검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Ex) Article Title, Author, Keywords

Article

Split Viewer

Original Article

Progress in Medical Physics 2018; 29(4): 123-136

Published online December 31, 2018 https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2018.29.4.123

Copyright © Korean Society of Medical Physics.

Guideline on Acceptance Test and Commissioning of High-Precision External Radiation Therapy Equipment

Juhye Kim*, Dong Oh Shin, Sang Hyoun Choi, Soonki Min, Nahye Kwon§, Unjung Jung*, Dong Wook KimΙΙ

*Research Institute of Clinical Medicine, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Division of Medical Radiation Equipment, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Seoul, §Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, ΙΙDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:Dong Wook Kim (joocheck@gmail.com) 

Tel: 82-2-440-7398  Fax: 82-2-440-7393

Received: November 20, 2018; Revised: December 13, 2018; Accepted: December 14, 2018

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The complex dose distribution and dose transfer characteristics of intensity-modulated radiotherapy increase the importance of precise beam data measurement and review in the acceptance inspection and preparation stages. In this study, we propose a process map for the introduction and installation of high-precision radiotherapy devices and present items and guidelines for risk management at the acceptance test procedure (ATP) and commissioning stages. Based on the ATP of the Varian and Elekta linear accelerators, the ATP items were checked step by step and compared with the quality assurance (QA) test items of the AAPM TG-142 described for the medical accelerator QA. Based on the commissioning procedure, dose quality control protocol, and mechanical quality control protocol presented at international conferences, step-by-step check items and commissioning guidelines were derived. The risk management items at each stage were (1) 21 ionization chamber performance test items and 9 electrometer, cable, and connector inspection items related to the dosimetry system; (2) 34 mechanical and dose-checking items during ATP, 22 multileaf collimator (MLC) items, and 36 imaging system items; and (3) 28 items in the measurement preparation stage and 32 items in the measurement stage after commissioning. Because the items presented in these guidelines are limited in terms of special treatment, items and practitioners can be modified to reflect the clinical needs of the institution. During the system installation, it is recommended that at least two clinically qualified medical physicists (CQMP) perform a double check in compliance with the two-person rule. We expect that this result will be useful as a radiation safety management tool that can prevent radiation accidents at each stage during the introduction of radiotherapy and the system installation process.

KeywordsExternal radiation therapy equipment, Acceptance test, Commissioning, IMRT, Risk management

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a treatment that irradiates high dose to target volume while providing minimum dose to surrounding tissue by making optimal dose distribution with non-uniform fluence compared with 3-dimentional conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT).1) The introduction of such highly advanced treatment techniques has made the examination of the dose measurement also very important, not only increased the necessity of dose-based validation but also the importance of the dose distribution and the dose transfer characteristic unique to the inverse planning technique. Accurate dose delivery in radiation therapy is highly dependent on the accuracy of the measured beam data during acceptance test procedures (ATP) and commissioning. Especially, the beam commissioning in the treatment planning system is very essential for clinical applications of IMRT. Most of the acquired beam data is input to the treatment planning system to determine or model the characteristics of the treatment device and is treated as standard data for clinical use. These standard data not only affect the treatment plan of all patients, but also serve as a basis for the quality assurance of the treatment device. Therefore, the linear accelerator ATP and commissioning phases are very important steps because they are the first step in the risk management system of the corresponding treatment equipment. When installation of linear accelerator, the clinically qualified medical physicist (CQMP) must take all the steps from the detailed construction plan to the treatment room design, installation supervision, ATP and beam data measurement to ensure the safety and accuracy of radiation therapy.2) Furthermore, it is very important to maintain and guarantee the quality control standard value of radiotherapy equipment. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have published reports on dose quality control protocols3,4) and mechanical quality control protocols.5,6) Reports on beam commissioning related to accelerator beam data measurement or dose verification of advanced treatment techniques have also been published, 710) but there are no official reports for ATP items, yet. Despite the fact that new high precision radiotherapy devices are constantly being introduced in many hospitals in Korea, there are no guidelines for ATP or commissioning stages that are appropriate for domestic situations.

Thus, we propose risk management items for the dosimetry system itself, ATP and commissioning, and propose risk management guidelines for them.

ATP of high precision external radiation therapy equipment is part of an agreement to accept the acquisition, which means that the manufacturer verifies that the performance and operation of the device meet the specifications with the user. Step items and tolerances of ATP were derived based on the acceptance procedure of Varian (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. 3100 Hansen Way Palo Alto, CA, USA) and Elekta (Elekta Instrument AB Kungstensgatan 18, Stockholm, Sweden) linear accelerators. The extracted ATP items were confirmed by comparing the AAPM report items as the quality assurance items of medical accelerators and the IMRT recommendation criteria. Commissioning is classified based on the following: (1) acquisition of beam data for treatment planning and dose calculation, (2) modeling of beam data and various parameters entered into the treatment planning system, and classification and approval according to the calculation algorithm, and (3) the dose verification process, which compares the calculated dose with actual measurement results to verify that it is within the tolerance. The step-by-step procedures and risk management items for commissioning and dosimetry system preparation were derived based on reports from overseas associations such as the AAPM TG-106 report,7) the TG-120 report,10) the AAPM TG-142 report,6) the AAPM TG-1198) and ESTRO booklet no. 9 report.9) The modeling and dose verification process were previously reported for the commissioning of the radiation treatment plan (RTP) system.11) In this paper, we derive procedures focusing on the acquisition of beam data in high precision external radiation therapy equipment.

Dosimetry systems used in the ATP and commissioning phases include ionization chambers, electrometers for one-dimensional dose measurement, radiochromic films, and two-dimensional array detectors for two-dimensional dose distribution measurements. In this paper, it derived risk management items based on the procedures of using ionization chambers and electrometers, which are most widely used for profile and point dose measurement during beam commissioning. The ATP of high-precision radiotherapy devices were divided into three sub-steps: 1) mechanical and dose aspects, 2) multi-leaf collimator (MLC), and 3) imaging system. The risk management items for each procedure in the commissioning stage are subdivided into a measurement preparation step and an acquiring beam data.

1. Dosimetry system

1) Ionization chamber

Humphries and Purdy12) suggested that the ionization chamber should be tested first before using it for the first time or before calibrating the ionization chamber. When purchasing an ionization chamber, it is recommended that the enclosed calibration certificate and the results of the performance be recorded, documented, and backed up. When using an ionization chamber for measurement beam data, especially for ATP and commissioning, it is made of a tissue equivalent material or air equivalent material.10) The center electrode should be made of a low atomic number material such as aluminum. The shape of ionization chamber should be a cylindrical type. The ionization chamber is selected considering the purpose of measurement, beam particle (photon, electron, proton, etc.), energy, and field size. It is necessary to select an ionization chamber with adequate spatial resolution to avoid measurement errors due to the abrupt dose distribution used in the IMRT treatment plan and the number of segments of the treatment field. Especially, it is recommended that the IMRT measurement start after the ionization chamber performance test and ionization chamber cross calibration as shown in Fig. 1.

2) Electrometers and cables

The basic requirements of the electrometer are measurement accuracy, linearity, stability, sensitivity, high impedance and low leakage dose. The performance of the electrometer should be further considered when using a small volume ionization chamber. It is recommended that cables and connectors used between the electrometer and the ionization chamber should be aware of the precautions for storage and cable connections, as they will affect the measurement results depending on the storage conditions or the setup connection. Electrometer, cable and connector inspection and risk management items were derived in total 21 items (Fig. 2).

