Dataset Information

Illustrated instructions for mechanical quality assurance of a medical linear accelerator.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to develop and test a set of illustrated instructions for effective training for mechanical quality assurance (QA) of medical linear accelerators (linac). METHODS:Illustrated instructions were created for mechanical QA and underwent several steps of review, testing, and refinement. Eleven testers with no recent QA experience were then recruited from our radiotherapy department (one student, two computational scientists, and eight dosimetrists). This group was selected because they have experience of radiation therapy but no preconceived ideas about how to do QA. The following parameters were progressively decalibrated on a Varian C-series linac: Group A = gantry angle, ceiling laser position, X1 jaw position, couch longitudinal position, physical graticule position (five testers); Group B = Group A + wall laser position, couch lateral and vertical position, collimator angle (three testers); Group C = Group B + couch angle, wall laser angle, and optical distance indicator (three testers). Testers were taught how to use the linac and then used the instructions to try to identify these errors. An experienced physicist observed each session, giving support on machine operation as necessary. RESULTS:Testers were able to follow the instructions. They determined gantry, collimator, and couch angle errors within 0.4°, 0.3°, and 0.9° of the actual changed values, respectively. Laser positions were determined within 1 mm and jaw positions within 2 mm. Couch position errors were determined within 2 mm and 3 mm for lateral/longitudinal and vertical errors, respectively. Accessory-positioning errors were determined within 1 mm. Optical distance indicator errors were determined within 2 mm when comparing with distance sticks and 6 mm when using blocks, indicating that distance sticks should be the preferred approach for inexperienced staff. CONCLUSIONS:Inexperienced users were able to follow these instructions and catch errors within the criteria suggested by AAPM TG-142 for linacs used for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. These instructions are, therefore, suitable for QA training.

SUBMITTER: Court L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5978554 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Illustrated instructions for mechanical quality assurance of a medical linear accelerator.

Court Laurence L Wang He H Aten David D Brown Derek D MacGregor Hannelie H du Toit Monique M Chi Melinda M Gao Song S Yock Adam A Aristophanous Michalis M Balter Peter P

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20180303 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>The purpose of this study was to develop and test a set of illustrated instructions for effective training for mechanical quality assurance (QA) of medical linear accelerators (linac).<h4>Methods</h4>Illustrated instructions were created for mechanical QA and underwent several steps of review, testing, and refinement. Eleven testers with no recent QA experience were then recruited from our radiotherapy department (one student, two computational scientists, and eight dosimetrists) ...[more]

PMID: 29500846

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo perform quality assurance of non-coplanar, volumetric-modulated arc therapy featuring continuous couch rotation (CCR-VMAT) using a C-arm linear accelerator.MethodsWe planned and delivered CCR-VMAT using the TrueBeam Developer Mode. Treatment plans were created for both a C-shaped phantom and five prostate cancer patients using seven CCR trajectories that lacked collisions; we used RayStation software (ver. 4.7) to this end. Subsequently, verification plans were generated. The mean absolute error (MAE) between the center of an MV-imaged steel ball and the radiation field was calculated using the Winston-Lutz test. The MAEs between planned and actual irradiation values were also calculated from trajectory logs. In addition, correlation coefficients (r values) among the MAEs of gantry angle, couch angle, and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position, and mechanical parameters including gantry speed, couch speed, MLC speed, and beam output, were estimated. The dosimetric accuracies of planned and measured values were also assessed using ArcCHECK.ResultsThe MAEs ±2 standard deviations as revealed by the Winston-Lutz test for all trajectories were 0.3 ± 0.3 mm in two dimensions. The MAEs of the gantry, couch, and MLC positions calculated from all trajectory logs were within 0.04°, 0.08°, and 0.02 mm, respectively. Deviations in the couch angle (r = 0.98, p < 0.05) and MLC position (r = 0.86, p < 0.05) increased significantly with speed. The MAE of the beam output error was less than 0.01 MU. The mean gamma passing rate ± 2 SD (range) of the 3%/3 mm, 3%/1 mm, and 5%/1 mm was 98.1 ± 1.9% (95.7-99.6%), 87.2 ± 2.8% (80.2-96.7%), and 96.3 ± 2.8% (93.9-99.6%), respectively.ConclusionsCCR-VMAT delivered via the TrueBeam Developer Mode was associated with high-level geometric and mechanical accuracy, thus affording to high dosimetric accuracy. The CCR-VMAT performance was stable regardless of the trajectory chosen.

