• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.99-106
• /
• 2011

Purpose: To analyze our quality assurance (QA) data for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) according to treatment site and to possibly improve QA for IMRT in Hospital. Materials and Methods: We performed QA on 50 patients (head and neck, 28 patients; Breast, 14 patients; Pelvis, 8 patients) for IMRT. The calculated dose from RTP was compared with the measured value film, gamma index, and ionization chamber for dose measurement in each case. Results: The point dose measurement results in 45 of 50 patients showed good agreement with the calculation dose (${\pm}3%$). The largest error measured thus far has been 3.60%, with a mean of only -0.17% (SD, 2.25%). Each treatment site showed an error rate of -0.13% (SD, 1.93%) for head and neck cases, -0.26% (SD, 2.79%) for breast cases, and 0.24% (SD, 2.44%) for pelvis cases. The gamma index verified with the error rate of head and neck cases (6%), breast (10%), and pelvis (6%), which corresponded to a tolerance of 3 mm (3% for the head and neck, 2%, for the breast 1% for the pelvis, and 0% in the region where the isodose curve was greater than 90%. Conclusion: We recognize the cause of errors for each treatment site of IMRT QA and so we maximize our efforts to reduce error and increase accuracy.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.123-136
• /
• 2018

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.