2. ATP of high-precision radiotherapy equipment

The manufacturer must demonstrate that the radiotherapy unit is operating in accordance with the specifications required by the consignor. Then CQMP shall establish the therapeutic beam characteristics required for clinical use during ATP and commissioning, shall establish a reference value, and verify that it is operating within the specified tolerances. CQMP play a key role in the team conducting shielding, design of the radiotherapy room, and ATP of radiotherapy machine. Furthermore, CQMP should establish and conduct ATPs based on procedures (ATP or customer acceptance procedure, CAP documents) provided by the manufacturer. The CQMP will consult with the manufacturer engineers to coordinate the installation and maintenance programs of the equipment, ensure the safe and optimized performance of the equipment. In addition, CQMP performs installation, quality control to determine clinical use after each maintenance procedure, supervises calibration and measurement.

We have derived the ATP step-by-step check items and tolerances for high-precision radiotherapy devices with reference to the linear accelerator acquisition procedure recommended by Varian and Elekta. The step-by-step checklist of ATP was divided into three divisions: “Dosimetry and mechanical check” (34 items), “multi-leaf collimator” (22 items), and “imaging system” (36 items). A total of 34 items were deduced from dosimetry and mechanical checklists as shown in Fig. 3. For The MLC was subdivided into 22 items by mechanical inspection, static MLC, radiological examination and dynamic MLC as shown in Fig. 4. The imaging system derives the risk management items as ATP based on the Varian linear accelerator’s on-board imager (OBI) and electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Risk management items for ATP of imaging system were classified into 21 items for OBIs and 15 items for EPIDs (Fig. 5).

The risk management items in the derived ATP procedure were compared with the items listed in the AMPM TG-142 report as quality control inspection items and the IMRT recommendation criteria, and the linkages were evaluated as shown in Table 1. This is a step to confirm whether the equipment performance is in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation specifications from the mechanical point of view when the ATP is introduced for the first time, and it will be linked with the quality control inspection item based on the reference value obtained from ATP and commissioning.

3. Commissioning of high-precision radiotherapy equipment

The risk management items in the commissioning phase were derived in detail to the performance evaluation and the clinical application evaluation of the high precision radiotherapy equipment, classified with preparation of beam measurement setup and beam measurement. Fig. 6 shows that the beam measurement preparation stage was 28 items, which were scanning system check, scanning system measurement preparation, and data acquisition preparation. In the beam measurement, the steps are divided into X-ray scan data, X-ray point dose data, MLC data, electron scan data, electron point dose data, data file acquisition and save, and data processing. In the beam measurement stage, step-by-step procedures and risk management items of 32 were derived based on reports from overseas associations such as the AAPM TG-106 report,7) the TG-120 report, 10) the AAPM TG-142 report,6) the AAPM TG-1198) and ESTRO booklet no. 9 report,9) etc., as shown in Fig. 7.

The reference data for comparing measured beam data can be used as the golden data provided by the manufacturer when conducting the beam data measurement. However, it is not recommended to replace or combine it with the commissioning data. After measured beam data, it is recommended that measurement results and technical reports be recorded and prepared for clarity of accountability. When creating a report, clearly describe and summarize the measurement range, target, method, the device used for measurement, and the results. It is recommended that CQMP check the collected data and reports and perform independent audits. The items to be measured and the reports include X-ray open field/wedge field percent depth dose (PDD) and tissue maximum ratio (TMR) table, phantom-scatter factor (Sp), total scatter factor (Scp), inair scatter ratio (Sc), wedge factor and soft wedge factor for various depths and field sizes, the transmission factor, open field off-axis ratio at selected depths of large field, the electron cone factor, the effective source-to-surface distance, and the electron PDD table. It is recommended to keep the iso-dose curve and scan data measured in the reference field of X-ray and electron, and record the data comparison to similar model of the institution (or other institution) or the golden data provided by the manufacturer. It is recommended that you also back up the analyzed data, spreadsheets, electronic data, etc., and include a detailed description of the beam data collection method and conditions.

Commissioning data may vary depending on the requirements and the measurement conditions, such as the requirements of the RTP and the clinical needs of the user. Under these conditions, the time required for commissioning can be expected to vary. According to the AAPM TG-106 report, the time allocated for beam data measurement during commissioning procedures is generally 1.5 weeks for photon beam scanning, 1 to 2 weeks for point dose data measurement, 1 to 2 weeks for verification and 1 to 2 weeks for verification. It was suggested that about 4 to 6 weeks were needed for whole commissioning.7) For example, in two photon energies, the time required to scan single PDD and five depths profile for fifteen field sizes was estimated to be about 30 hours,7) and the time required for the electron should also be considered. In addition, it has been suggested that there is a need to estimate additional time for non-scan data measurement and integration, quality assurance baseline reading, and treatment planning system data validation. The time required for commissioning is determined by the amount of measurement data to be acquired and the work efficiency of the medical physicist participating in the measurement and should be estimated before the acceptance of the radiation therapy device. The data measured at the commissioning stage is the source for beam modeling. Therefore, It is recommended that at least two CQMPs from the measurement preparation phase apply the so-called “2 person rule”,2,13) which is carried out while performing a double verification. In the case of that facility has only single CQMP then we recommend that you perform a double verification through collaboration a CQMP from another facility.

In this study, risk management items at each stage were derived based on the ATP documents of linear accelerators that are most representative of high precision external radiation therapy and reports from overseas associations. The literature related to the high precision external radiation therapy equipment’s ATP does not exist, the ATP documents presented by manufacturers have been limited to ensure that they meet a certain range of criteria, both mechanically and dosimetry. This guideline provides step-by-step suggestions on the items of ATP, along with risk management items that may occur during each step. In addition, it could check that each step of the ATP is linked to the quality assurance items presented in AAPM TG-142 report.

Commissioning was presented step-by-step with possible risk management items in the process of measuring beam data and various parameters needed for beam modeling. The guidelines established each step based on the AAPM TG-106 report and ESTRO booklet no.9 report that describe what should be measured generally for beam data measurements and what criteria are acceptable. Possible risk management items for each step were presented on the basis of recommendations given in AAPM TG-120 report about dosimetry tool of IMRT, the AAPM TG-142 and TG-119 report as described for external radiation therapy equipment quality assurance and IMRT dose verification. Therefore, this guideline presented both step-by-step risk management items necessary for preparation of measuring beam data and risk management items that may occur when measuring beam data. Therefore, it will also be of interest to medical physicists who are introducing new radiation therapy equipment for safety and accuracy of measurement. It recommends that each item presented in the guideline apply the clinical situation of the user and, in necessary, can be modified and used it. While measuring beam data and the dose verification process must be carried out with a “2 person rule”.

In this study, the introduction and installation process of high precision radiotherapy equipment is presented through a process map. And the guidelines for carrying out the ATP and commissioning steps of high-precision radiotherapy devices are presented. When using the guideline given in this study, it is recommended that the manufacturer, characteristics, institutional procedures by the relevant agency be duly reflected. The result of this study is expected to be able to prevent radiation accidents in stages by introducing a risk management system from introduction of radiotherapy and system installation process beyond machine-centered quality control. Furthermore, it is anticipated that risk management based technologies for radiation therapy will be developed and applied to the development of risk management guideline in the field of nuclear medicine and radiology in the future.

This work was supported by the General Researcher Program (2018R1D1A1B07050217), and the Nuclear Safety Research Program (Grant No. 1603016) through the Korea Foundation of Nuclear Safety (KOFONS), using the financial resource granted by the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC), Republic of Korea.