Project description:Objectives:The aim of the study was to explore what components of the General Medical Council's (GMC) Quality Assurance Framework work, for whom, in what circumstances and how?Setting:UK undergraduate and postgraduate medical education and training.Participants:We conducted interviews with a stratified sample of 36 individuals. This included those who had direct experiences, as well as those with external insights, representing local, national and international organisations within and outside medicine.Intervention:The GMC quality assure education to protect patient and public safety utilising complex intervention components including meeting standards, institutional visits and monitoring performance. However, the context in which these are implemented matters. We undertook an innovative realist evaluation to test an initial programme theory. Data were analysed using framework analysis.Results:Across components of the intervention, we identified key mechanisms, including transparent reporting to promote quality improvement; dialogical feedback; partnership working facilitating interactions between regulators and providers, and role clarity in conducting proportionate interventions appropriate to risk. The GMC's framework was commended for being comprehensive and enabling a broad understanding of an organisation's performance. Unintended consequences included confusion over roles and boundaries in different contexts which often undermined effectiveness.Conclusions:This realist evaluation substantiates the literature and reveals deeper understandings about quality assuring medical education. While standardised approaches are implemented, interventions need to be contextually proportionate. Routine communication is beneficial to verify data, share concerns and check risk; however, ongoing partnership working can foster assurance. The study provides a modified programme theory to explicate how education providers and regulators can work more effectively together to uphold education quality, and ultimately protect public safety. The findings have influenced the GMC's approach to quality assurance which impacts on all medical students and doctors in training.

Project description:The feasibility of medical imaging using a medical linear accelerator to generate acoustic waves is investigated. This modality, x-ray acoustic computed tomography (XACT), has the potential to enable deeper tissue penetration in tissue than photoacoustic tomography via laser excitation.Short pulsed (μs-range) 10 MV x-ray beams with dose-rate of approximately 30 Gy∕min were generated from a medical linear accelerator. The acoustic signals were collected with an ultrasound transducer (500 KHz central frequency) positioned around an object. The transducer, driven by a computer-controlled step motor to scan around the object, detected the resulting acoustic signals in the imaging plane at each scanning position. A pulse preamplifier, with a bandwidth of 20 KHz-2 MHz at -3 dB, and switchable gains of 40 and 60 dB, received the signals from the transducer and delivered the amplified signals to a secondary amplifier. The secondary amplifier had bandwidth of 20 KHz-30 MHz at -3 dB, and a gain range of 10-60 dB. Signals were recorded and averaged 128 times by an oscilloscope. A sampling rate of 100 MHz was used to record 2500 data points at each view angle. One set of data incorporated 200 positions as the receiver moved 360°. The x-ray generated acoustic image was then reconstructed with the filtered back projection algorithm.The x-ray generated acoustic signals were detected from a lead rod embedded in a chicken breast tissue. The authors found that the acoustic signal was proportional to the x-ray dose deposition, with a correlation of 0.998. The two-dimensional XACT images of the lead rod embedded in chicken breast tissue were found to be in good agreement with the shape of the object.The first x-ray acoustic computed tomography image is presented. The new modality may be useful for a number of applications, such as providing the location of a fiducial, or monitoring x-ray dose distribution during radiation therapy. Although much work is needed to improve the image quality of XACT and to explore its performance in other irradiation energies, the benefits of this modality, as highlighted in this work, encourage further study.

Project description:Performing mechanical and geometric quality assurance (QA) tests for medical linear accelerators (LINAC) is a predominantly manual process that consumes significant time and resources. In order to alleviate this burden this study proposes a novel strategy to automate the process of performing these tests. The autonomous QA system consists of three parts: (1) a customized phantom coated with radioluminescent material; (2) an optical imaging system capable of visualizing the incidence of the radiation beam, light field or lasers on the phantom; and (3) software to process the captured signals. The radioluminescent phantom, which enables visualization of the radiation beam on the same surface as the light field and lasers, is placed on the couch and imaged while a predefined treatment plan is delivered from the LINAC. The captured images are then processed to self-calibrate the system and perform measurements for evaluating light field/radiation coincidence, jaw position indicators, cross-hair centering, treatment couch position indicators and localizing laser alignment. System accuracy is probed by intentionally introducing errors and by comparing with current clinical methods. The accuracy of self-calibration is evaluated by examining measurement repeatability under fixed and variable phantom setups. The integrated system was able to automatically collect, analyze and report the results for the mechanical alignment tests specified by TG-142. The average difference between introduced and measured errors was 0.13 mm. The system was shown to be consistent with current techniques. Measurement variability increased slightly from 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm when the phantom setup was varied, but no significant difference in the mean measurement value was detected. Total measurement time was less than 10 minutes for all tests as a result of automation. The system's unique features of a phosphor-coated phantom and fully automated, operator independent self-calibration offer the potential to streamline the QA process for modern LINACs.

Dataset Information

Illustrated instructions for mechanical quality assurance of a medical linear accelerator.

Publications

Illustrated instructions for mechanical quality assurance of a medical linear accelerator.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets