Code of practice for x‐ray therapy linear accelerators

Wootton, P.; Almond, Peter R.; Holt, Jack R.; Hughes, Dylan; Jones, D; Karzmark, C. J.; Schulz, Robert

doi:10.1118/1.594133

Cited by 30 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The radiation isocentricity for each axis (collimator, gantry, and treatment couch) is commonly checked using the Starshot technique. 78 The coincidence of the radiation and mechanical isocenter can then be checked. For each axis, place a film (radiographic or radiochromic) between two slabs of plastic water.…”

Section: D253 | Methods and Equipmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

AAPM Task Group 198 Report: An implementation guide for TG 142 quality assurance of medical accelerators

Hanley¹,

Dresser

Simon

et al. 2021

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The charges on this task group (TG) were as follows: (a) provide specific procedural guidelines for performing the tests recommended in TG 142; (b) provide estimate of the range of time, appropriate personnel, and qualifications necessary to complete the tests in TG 142; and (c) provide sample daily, weekly, monthly, or annual quality assurance (QA) forms. Many of the guidelines in this report are drawn from the literature and are included in the references. When literature was not available, specific test methods reflect the experiences of the TG members (e.g., a test method for door interlock is self-evident with no literature necessary).In other cases, the technology is so new that no literature for test methods was available. Given broad clinical adaptation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), which is not a specific topic of TG 142, several tests and criteria specific to VMAT were added.

show abstract

Section: D253 | Methods and Equipmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

AAPM Task Group 198 Report: An implementation guide for TG 142 quality assurance of medical accelerators

Hanley¹,

Dresser

Simon

et al. 2021

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, machine commissioning is the responsibility of the institution's qualified medical physicist. Previous task groups 14,15 provided guidelines for acceptance testing but provided no information for commissioning beam data. The recent publication 16 on acceptance testing and commissioning of linear accelerator provided details of acceptance testing of various components but did not address the commissioning aspect.…”

Section: Ib2 Issues With Beam Commissioning Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: Report of the TG‐106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM

Das

Cheng

Watts³

et al. 2008

Medical Physics

409

424

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For commissioning a linear accelerator for clinical use, medical physicists are faced with many challenges including the need for precision, a variety of testing methods, data validation, the lack of standards, and time constraints. Since commissioning beam data are treated as a reference and ultimately used by treatment planning systems, it is vitally important that the collected data are of the highest quality to avoid dosimetric and patient treatment errors that may subsequently lead to a poor radiation outcome. Beam data commissioning should be performed with appropriate knowledge and proper tools and should be independent of the person collecting the data. To achieve this goal, Task Group 106 (TG-106) of the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine was formed to review the practical aspects as well as the physics of linear accelerator commissioning. The report provides guidelines and recommendations on the proper selection of phantoms and detectors, setting up of a phantom for data acquisition (both scanning and no-scanning data), procedures for acquiring specific photon and electron beam parameters and methods to reduce measurement errors (<1%), beam data processing and detector size convolution for accurate profiles. The TG-106 also provides a brief.discussion on the emerging trend in Monte Carlo simulation techniques in photon and electron beam commissioning. The procedures described in this report should assist a qualified medical physicist in either measuring a complete set of beam data, or in verifying a subset of data before initial use or for periodic quality assurance measurements. By combining practical experience with theoretical discussion, this document sets a new standard for beam data commissioning.

show abstract

“…How does one ensure the safe operation of a system that has such poor possibilities for being understood? Weinhous notes that traditional acceptance testing/ quality control methods can be applied to the more familiar electromechanical or modularized components of the unit's control system where they exist (Wootton et al, 1975;Svensson et al, 1984;and Horton, 1987). However, when the control system of the treatment unit is largely implemented in software, the physicist is now in the unfamiliar territory of software quality assurance (SQA), a branch of computer science and engineering.…”

Section: Software Control and Its Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%