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

The derived risk management items were compared for the correlation with TG-142 quality assurance items.

StepMechanical and Dosimetry check

Sub-stepRisk management itemsTG-142 Quality assurance itemsPeriodIMRT ToleranceRemark
Mechanical testMechanical isocenter variation (with collimator, gantry, couch rotation)Gantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Treatment couch position indicatorMonthly2 mm/1°
Collimator rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Gantry rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Couch rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Cross-hair checkCross-hair centering (walkout)Monthly1 mm
Digital display indicator calibration (Jaw position, gantry, collimator rotation)Collimator size indicatorDaily2 mm
Gantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Jaw position indicators (symmetry)Monthly2 mm
Jaw position indicators (asymmetry)Monthly1 mm
Couch movement (rotation, longitudinal, lateral, vertical)Treatment couch position indicatorMonthly2 mm/1°
Table top sagAnnual2 mmChange from baseline
Table angleAnnual
Table travel maximum range movement in all directionsAnnual±2 mm
Optical distance indicator (ODI) verificationDistance indicator (ODI) at isocenterDaily2 mm
Distance check device for lasersMonthly1 mm
compared with front pointer
Radiation isocenter checkSpoke shot (Gantry rotation)Coincidence of radiation and mechanical isocenterAnnual±2 mmChange from baseline
Winston-Lutz test (with gantry/collimator/couch rotation)Collimator rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Gantry rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Couch rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Coincidence of light field and X-ray fieldLight/radiation field coincidence (symmetry)Monthly2 mm or 1%
Light/radiation field coincidence (asymmetry)Monthly1 mm or 1%
Laser guard collision protection systemProtection zone area verificationLaser guard-interlock testMonthlyFunctional
Protection zone tilt verification
Motion stop function verification
Power key switch and override function verification
Beam performance testPhoton PDDX-ray beam quality (PDD10 or TMR20,10)Annual±1%Change from baseline
Photon field flatness/symmetryPhoton beam profile constancyMonthly1%
X-ray flatness change from baselineAnnual1%
X-ray symmetry change from baselineAnnual±1%
Electron PDIElectron energy constancyMonthly2%/2 mm
Electron beam quality (R50)Annual±1 mmChange from baseline
Electron field flatness/symmetryElectron beam profile constancyMonthly1%
Electron flatness change from baselineAnnual1%
Electron symmetry change from baselineAnnual±1%
Symmetry interlock checkFollow manufacturer’s test procedureAnnualFunctional
Beamstopper interlocked anglesFollow manufacturer’s test procedureAnnualFunctional
DosimetryDose reproducibilityX-ray output constancyDaily3%All energies
Monthly2%All energies
Electron output constancyDaily3%
Monthly2%
Backup monitor chamber constancyMonthly2%
X-ray/electron output calibration (TG-51)Annual±1%Absolute dosimetry
Spot check of field size dependent output factors for X-rayAnnual2% <4×4 cm2Two or more field size check
1% ≥4×4 cm2
Output factors for electron applicatorsAnnual±2%- Change from baseline
- Spot check of on applicator/energy
Dose linearity with MUX-ray monitor unit linearity output constancyAnnual±2% (≥5 MU)±5% (2–4 MU)
Electron monitor unit linearity output constancyAnnual±2% (≥5 MU)
Dose linearity with dose rateTypical dose rate profile constancyMonthly2%
X-ray output constancy vs. dose rateAnnual±2%Change from baseline
Dose reproducibility with gantry angleX-ray output constancy vs. gantry angleAnnual±1%Change from baseline
Electron output constancy vs. gantry angleAnnual±1%
Mechanical testField light alignmentSetting vs. radiation field for two patternsMonthly2 mm
Coincidence of light field and X-ray fieldMonthly±2 mmAll energies
Cross-hair alignmentCross-hair centering (walkout)Monthly1 mm
Gantry/collimator rotation isocenterGantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Collimator rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Gantry rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Optical distance indicator (ODI) verificationDistance indicator (ODI) at isocenterDaily2 mm
Distance check device for lasers compared with front pointerMonthly1 mm
Collimator rotation readout calibrationGantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Accessory mountAccessory trays (i.e., port film graticle tray)Monthly2 mm
Latching of wedges, block trayMonthlyFunctional
Static MLCLeaf position accuracyQualitative test (i.e., matched segments, aka “Picket fence”)WeeklyVisual inspection for discernable deviations such as an increase in interleaf transmission
Leaf position accuracyMonthly1 mmFour cardinal angles
Leaf position repeatabilityLeaf position repeatabilityAnnual±1 mm
Radiation testCollimator spoke shotLeaf spoke shotAnnual≤1.0 mm (radius)
Gantry spoke shotLeaf spoke shotAnnual≤1.0 mm (radius)
Coincidence of light field and X-ray fieldCoincidence of light field and X-ray fieldMonthly±2 mmAll energies
Dynamic MLCMLC transmission dose ratesMLC transmission (average of leaf and interleaf transmission)Annual±0.5%Change from baseline
All energies
AutoDynalogs for the Millennium MLC---Only Varian
Generate dynalogs for Mark series or m3 MLC---Only Varian
RV modeup---
Arc dynamic leaf speed testTravel speedMonthlyLoss of leaf speed>0.5 cm/s
Arc dynamic interlock trip testArc mode (Expected MU, degrees)Annual±1 mmChange from baseline
Arc dynamic typical plan testArc mode (Expected MU, degrees)Annual±1 mmChange from baseline
Segmental IMRT test (Step and shoot)Segmental IMRT (step and shoot) testAnnualRMS maximum of error<0.35 cm
Moving window IMRT testMoving window IMRTAnnualRMS maximum of error<0.35 cmFour cardinal gantry angles
Moving window IMRT typical plan test
OBISafety testDoor interlock---
Mechanical position accuracy verificationkV source positioning testPositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
kV Imager positioning testPositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
X-ray checkDistance measurement demonstrationScalingMonthlyBaseline
kV imager panel virtual alignment demonstrationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤1 mm
Optical isocenter demostrationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤2 mmSingle gantry angle
Monthly≤2 mmFour cardinal angles
X-ray generator testX-ray measurement-digital fluoroscopy, pulsed mode (kVp, mA, mS)Imaging doseAnnualBaseline
Digital radiography-dual gain standard resolution (kVp, mA, mS)Imaging doseAnnualBaseline
HVL using Digital fluoroscopy pulsed modeBeam quality/energyAnnualBaseline
High contrast resolutionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Gray scale linearitySpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Low contrast sensitivityContrastMonthlyBaseline
Cone beam CTCT number (Hounsfield unit)HU constancyMonthlyBaseline
Spatial linearity measurement (distance)Geometric distortionMonthlyBaseline
Image uniformity measurementsUniformity and noiseMonthlyBaseline
High resolutionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Low contrast resolutionContrastMonthlyBaseline
EPIDR-armR-arm position accuracy/travel rangePositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
R-arm position accuracy with gantry rotationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤2 mmSingle gantry angle
Monthly≤2 mmFour cardinal angles
R-arm collision interlock, alarm, overrideCollision interlocksDailyFunctional
R-arm overload detection system (ODS) seal---
E-armE-arm position accuracy/travel rangePositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
E-arm vertical travel run-outFull range of travel SDDAnnual±5 mm
E-arm position accuracy with gantry rotationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤2 mmSingle gantry angle
Monthly≤2 mmFour cardinal angles
E-arm collision interlock, alarm, overrideCollision interlocksDailyFunctional
Acquisition systemContrast detail resolutionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
ContrastMonthlyBaseline
Small object detectionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Dosimetry integration (Portal dosimetry)---Optional
  1. Ezzell Gary A, Calvin James M, Low Daniel, Rosen Isaac, Sharpe Michael B, and Xia Ping, et al. Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee. Med Phys 2003;30(8):2089-2115.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. IAEA Human Health Series No. 25: Roles and Responsibilities, and Education and Training Requirements for Clinically Qualified Medical Physicists. International Atomic Energy Agency 2013.
  3. IAEA TRS-398 report: Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water. International Atomic Energy Agency 2006.
  4. Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, Hanson WF, Saiful Huq M, and Nath Ravinder, et al. AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys 1999;26(9):1847-1870.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Kutche Gerald J, Coia Lawrene, Gillin Michael, Hansom Wiliam F, Leibel Steven, and Morton Robert J, et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology y: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys 1994;21(4):581-618.
    CrossRef
  6. Klein Eric E, Hanley Joseph, Bayouth John, Yin Fang-Fang, Simon Wiliam, and Dresser Sen, et al. Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys 2009;36(9):4197-4212.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Das Indra J, Cheng Chee-Wai, Watts Ronald J, Ahnesjö Anders, Gibbons John, and Li X Allen, et al. Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: Report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM. Med Phys 2008;35(9):4186-4215.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Ezzell Gary A, Burmeister Jay W, Dogan Nesrin, LoSasso Thomas J, Mechalakos James G, and Mihailidis Dimitiris, et al. IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys 2009;36(11):5359-5373.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. ESTRO booklet no.9: Guidelines for the verification of IMRT 2008.
  10. Low Daniel A, Moran Jean M, Dempsey James F, Dong Lei, and Oldham Mark. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys 2001;38(3):1313-1338.
    CrossRef
  11. Oh Yoonjin, Shin Dong Oh, Kim Juhye, Kwon Nahye, Lee Soon Sung, and Choi Sang Hyoun, et al. Proposal on Guideline for Quality Assurance of Radiation Treatment Planning System. Progress in Medical Physics 2017;28(4):197-206.
    CrossRef
  12. Humphries LJ, and Purdy JA. In Advances in Radiation Oncology Physics Dosimetry, Treatment Planning, and Brachytherapy. AAPM Monograph, Purdy A 1992;19.
  13. Halvorsen Per H, Das Indra J, Fraser Martin, Freedman D Jay, Rice Robert E III, and lbbott Geoffrey S, et al. AAPM Task Group 103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 2005;6(4):50-64.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

