Protocol and Procedures for Quality Assurance of Linear Accelerators , by Chris Constantinou

1994 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-326
Author(s):  
Matthew B. Podgorsak
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Linear Accelerators

scholarly journals Automating quality assurance of digital linear accelerators using a radioluminescent phosphor coated phantom and optical imaging

2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (17) ◽  
pp. L29-L37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare H Jenkins ◽  
Dominik J Naczynski ◽  
Shu-Jung S Yu ◽  
Yong Yang ◽  
Lei Xing
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Optical Imaging ◽  
Linear Accelerators

Smartphone application for mechanical quality assurance of medical linear accelerators

2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (11) ◽  
pp. N257-N270
Author(s):  
Hwiyoung Kim ◽  
Hyunseok Lee ◽  
Jong In Park ◽  
Chang Heon Choi ◽  
So-Yeon Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Smartphone Application ◽  
Linear Accelerators ◽  
Mechanical Quality ◽  
Medical Linear Accelerators

SU-GG-T-281: Clinical Experience with an EPID-Based Quality Assurance System for Linear Accelerators

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (6Part20) ◽  
pp. 3250-3250
Author(s):  
R Heaton ◽  
B Norrlinger ◽  
J Smale ◽  
M Islam
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Clinical Experience ◽  
Quality Assurance System ◽  
Linear Accelerators ◽  
Assurance System

TU-C-BRE-02: A Novel, Highly Efficient and Automated Quality Assurance Tool for Modern Linear Accelerators

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (6Part26) ◽  
pp. 455-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Goddu ◽  
B Sun ◽  
S Yaddanapudi ◽  
G Kamal ◽  
C Baltes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Linear Accelerators ◽  
Highly Efficient

scholarly journals Quality Assurance of External Beam Radiotherapy and Results of Participation in IAEA/WHO TLD Inter-comparison program for Radiotherapy Level Dosimetry at Khwaja Yunus Ali Medical College & Hospital in Bangladesh

KYAMC Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-151
Author(s):  
Meher Nigar Sharmin ◽  
Deepak Shankar Ray ◽  
Md Abdul Bari ◽  
Md Nazim Uddin ◽  
Md Shakilur Rahman
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Calibration Coefficient ◽  
Individual Treatment ◽  
Linear Accelerators ◽  
Ionization Chambers ◽  
College Hospital ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Depth Dose ◽  
Beam Output

Background: The outcome of the radiotherapy is highly dependent on how precisely dose is delivered to the tumor and should not exceed±5% of the prescribed dose including all types of uncertainties involved in the treatment procedure. Objectives: This manuscript describes the comprehensive Quality Assurance (QA) program for two linear accelerators by ensuring Percentage Depth Dose (PDD), Quality Index (QI), Beam Flatness and Symmetry, and beam output consistency at Khwaja Yunus Ali Medical College and Hospital, Sirajganj, Bangladesh. The program is designed according to the policy of the center and by the guidelines of Bangladesh Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority. Materials and Methods: The adopted QA procedure at our center included daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly checks, as well as individual treatment verifications and participation in IAEA/WHO TLD inter-comparison Program. Results: The results of the study showed reproducibility in all QA procedures with an average photon for monthly beam output 0.988±0.011, 0.989±0.010 and 1.005±0.006 for 4 MV, 6 MV and 15 MV respectively. The maximum variation of calibration factors of the chambers for last five years between the manufacturer values and the average calibration coefficient lies within -0.298 to 0.47% with an uncertainty of ±1.8% (k=1). The results of IAEA/WHO TLD inter-comparison program of dose measurement shows the ratio of IAEA to KYAMCH values was 1.009±0.018. Conclusion: The above result shows an excellent agreement of calibration coefficient of ionization chambers and dosimetry with the international standard system KYAMC Journal Vol. 10, No.-3, October 2019, Page 147-151

scholarly journals Factor 10 Expedience of Monthly Linac Quality Assurance via an Ion Chamber Array and Automation Scripts

