title: Technology assessment of multileaf collimation: a North American users survey.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) initiated an Assessment of Technology Subcommittee (ATS) to help the radiotherapy community evaluate emerging technologies. The ATS decided to first address multileaf collimation (MLC) by means of a North American users survey. The survey attempted to address issues such as MLC utility, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and customer satisfaction.
  
  
  METHODS
  The survey was designed with 38 questions, with cross-tabulation set up to decipher a particular clinic's perception of MLC. The surveys were coded according to MLC types, which were narrowed to four: Elekta, Siemens, Varian 52-leaf, and Varian 80-leaf. A 40% return rate was desired.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A 44% (108 of 250) return was achieved. On an MLC machine, 76.5% of photon patients are being treated with MLC. The main reasons for not using MLC were stair stepping, field size limitation, and physician objection. The most common sites in which MLC is being used are lung, pelvis, and prostate. The least used sites are head & neck and mantle fields. Of the facilities, 31% claimed an increase in number of patients being treated since MLC was installed, and 44% claimed an increase in the number of fields. Though the staffing for block cutting has decreased, therapist staffing has not. However, 91% of the facilities claimed a decreased workload for the therapists, despite the increase in daily treated patients and fields. Of the facilities that justified MLC purchase for more daily patients, 63% are actually treating more patients. Only 26% of the facilities that justified an MLC purchase for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) are currently using it for that purpose. The satisfaction rating (1 = low to 5 = high) for department groups averaged 4.0. Therapists ranked MLC as 4.6.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our survey shows that most users have successfully introduced MLC into the clinic as a block replacement. Most have found MLC to be cost-effective and efficient. The use of MLC for IMRT has progressed slower, but users anticipate escalated use.
authors.affiliation: Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
authors.forename: E E
authors.initials: EE
authors.lastname: Klein
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Tepper
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sontag
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Franklin
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Ling
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Kubo
mesh_terms: D003258:Consumer Behavior; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D004389:Durable Medical Equipment / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D055585:Physical Phenomena; D010825:Physics; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal / Q000295:instrumentation*; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards*; D013679:Technology, Radiologic / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D000078329:Workforce; D016526:Workload / Q000706:statistics & numerical data