Progress in Medical Physics 2018; 29(4): 123-136

Published online December 31, 2018 https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2018.29.4.123

Copyright © Korean Society of Medical Physics.

Guideline on Acceptance Test and Commissioning of High-Precision External Radiation Therapy Equipment

Juhye Kim*, Dong Oh Shin, Sang Hyoun Choi, Soonki Min, Nahye Kwon§, Unjung Jung*, Dong Wook KimΙΙ

*Research Institute of Clinical Medicine, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Division of Medical Radiation Equipment, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Seoul, §Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, ΙΙDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:Dong Wook Kim (joocheck@gmail.com) 

Tel: 82-2-440-7398  Fax: 82-2-440-7393

Received: November 20, 2018; Revised: December 13, 2018; Accepted: December 14, 2018

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The complex dose distribution and dose transfer characteristics of intensity-modulated radiotherapy increase the importance of precise beam data measurement and review in the acceptance inspection and preparation stages. In this study, we propose a process map for the introduction and installation of high-precision radiotherapy devices and present items and guidelines for risk management at the acceptance test procedure (ATP) and commissioning stages. Based on the ATP of the Varian and Elekta linear accelerators, the ATP items were checked step by step and compared with the quality assurance (QA) test items of the AAPM TG-142 described for the medical accelerator QA. Based on the commissioning procedure, dose quality control protocol, and mechanical quality control protocol presented at international conferences, step-by-step check items and commissioning guidelines were derived. The risk management items at each stage were (1) 21 ionization chamber performance test items and 9 electrometer, cable, and connector inspection items related to the dosimetry system; (2) 34 mechanical and dose-checking items during ATP, 22 multileaf collimator (MLC) items, and 36 imaging system items; and (3) 28 items in the measurement preparation stage and 32 items in the measurement stage after commissioning. Because the items presented in these guidelines are limited in terms of special treatment, items and practitioners can be modified to reflect the clinical needs of the institution. During the system installation, it is recommended that at least two clinically qualified medical physicists (CQMP) perform a double check in compliance with the two-person rule. We expect that this result will be useful as a radiation safety management tool that can prevent radiation accidents at each stage during the introduction of radiotherapy and the system installation process.

Keywords: External radiation therapy equipment, Acceptance test, Commissioning, IMRT, Risk management

Introduction

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a treatment that irradiates high dose to target volume while providing minimum dose to surrounding tissue by making optimal dose distribution with non-uniform fluence compared with 3-dimentional conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT).1) The introduction of such highly advanced treatment techniques has made the examination of the dose measurement also very important, not only increased the necessity of dose-based validation but also the importance of the dose distribution and the dose transfer characteristic unique to the inverse planning technique. Accurate dose delivery in radiation therapy is highly dependent on the accuracy of the measured beam data during acceptance test procedures (ATP) and commissioning. Especially, the beam commissioning in the treatment planning system is very essential for clinical applications of IMRT. Most of the acquired beam data is input to the treatment planning system to determine or model the characteristics of the treatment device and is treated as standard data for clinical use. These standard data not only affect the treatment plan of all patients, but also serve as a basis for the quality assurance of the treatment device. Therefore, the linear accelerator ATP and commissioning phases are very important steps because they are the first step in the risk management system of the corresponding treatment equipment. When installation of linear accelerator, the clinically qualified medical physicist (CQMP) must take all the steps from the detailed construction plan to the treatment room design, installation supervision, ATP and beam data measurement to ensure the safety and accuracy of radiation therapy.2) Furthermore, it is very important to maintain and guarantee the quality control standard value of radiotherapy equipment. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have published reports on dose quality control protocols3,4) and mechanical quality control protocols.5,6) Reports on beam commissioning related to accelerator beam data measurement or dose verification of advanced treatment techniques have also been published, 710) but there are no official reports for ATP items, yet. Despite the fact that new high precision radiotherapy devices are constantly being introduced in many hospitals in Korea, there are no guidelines for ATP or commissioning stages that are appropriate for domestic situations.

Thus, we propose risk management items for the dosimetry system itself, ATP and commissioning, and propose risk management guidelines for them.

Materials and Methods

ATP of high precision external radiation therapy equipment is part of an agreement to accept the acquisition, which means that the manufacturer verifies that the performance and operation of the device meet the specifications with the user. Step items and tolerances of ATP were derived based on the acceptance procedure of Varian (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. 3100 Hansen Way Palo Alto, CA, USA) and Elekta (Elekta Instrument AB Kungstensgatan 18, Stockholm, Sweden) linear accelerators. The extracted ATP items were confirmed by comparing the AAPM report items as the quality assurance items of medical accelerators and the IMRT recommendation criteria. Commissioning is classified based on the following: (1) acquisition of beam data for treatment planning and dose calculation, (2) modeling of beam data and various parameters entered into the treatment planning system, and classification and approval according to the calculation algorithm, and (3) the dose verification process, which compares the calculated dose with actual measurement results to verify that it is within the tolerance. The step-by-step procedures and risk management items for commissioning and dosimetry system preparation were derived based on reports from overseas associations such as the AAPM TG-106 report,7) the TG-120 report,10) the AAPM TG-142 report,6) the AAPM TG-1198) and ESTRO booklet no. 9 report.9) The modeling and dose verification process were previously reported for the commissioning of the radiation treatment plan (RTP) system.11) In this paper, we derive procedures focusing on the acquisition of beam data in high precision external radiation therapy equipment.

Dosimetry systems used in the ATP and commissioning phases include ionization chambers, electrometers for one-dimensional dose measurement, radiochromic films, and two-dimensional array detectors for two-dimensional dose distribution measurements. In this paper, it derived risk management items based on the procedures of using ionization chambers and electrometers, which are most widely used for profile and point dose measurement during beam commissioning. The ATP of high-precision radiotherapy devices were divided into three sub-steps: 1) mechanical and dose aspects, 2) multi-leaf collimator (MLC), and 3) imaging system. The risk management items for each procedure in the commissioning stage are subdivided into a measurement preparation step and an acquiring beam data.

Results

1. Dosimetry system

1) Ionization chamber

Humphries and Purdy12) suggested that the ionization chamber should be tested first before using it for the first time or before calibrating the ionization chamber. When purchasing an ionization chamber, it is recommended that the enclosed calibration certificate and the results of the performance be recorded, documented, and backed up. When using an ionization chamber for measurement beam data, especially for ATP and commissioning, it is made of a tissue equivalent material or air equivalent material.10) The center electrode should be made of a low atomic number material such as aluminum. The shape of ionization chamber should be a cylindrical type. The ionization chamber is selected considering the purpose of measurement, beam particle (photon, electron, proton, etc.), energy, and field size. It is necessary to select an ionization chamber with adequate spatial resolution to avoid measurement errors due to the abrupt dose distribution used in the IMRT treatment plan and the number of segments of the treatment field. Especially, it is recommended that the IMRT measurement start after the ionization chamber performance test and ionization chamber cross calibration as shown in Fig. 1.

2) Electrometers and cables

The basic requirements of the electrometer are measurement accuracy, linearity, stability, sensitivity, high impedance and low leakage dose. The performance of the electrometer should be further considered when using a small volume ionization chamber. It is recommended that cables and connectors used between the electrometer and the ionization chamber should be aware of the precautions for storage and cable connections, as they will affect the measurement results depending on the storage conditions or the setup connection. Electrometer, cable and connector inspection and risk management items were derived in total 21 items (Fig. 2).

2. ATP of high-precision radiotherapy equipment

The manufacturer must demonstrate that the radiotherapy unit is operating in accordance with the specifications required by the consignor. Then CQMP shall establish the therapeutic beam characteristics required for clinical use during ATP and commissioning, shall establish a reference value, and verify that it is operating within the specified tolerances. CQMP play a key role in the team conducting shielding, design of the radiotherapy room, and ATP of radiotherapy machine. Furthermore, CQMP should establish and conduct ATPs based on procedures (ATP or customer acceptance procedure, CAP documents) provided by the manufacturer. The CQMP will consult with the manufacturer engineers to coordinate the installation and maintenance programs of the equipment, ensure the safe and optimized performance of the equipment. In addition, CQMP performs installation, quality control to determine clinical use after each maintenance procedure, supervises calibration and measurement.

We have derived the ATP step-by-step check items and tolerances for high-precision radiotherapy devices with reference to the linear accelerator acquisition procedure recommended by Varian and Elekta. The step-by-step checklist of ATP was divided into three divisions: “Dosimetry and mechanical check” (34 items), “multi-leaf collimator” (22 items), and “imaging system” (36 items). A total of 34 items were deduced from dosimetry and mechanical checklists as shown in Fig. 3. For The MLC was subdivided into 22 items by mechanical inspection, static MLC, radiological examination and dynamic MLC as shown in Fig. 4. The imaging system derives the risk management items as ATP based on the Varian linear accelerator’s on-board imager (OBI) and electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Risk management items for ATP of imaging system were classified into 21 items for OBIs and 15 items for EPIDs (Fig. 5).

The risk management items in the derived ATP procedure were compared with the items listed in the AMPM TG-142 report as quality control inspection items and the IMRT recommendation criteria, and the linkages were evaluated as shown in Table 1. This is a step to confirm whether the equipment performance is in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation specifications from the mechanical point of view when the ATP is introduced for the first time, and it will be linked with the quality control inspection item based on the reference value obtained from ATP and commissioning.

3. Commissioning of high-precision radiotherapy equipment

The risk management items in the commissioning phase were derived in detail to the performance evaluation and the clinical application evaluation of the high precision radiotherapy equipment, classified with preparation of beam measurement setup and beam measurement. Fig. 6 shows that the beam measurement preparation stage was 28 items, which were scanning system check, scanning system measurement preparation, and data acquisition preparation. In the beam measurement, the steps are divided into X-ray scan data, X-ray point dose data, MLC data, electron scan data, electron point dose data, data file acquisition and save, and data processing. In the beam measurement stage, step-by-step procedures and risk management items of 32 were derived based on reports from overseas associations such as the AAPM TG-106 report,7) the TG-120 report, 10) the AAPM TG-142 report,6) the AAPM TG-1198) and ESTRO booklet no. 9 report,9) etc., as shown in Fig. 7.

The reference data for comparing measured beam data can be used as the golden data provided by the manufacturer when conducting the beam data measurement. However, it is not recommended to replace or combine it with the commissioning data. After measured beam data, it is recommended that measurement results and technical reports be recorded and prepared for clarity of accountability. When creating a report, clearly describe and summarize the measurement range, target, method, the device used for measurement, and the results. It is recommended that CQMP check the collected data and reports and perform independent audits. The items to be measured and the reports include X-ray open field/wedge field percent depth dose (PDD) and tissue maximum ratio (TMR) table, phantom-scatter factor (Sp), total scatter factor (Scp), inair scatter ratio (Sc), wedge factor and soft wedge factor for various depths and field sizes, the transmission factor, open field off-axis ratio at selected depths of large field, the electron cone factor, the effective source-to-surface distance, and the electron PDD table. It is recommended to keep the iso-dose curve and scan data measured in the reference field of X-ray and electron, and record the data comparison to similar model of the institution (or other institution) or the golden data provided by the manufacturer. It is recommended that you also back up the analyzed data, spreadsheets, electronic data, etc., and include a detailed description of the beam data collection method and conditions.

Commissioning data may vary depending on the requirements and the measurement conditions, such as the requirements of the RTP and the clinical needs of the user. Under these conditions, the time required for commissioning can be expected to vary. According to the AAPM TG-106 report, the time allocated for beam data measurement during commissioning procedures is generally 1.5 weeks for photon beam scanning, 1 to 2 weeks for point dose data measurement, 1 to 2 weeks for verification and 1 to 2 weeks for verification. It was suggested that about 4 to 6 weeks were needed for whole commissioning.7) For example, in two photon energies, the time required to scan single PDD and five depths profile for fifteen field sizes was estimated to be about 30 hours,7) and the time required for the electron should also be considered. In addition, it has been suggested that there is a need to estimate additional time for non-scan data measurement and integration, quality assurance baseline reading, and treatment planning system data validation. The time required for commissioning is determined by the amount of measurement data to be acquired and the work efficiency of the medical physicist participating in the measurement and should be estimated before the acceptance of the radiation therapy device. The data measured at the commissioning stage is the source for beam modeling. Therefore, It is recommended that at least two CQMPs from the measurement preparation phase apply the so-called “2 person rule”,2,13) which is carried out while performing a double verification. In the case of that facility has only single CQMP then we recommend that you perform a double verification through collaboration a CQMP from another facility.