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 153303381987689
Author(s):  
Lawrie B. Skinner ◽  
Yong Yang ◽  
Annie Hsu ◽  
Lei Xing ◽  
Amy S. Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Linear Accelerator ◽  
Data File ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Linear Accelerators ◽  
Ion Chamber ◽  
Medical Linear Accelerators ◽  
Jaw Position ◽  
Dosimetric Leaf Gap

Purpose: While critical for safe and accurate radiotherapy, monthly quality assurance of medical linear accelerators is time-consuming and takes physics resources away from other valuable tasks. The previous methods at our institution required 5 hours to perform the mechanical and dosimetric monthly linear accelerator quality assurance tests. An improved workflow was developed to perform these tests with higher accuracy, with fewer error pathways, in significantly less time. Methods: A commercial ion chamber array (IC profiler, Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, Florida) is combined with automation scripts to consolidate monthly linear accelerator QA. The array was used to measure output, flatness, symmetry, jaw positions, gated dose constancy, energy constancy, collimator walkout, crosshair centering, and dosimetric leaf gap constancy. Treatment plans were combined with automation scripts that interface with Sun Nuclear’s graphical user interface. This workflow was implemented on a standard Varian clinac, with no special adaptations, and can be easily applied to other C-arm linear accelerators. Results: These methods enable, in 30 minutes, measurement and analysis of 20 of the 26 dosimetric and mechanical monthly tests recommended by TG-142. This method also reduces uncertainties in the measured beam profile constancy, beam energy constancy, field size, and jaw position tests, compared to our previous methods. One drawback is the increased uncertainty associated with output constancy. Output differences between IC profiler and farmer chamber in plastic water measurements over a 6-month period, across 4 machines, were found to have a 0.3% standard deviation for photons and a 0.5% standard deviation for electrons, which is sufficient for verifying output accuracy according to TG-142 guidelines. To minimize error pathways, automation scripts which apply the required settings, as well as check the exported data file integrity were employed. Conclusions: The equipment, procedure, and scripts used here reduce the time burden of routine quality assurance tests and in most instances improve precision over our previous methods.

scholarly journals 4089 Clinical Implementation of Monte Carlo Dose Calculation for Patient-Specific Radiotherapy Quality Assurance

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 106-106
Author(s):  
Holly Marie Parenica ◽  
Christopher Kabat ◽  
Pamela Myers ◽  
Neil Kirby ◽  
Pavlos Papaconstadopoulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Monte Carlo Model ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Dose Calculations ◽  
Linear Accelerators ◽  
Log Files ◽  
Dosimetric Data ◽  
Monte Carlo Dose Calculation

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Monte Carlo dose calculation method is often considered the “gold standard” for patient dose calculations and can be as radiation dose measurements. Our study aims to develop a true Monte Carlo model that can be implemented in our clinic as part of our routine patient-specific quality assurance. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We have configured and validated a model of one of our linear accelerators used for radiation therapy treatments using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulation software. Measured dosimetric data was obtained from the linear accelerator and was used as the standard to compare the doses calculated with our model in EGSnrc. We will compare dose calculations between commercial treatment planning systems, the EGSnrc Monte Carlo model, and patient-specific measurements. We will implement the Monte Carlo model in our clinic for routine second-checks of patient plans, and to recalculate plans delivered to patients using machine log files. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our Monte Carlo model is within 1% agreement with our measured dosimetric data, and is an accurate representation of our linear accelerators used for patient treatments. With this high level of accuracy, we have begun simulating more complex patient treatment geometries, and expect the level of accuracy to be within 1% of measured data. We believe the Monte Carlo calculation based on machine log files will correlate with patient-specific QA analysis and results. The Monte Carlo model will be a useful tool in improving our patient-specific quality assurance protocol and can be utilized in further research. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This work can be implemented directly in clinical practice to ensure patient doses are calculated as accurately as possible. These methods can be used by clinics who do not have access to more advanced dose calculation software, ensuring accuracy for all patients undergoing radiotherapy treatments.

scholarly journals EPID-based daily quality assurance of linear accelerators will likely replace other methods within the next ten years

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (6Part1) ◽  
pp. 2691-2693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sasa Mutic ◽  
Todd Pawlicki ◽  
Colin G. Orton
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Linear Accelerators
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document