Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 18, 2026

Author Spotlight: Improving Radiation Therapy Access with Radiation Planning Assistant
Published on: October 6, 2023
Systematic review of prospective hazard analysis in radiation therapy
Jonathan Hindmarsh1, Sonja Dieterich2, Jeremy Booth3,4
1Image X Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Eveleigh, New South Wales, Australia.
Introduction:
Prospective hazard analysis (PHA) was introduced to the wider medical physics community by the initiation of American association of physicists in medicine task group 100 in 2003. Since then, there has been increasing interest in the applicability of PHA to radiotherapy for the purpose of keeping patients safe and assessing the risks within the whole practice of radiotherapy. The purpose of this research was to review the PHA literature focusing on which techniques and technologies have been assessed, how they have been assessed, and what can be learnt.
Methods:
The search for English language, peer-reviewed, full-text articles was conducted across five databases and the citations of three seminal papers using a common search strategy. The collation, filtration, and analysis of articles was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement reporting standard utilizing the following PICOS approach: Population: x-ray external beam radiation therapy, Intervention: prospective hazard analysis, Comparison: none, Outcome: patient safety, Study characteristics: details of applied technique.
Results:
689 unique studies were identified. 62 were determined to be eligible for inclusion. PHA has been applied to C-arm treatment systems (17), stereotactic radiosurgery (8), TomoTherapy (6), stereotactic body radiotherapy (5), Ethos (5), Halcyon (3), MRIdian (3), review activities (3), commissioning (2), unity (1), volumetric modulated arc therapy (1), surface guidance (1), CyberKnife (1), RefleXion (1) and other novel software and hardware systems (6). Disciplines involved in the studies were physicists (92%), physicians (75%), radiation therapists or dosimetrists (71%), external experts (38%), and facilitators (33%). Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was used in 75% of studies, 10% used FMEA derived methods, 10% used system theoretic process analysis, and 5% used other methods. From the FMEA studies, 579 high-risk failure modes were extracted covering all aspects of the radiotherapy process, 50% applied to patient treatment delivery sessions and 25% applied to contouring and treatment planning. The mitigation strategies recommended by studies tended to add to the departmental workload.
Conclusions:
62 studies were identified that used PHA in radiotherapy, within the included studies: patient journey was the most analyzed process, of the disciplines physicists were involved in the most studies, FMEA the most common technique, and the delivery of patient treatment was the greatest source of high-risk failure modes.
More Related Videos
08:25Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
Published on: April 11, 2018
06:20Irradiator Commissioning and Dosimetry for Assessment of LQ α and β Parameters, Radiation Dosing Schema, and in vivo Dose Deposition
Published on: March 11, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Hazard Rate
Cancer Survival Analysis
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Actuarial Approach
Consider the example of a high-risk surgical procedure with significant early-stage mortality. A two-year clinical study is conducted,...