Discussion

In this study, risk management items at each stage were derived based on the ATP documents of linear accelerators that are most representative of high precision external radiation therapy and reports from overseas associations. The literature related to the high precision external radiation therapy equipment’s ATP does not exist, the ATP documents presented by manufacturers have been limited to ensure that they meet a certain range of criteria, both mechanically and dosimetry. This guideline provides step-by-step suggestions on the items of ATP, along with risk management items that may occur during each step. In addition, it could check that each step of the ATP is linked to the quality assurance items presented in AAPM TG-142 report.

Commissioning was presented step-by-step with possible risk management items in the process of measuring beam data and various parameters needed for beam modeling. The guidelines established each step based on the AAPM TG-106 report and ESTRO booklet no.9 report that describe what should be measured generally for beam data measurements and what criteria are acceptable. Possible risk management items for each step were presented on the basis of recommendations given in AAPM TG-120 report about dosimetry tool of IMRT, the AAPM TG-142 and TG-119 report as described for external radiation therapy equipment quality assurance and IMRT dose verification. Therefore, this guideline presented both step-by-step risk management items necessary for preparation of measuring beam data and risk management items that may occur when measuring beam data. Therefore, it will also be of interest to medical physicists who are introducing new radiation therapy equipment for safety and accuracy of measurement. It recommends that each item presented in the guideline apply the clinical situation of the user and, in necessary, can be modified and used it. While measuring beam data and the dose verification process must be carried out with a “2 person rule”.

Conclusion

In this study, the introduction and installation process of high precision radiotherapy equipment is presented through a process map. And the guidelines for carrying out the ATP and commissioning steps of high-precision radiotherapy devices are presented. When using the guideline given in this study, it is recommended that the manufacturer, characteristics, institutional procedures by the relevant agency be duly reflected. The result of this study is expected to be able to prevent radiation accidents in stages by introducing a risk management system from introduction of radiotherapy and system installation process beyond machine-centered quality control. Furthermore, it is anticipated that risk management based technologies for radiation therapy will be developed and applied to the development of risk management guideline in the field of nuclear medicine and radiology in the future.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the General Researcher Program (2018R1D1A1B07050217), and the Nuclear Safety Research Program (Grant No. 1603016) through the Korea Foundation of Nuclear Safety (KOFONS), using the financial resource granted by the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC), Republic of Korea.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Availability of Data and Materials

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Tables

The derived risk management items were compared for the correlation with TG-142 quality assurance items.

StepMechanical and Dosimetry check

Sub-stepRisk management itemsTG-142 Quality assurance itemsPeriodIMRT ToleranceRemark
Mechanical testMechanical isocenter variation (with collimator, gantry, couch rotation)Gantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Treatment couch position indicatorMonthly2 mm/1°
Collimator rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Gantry rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Couch rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Cross-hair checkCross-hair centering (walkout)Monthly1 mm
Digital display indicator calibration (Jaw position, gantry, collimator rotation)Collimator size indicatorDaily2 mm
Gantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Jaw position indicators (symmetry)Monthly2 mm
Jaw position indicators (asymmetry)Monthly1 mm
Couch movement (rotation, longitudinal, lateral, vertical)Treatment couch position indicatorMonthly2 mm/1°
Table top sagAnnual2 mmChange from baseline
Table angleAnnual
Table travel maximum range movement in all directionsAnnual±2 mm
Optical distance indicator (ODI) verificationDistance indicator (ODI) at isocenterDaily2 mm
Distance check device for lasersMonthly1 mm
compared with front pointer
Radiation isocenter checkSpoke shot (Gantry rotation)Coincidence of radiation and mechanical isocenterAnnual±2 mmChange from baseline
Winston-Lutz test (with gantry/collimator/couch rotation)Collimator rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Gantry rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Couch rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Coincidence of light field and X-ray fieldLight/radiation field coincidence (symmetry)Monthly2 mm or 1%
Light/radiation field coincidence (asymmetry)Monthly1 mm or 1%
Laser guard collision protection systemProtection zone area verificationLaser guard-interlock testMonthlyFunctional
Protection zone tilt verification
Motion stop function verification
Power key switch and override function verification
Beam performance testPhoton PDDX-ray beam quality (PDD10 or TMR20,10)Annual±1%Change from baseline
Photon field flatness/symmetryPhoton beam profile constancyMonthly1%
X-ray flatness change from baselineAnnual1%
X-ray symmetry change from baselineAnnual±1%
Electron PDIElectron energy constancyMonthly2%/2 mm
Electron beam quality (R50)Annual±1 mmChange from baseline
Electron field flatness/symmetryElectron beam profile constancyMonthly1%
Electron flatness change from baselineAnnual1%
Electron symmetry change from baselineAnnual±1%
Symmetry interlock checkFollow manufacturer’s test procedureAnnualFunctional
Beamstopper interlocked anglesFollow manufacturer’s test procedureAnnualFunctional
DosimetryDose reproducibilityX-ray output constancyDaily3%All energies
Monthly2%All energies
Electron output constancyDaily3%
Monthly2%
Backup monitor chamber constancyMonthly2%
X-ray/electron output calibration (TG-51)Annual±1%Absolute dosimetry
Spot check of field size dependent output factors for X-rayAnnual2% <4×4 cm2Two or more field size check
1% ≥4×4 cm2
Output factors for electron applicatorsAnnual±2%- Change from baseline
- Spot check of on applicator/energy
Dose linearity with MUX-ray monitor unit linearity output constancyAnnual±2% (≥5 MU)±5% (2–4 MU)
Electron monitor unit linearity output constancyAnnual±2% (≥5 MU)
Dose linearity with dose rateTypical dose rate profile constancyMonthly2%
X-ray output constancy vs. dose rateAnnual±2%Change from baseline
Dose reproducibility with gantry angleX-ray output constancy vs. gantry angleAnnual±1%Change from baseline
Electron output constancy vs. gantry angleAnnual±1%
Mechanical testField light alignmentSetting vs. radiation field for two patternsMonthly2 mm
Coincidence of light field and X-ray fieldMonthly±2 mmAll energies
Cross-hair alignmentCross-hair centering (walkout)Monthly1 mm
Gantry/collimator rotation isocenterGantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Collimator rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Gantry rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Optical distance indicator (ODI) verificationDistance indicator (ODI) at isocenterDaily2 mm
Distance check device for lasers compared with front pointerMonthly1 mm
Collimator rotation readout calibrationGantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Accessory mountAccessory trays (i.e., port film graticle tray)Monthly2 mm
Latching of wedges, block trayMonthlyFunctional
Static MLCLeaf position accuracyQualitative test (i.e., matched segments, aka “Picket fence”)WeeklyVisual inspection for discernable deviations such as an increase in interleaf transmission
Leaf position accuracyMonthly1 mmFour cardinal angles
Leaf position repeatabilityLeaf position repeatabilityAnnual±1 mm
Radiation testCollimator spoke shotLeaf spoke shotAnnual≤1.0 mm (radius)
Gantry spoke shotLeaf spoke shotAnnual≤1.0 mm (radius)
Coincidence of light field and X-ray fieldCoincidence of light field and X-ray fieldMonthly±2 mmAll energies
Dynamic MLCMLC transmission dose ratesMLC transmission (average of leaf and interleaf transmission)Annual±0.5%Change from baseline
All energies
AutoDynalogs for the Millennium MLC---Only Varian
Generate dynalogs for Mark series or m3 MLC---Only Varian
RV modeup---
Arc dynamic leaf speed testTravel speedMonthlyLoss of leaf speed>0.5 cm/s
Arc dynamic interlock trip testArc mode (Expected MU, degrees)Annual±1 mmChange from baseline
Arc dynamic typical plan testArc mode (Expected MU, degrees)Annual±1 mmChange from baseline
Segmental IMRT test (Step and shoot)Segmental IMRT (step and shoot) testAnnualRMS maximum of error<0.35 cm
Moving window IMRT testMoving window IMRTAnnualRMS maximum of error<0.35 cmFour cardinal gantry angles
Moving window IMRT typical plan test
OBISafety testDoor interlock---
Mechanical position accuracy verificationkV source positioning testPositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
kV Imager positioning testPositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
X-ray checkDistance measurement demonstrationScalingMonthlyBaseline
kV imager panel virtual alignment demonstrationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤1 mm
Optical isocenter demostrationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤2 mmSingle gantry angle
Monthly≤2 mmFour cardinal angles
X-ray generator testX-ray measurement-digital fluoroscopy, pulsed mode (kVp, mA, mS)Imaging doseAnnualBaseline
Digital radiography-dual gain standard resolution (kVp, mA, mS)Imaging doseAnnualBaseline
HVL using Digital fluoroscopy pulsed modeBeam quality/energyAnnualBaseline
High contrast resolutionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Gray scale linearitySpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Low contrast sensitivityContrastMonthlyBaseline
Cone beam CTCT number (Hounsfield unit)HU constancyMonthlyBaseline
Spatial linearity measurement (distance)Geometric distortionMonthlyBaseline
Image uniformity measurementsUniformity and noiseMonthlyBaseline
High resolutionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Low contrast resolutionContrastMonthlyBaseline
EPIDR-armR-arm position accuracy/travel rangePositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
R-arm position accuracy with gantry rotationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤2 mmSingle gantry angle
Monthly≤2 mmFour cardinal angles
R-arm collision interlock, alarm, overrideCollision interlocksDailyFunctional
R-arm overload detection system (ODS) seal---
E-armE-arm position accuracy/travel rangePositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
E-arm vertical travel run-outFull range of travel SDDAnnual±5 mm
E-arm position accuracy with gantry rotationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤2 mmSingle gantry angle
Monthly≤2 mmFour cardinal angles
E-arm collision interlock, alarm, overrideCollision interlocksDailyFunctional
Acquisition systemContrast detail resolutionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
ContrastMonthlyBaseline
Small object detectionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Dosimetry integration (Portal dosimetry)---Optional

