Premium
Implementation of a quality assurance program for computerized treatment planning systems
Author(s) -
Camargo Priscilla R. T. L.,
Rodrigues Laura N.,
Furnari Laura,
Rubo Rodrigo A.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.2742779
Subject(s) - quality assurance , acceptance testing , imaging phantom , monitor unit , medical physics , radiation treatment planning , dosimetry , ionization chamber , computer science , project commissioning , nuclear medicine , medicine , physics , radiation therapy , engineering , operations management , ionization , software engineering , radiology , ion , external quality assessment , quantum mechanics , publishing , law , political science
In the present investigation, the necessary tests for implementing a quality assurance program for a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), recently installed at Sao Paulo University School of Medicine Clinicas Hospital—Brazil, was established and performed in accordance with the new IAEA publication TRS 430, and with AAPM Task Group 53. The tests recommended by those documents are classified mainly into acceptance, commissioning (dosimetric and nondosimetric), periodic quality assurance, and patient specific quality assurance tests. The recommendations of both IAEA and AAPM documents are being implemented at the hospital for photon beams produced by two linear accelerators. A Farmer ionization chamber was used in a 30 × 30 × 30cm 3phantom with a dose rate of 320 monitor unit (MU)/min and 50 MU in the case of the dosimetric tests. The acceptance tests verified hardware, network systems integration, data transfer, and software parameters. The results obtained are in good agreement with the specifications of the manufacturer. For the commissioning dosimetric tests, the absolute dose was measured for simple geometries, such as square and rectangular fields, up to more complex geometries such as off‐axis hard wedges and for behavior in the build up region. Results were analysed by the use of confidence limit as proposed by Venselaar et al. [Radio Ther. Oncol. 60, 191–201 (2001)]. Criteria of acceptability had been applied also for the comparison between the values of MU calculated manually and MU generated by TPS. The results of the dosimetric tests show that work can be reduced by choosing to perform only those that are more crucial, such as oblique incidence, shaped fields, hard wedges, and buildup region behavior. Staff experience with the implementation of the quality assurance program for a commercial TPS is extremely useful as part of a training program.