence, severity, and detectability, and discuss possible countermeasures. Risk priority numbers (RPNs) were calculated to rank the identified failure modes. A postseminar questionnaire was administered to assess participants' prior experience, level of understanding of risk analysis, and willingness to implement it in clinical practice.
resultsThe seminar generated site-specific failure mode lists as educational outputs. The highest-ranked risks were contouring errors for intracranial lesions (RPN 48), irregular respiration for lung lesions (RPN 64), pain-induced patient motion for spinal lesions (RPN 36), and target delineation errors for prostate lesions (RPN 80). Other major risks included inappropriate selection of immobilization devices, prescription and fractionation errors, tracking-related issues, image registration inaccuracies, and incorrect patient-specific QA evaluation criteria. Thirteen participants completed the questionnaire. Most participants had limited prior experience with risk analysis; however, 85% reported a good level of understanding after the seminar, and 92% expressed willingness to implement risk analysis at their institutions.
conclusionsThis group-based seminar provided participants with practical experience in applying FMEA to CyberKnife treatment workflows. The questionnaire responses suggested that most participants gained a better understanding of risk analysis and were interested in applying it at their own institutions. The failure mode lists generated during the seminar were not intended to represent a complete FMEA for any participating institution but may provide practical examples for initiating multidisciplinary risk analysis based on local workflows and clinical practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.