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Ionization chamber performance test.
Progress in Medical Physics 2018; 29: 123-136https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2018.29.4.123

Fig 2.

Figure 2.The risk management items for electrometer, cable and connector check.
Progress in Medical Physics 2018; 29: 123-136https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2018.29.4.123

Fig 3.

Figure 3.The risk management items for acceptance test of external radiation therapy equipment: Mechanical and dosimetry test.
Progress in Medical Physics 2018; 29: 123-136https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2018.29.4.123

Fig 4.

Figure 4.The risk management items for acceptance test of external radiation therapy equipment: MLC.
Progress in Medical Physics 2018; 29: 123-136https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2018.29.4.123

Fig 5.

Figure 5.The risk management items for acceptance test of external radiation therapy equipment: Imaging system.
Progress in Medical Physics 2018; 29: 123-136https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2018.29.4.123

Fig 6.

Figure 6.The risk management items for commissioning of external radiation therapy equipment: preparation of beam measurement.
Progress in Medical Physics 2018; 29: 123-136https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2018.29.4.123

Fig 7.

Figure 7.The risk management items for commissioning of external radiation therapy equipment: beam measurement.
Progress in Medical Physics 2018; 29: 123-136https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2018.29.4.123

Table 1 The derived risk management items were compared for the correlation with TG-142 quality assurance items.

