Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Serum concentrations of uric acid and the metabolic syndrome among US children and adolescents. Circulation 115: 2526-2532, 2007.

Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN·2023
Same author

SU-E-T-418: Evaluation of Peripheral Dose for SRS Treatment Radiations with the VIS CyberKnife: A Phantom Study.

Medical physics·2017
Same author

TU-E-211-01: Establishing Multidisciplinary Collaboration as a Medical Physicist.

Medical physics·2017
Same author

WE-E-213AB-01: Medical Physics Challenges for Implementation of New Technologies in External Beam Radiotherapy.

Medical physics·2017
Same author

An image-guided precision proton radiation platform for preclinical in vivo research.

Physics in medicine and biology·2016
Same author

Anaesthesia: Pause for palsy.

British dental journal·2016

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 2, 2026

Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Gynecologic Cancer
10:35

Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Gynecologic Cancer

Published on: April 17, 2012

18.8K

MO-D-BRB-07: Failure-Mode and Effects Analysis Study for CyberKnife Stereotactic Radiosurgery.

S Dieterich1,2,3, E Ford1,2,3, C Halasz1,2,3

  • 1UC Davis, Stanford, CA.

Medical Physics
|May 19, 2017
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA) for CyberKnife Stereotactic Radiosurgery found most quality assurance (QA) focuses on technical failures, not process or human errors. New QA procedures are recommended to improve patient safety in radiosurgery.

Keywords:
DosimetryFailure analysisMedical physicistsRadiation safetyRadiation therapyRadiation treatmentRadiosurgery

More Related Videos

Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy
08:17

Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy

Published on: June 7, 2015

16.3K
Stem Cell Transplantation Strategies for the Restoration of Cognitive Dysfunction Caused by Cranial Radiotherapy
11:24

Stem Cell Transplantation Strategies for the Restoration of Cognitive Dysfunction Caused by Cranial Radiotherapy

Published on: October 18, 2011

15.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 2, 2026

Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Gynecologic Cancer
10:35

Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Gynecologic Cancer

Published on: April 17, 2012

18.8K
Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy
08:17

Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy

Published on: June 7, 2015

16.3K
Stem Cell Transplantation Strategies for the Restoration of Cognitive Dysfunction Caused by Cranial Radiotherapy
11:24

Stem Cell Transplantation Strategies for the Restoration of Cognitive Dysfunction Caused by Cranial Radiotherapy

Published on: October 18, 2011

15.2K

Area of Science:

  • Medical Physics
  • Radiation Oncology
  • Quality Assurance

Background:

  • Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are advanced cancer treatments.
  • CyberKnife is a robotic SRS/SBRT delivery system requiring robust quality assurance (QA).
  • Existing QA procedures may not adequately address all potential failure modes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To conduct a Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA) for CyberKnife radiosurgery.
  • To evaluate the sensitivity of current QA procedures.
  • To identify areas for new QA implementation to enhance patient safety.

Main Methods:

  • Interviews with multidisciplinary CyberKnife team members to identify failure modes.
  • Development of a patient flow chart to map failure modes.
  • Correlation of failure modes with existing QA procedures using a matrix.

Main Results:

  • 180 failure modes identified; 85% were process or human errors, 15% technical.
  • Significant overlap in failure modes between CyberKnife and Gamma Knife systems.
  • Effective QA includes physics second chart review and pre-treatment time-out checklists.
  • New checklists, procedure guidelines, and an ARIA-CyberKnife DICOM interface were developed or are being implemented.

Conclusions:

  • This is the first FMEA study for CyberKnife SRS.
  • The study transitions QA from experience-based technical checks to a comprehensive technical, process, and human safety approach.
  • This framework supports medical physicists in delivering safer SRS/SBRT treatments.