StepMechanical and Dosimetry check

Sub-stepRisk management itemsTG-142 Quality assurance itemsPeriodIMRT ToleranceRemark
Mechanical testMechanical isocenter variation (with collimator, gantry, couch rotation)Gantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Treatment couch position indicatorMonthly2 mm/1°
Collimator rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Gantry rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Couch rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Cross-hair checkCross-hair centering (walkout)Monthly1 mm
Digital display indicator calibration (Jaw position, gantry, collimator rotation)Collimator size indicatorDaily2 mm
Gantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Jaw position indicators (symmetry)Monthly2 mm
Jaw position indicators (asymmetry)Monthly1 mm
Couch movement (rotation, longitudinal, lateral, vertical)Treatment couch position indicatorMonthly2 mm/1°
Table top sagAnnual2 mmChange from baseline
Table angleAnnual
Table travel maximum range movement in all directionsAnnual±2 mm
Optical distance indicator (ODI) verificationDistance indicator (ODI) at isocenterDaily2 mm
Distance check device for lasersMonthly1 mm
compared with front pointer
Radiation isocenter checkSpoke shot (Gantry rotation)Coincidence of radiation and mechanical isocenterAnnual±2 mmChange from baseline
Winston-Lutz test (with gantry/collimator/couch rotation)Collimator rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Gantry rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Couch rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Coincidence of light field and X-ray fieldLight/radiation field coincidence (symmetry)Monthly2 mm or 1%
Light/radiation field coincidence (asymmetry)Monthly1 mm or 1%
Laser guard collision protection systemProtection zone area verificationLaser guard-interlock testMonthlyFunctional
Protection zone tilt verification
Motion stop function verification
Power key switch and override function verification
Beam performance testPhoton PDDX-ray beam quality (PDD10 or TMR20,10)Annual±1%Change from baseline
Photon field flatness/symmetryPhoton beam profile constancyMonthly1%
X-ray flatness change from baselineAnnual1%
X-ray symmetry change from baselineAnnual±1%
Electron PDIElectron energy constancyMonthly2%/2 mm
Electron beam quality (R50)Annual±1 mmChange from baseline
Electron field flatness/symmetryElectron beam profile constancyMonthly1%
Electron flatness change from baselineAnnual1%
Electron symmetry change from baselineAnnual±1%
Symmetry interlock checkFollow manufacturer’s test procedureAnnualFunctional
Beamstopper interlocked anglesFollow manufacturer’s test procedureAnnualFunctional
DosimetryDose reproducibilityX-ray output constancyDaily3%All energies
Monthly2%All energies
Electron output constancyDaily3%
Monthly2%
Backup monitor chamber constancyMonthly2%
X-ray/electron output calibration (TG-51)Annual±1%Absolute dosimetry
Spot check of field size dependent output factors for X-rayAnnual2% <4×4 cm2Two or more field size check
1% ≥4×4 cm2
Output factors for electron applicatorsAnnual±2%- Change from baseline
- Spot check of on applicator/energy
Dose linearity with MUX-ray monitor unit linearity output constancyAnnual±2% (≥5 MU)±5% (2–4 MU)
Electron monitor unit linearity output constancyAnnual±2% (≥5 MU)
Dose linearity with dose rateTypical dose rate profile constancyMonthly2%
X-ray output constancy vs. dose rateAnnual±2%Change from baseline
Dose reproducibility with gantry angleX-ray output constancy vs. gantry angleAnnual±1%Change from baseline
Electron output constancy vs. gantry angleAnnual±1%
Mechanical testField light alignmentSetting vs. radiation field for two patternsMonthly2 mm
Coincidence of light field and X-ray fieldMonthly±2 mmAll energies
Cross-hair alignmentCross-hair centering (walkout)Monthly1 mm
Gantry/collimator rotation isocenterGantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Collimator rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Gantry rotation isocenterAnnual±1 mmChange from baseline
Optical distance indicator (ODI) verificationDistance indicator (ODI) at isocenterDaily2 mm
Distance check device for lasers compared with front pointerMonthly1 mm
Collimator rotation readout calibrationGantry/collimator angle indicators (digital only)MonthlyCardinal angles
Accessory mountAccessory trays (i.e., port film graticle tray)Monthly2 mm
Latching of wedges, block trayMonthlyFunctional
Static MLCLeaf position accuracyQualitative test (i.e., matched segments, aka “Picket fence”)WeeklyVisual inspection for discernable deviations such as an increase in interleaf transmission
Leaf position accuracyMonthly1 mmFour cardinal angles
Leaf position repeatabilityLeaf position repeatabilityAnnual±1 mm
Radiation testCollimator spoke shotLeaf spoke shotAnnual≤1.0 mm (radius)
Gantry spoke shotLeaf spoke shotAnnual≤1.0 mm (radius)
Coincidence of light field and X-ray fieldCoincidence of light field and X-ray fieldMonthly±2 mmAll energies
Dynamic MLCMLC transmission dose ratesMLC transmission (average of leaf and interleaf transmission)Annual±0.5%Change from baseline
All energies
AutoDynalogs for the Millennium MLC---Only Varian
Generate dynalogs for Mark series or m3 MLC---Only Varian
RV modeup---
Arc dynamic leaf speed testTravel speedMonthlyLoss of leaf speed>0.5 cm/s
Arc dynamic interlock trip testArc mode (Expected MU, degrees)Annual±1 mmChange from baseline
Arc dynamic typical plan testArc mode (Expected MU, degrees)Annual±1 mmChange from baseline
Segmental IMRT test (Step and shoot)Segmental IMRT (step and shoot) testAnnualRMS maximum of error<0.35 cm
Moving window IMRT testMoving window IMRTAnnualRMS maximum of error<0.35 cmFour cardinal gantry angles
Moving window IMRT typical plan test
OBISafety testDoor interlock---
Mechanical position accuracy verificationkV source positioning testPositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
kV Imager positioning testPositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
X-ray checkDistance measurement demonstrationScalingMonthlyBaseline
kV imager panel virtual alignment demonstrationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤1 mm
Optical isocenter demostrationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤2 mmSingle gantry angle
Monthly≤2 mmFour cardinal angles
X-ray generator testX-ray measurement-digital fluoroscopy, pulsed mode (kVp, mA, mS)Imaging doseAnnualBaseline
Digital radiography-dual gain standard resolution (kVp, mA, mS)Imaging doseAnnualBaseline
HVL using Digital fluoroscopy pulsed modeBeam quality/energyAnnualBaseline
High contrast resolutionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Gray scale linearitySpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Low contrast sensitivityContrastMonthlyBaseline
Cone beam CTCT number (Hounsfield unit)HU constancyMonthlyBaseline
Spatial linearity measurement (distance)Geometric distortionMonthlyBaseline
Image uniformity measurementsUniformity and noiseMonthlyBaseline
High resolutionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Low contrast resolutionContrastMonthlyBaseline
EPIDR-armR-arm position accuracy/travel rangePositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
R-arm position accuracy with gantry rotationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤2 mmSingle gantry angle
Monthly≤2 mmFour cardinal angles
R-arm collision interlock, alarm, overrideCollision interlocksDailyFunctional
R-arm overload detection system (ODS) seal---
E-armE-arm position accuracy/travel rangePositioning/repositioningDaily≤2 mm
E-arm vertical travel run-outFull range of travel SDDAnnual±5 mm
E-arm position accuracy with gantry rotationImaging and treatment coordinate coincidenceDaily≤2 mmSingle gantry angle
Monthly≤2 mmFour cardinal angles
E-arm collision interlock, alarm, overrideCollision interlocksDailyFunctional
Acquisition systemContrast detail resolutionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
ContrastMonthlyBaseline
Small object detectionSpatial resolutionMonthlyBaseline
Dosimetry integration (Portal dosimetry)---Optional

ODI, optical distance indicator; PDD, percent depth dose; TMR, tissue maximum ratio; PDI, percent depth ionization; MU, monitor unit; HU, hounsfield unit; SDD, source-detector distance.


References

  1. Ezzell Gary A, Calvin James M, Low Daniel, Rosen Isaac, Sharpe Michael B, and Xia Ping, et al. Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee. Med Phys 2003;30(8):2089-2115.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. IAEA Human Health Series No. 25: Roles and Responsibilities, and Education and Training Requirements for Clinically Qualified Medical Physicists. International Atomic Energy Agency 2013.
  3. IAEA TRS-398 report: Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water. International Atomic Energy Agency 2006.
  4. Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, Hanson WF, Saiful Huq M, and Nath Ravinder, et al. AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys 1999;26(9):1847-1870.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Kutche Gerald J, Coia Lawrene, Gillin Michael, Hansom Wiliam F, Leibel Steven, and Morton Robert J, et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology y: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys 1994;21(4):581-618.
    CrossRef
  6. Klein Eric E, Hanley Joseph, Bayouth John, Yin Fang-Fang, Simon Wiliam, and Dresser Sen, et al. Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys 2009;36(9):4197-4212.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Das Indra J, Cheng Chee-Wai, Watts Ronald J, Ahnesjö Anders, Gibbons John, and Li X Allen, et al. Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: Report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM. Med Phys 2008;35(9):4186-4215.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Ezzell Gary A, Burmeister Jay W, Dogan Nesrin, LoSasso Thomas J, Mechalakos James G, and Mihailidis Dimitiris, et al. IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys 2009;36(11):5359-5373.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. ESTRO booklet no.9: Guidelines for the verification of IMRT 2008.
  10. Low Daniel A, Moran Jean M, Dempsey James F, Dong Lei, and Oldham Mark. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys 2001;38(3):1313-1338.
    CrossRef
  11. Oh Yoonjin, Shin Dong Oh, Kim Juhye, Kwon Nahye, Lee Soon Sung, and Choi Sang Hyoun, et al. Proposal on Guideline for Quality Assurance of Radiation Treatment Planning System. Progress in Medical Physics 2017;28(4):197-206.
    CrossRef
  12. Humphries LJ, and Purdy JA. In Advances in Radiation Oncology Physics Dosimetry, Treatment Planning, and Brachytherapy. AAPM Monograph, Purdy A 1992;19.
  13. Halvorsen Per H, Das Indra J, Fraser Martin, Freedman D Jay, Rice Robert E III, and lbbott Geoffrey S, et al. AAPM Task Group 103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 2005;6(4):50-64.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
Korean Society of Medical Physics

Vol.35 No.2
June 2024

pISSN 2508-4445
eISSN 2508-4453
Formerly ISSN 1226-5829

Frequency: Quarterly

Current Issue   |   Archives

Stats or Metrics

Share this article on :

  • line