Premium
TU‐B‐304‐01: The Aftermath of TG‐142
Author(s) -
Klein E.
Publication year - 2015
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 - 10.1118/1.4925551
Subject(s) - quality assurance , process (computing) , institution , clinical practice , quality (philosophy) , computer science , medical physics , statistical process control , medicine , operations management , engineering , political science , physics , family medicine , external quality assessment , quantum mechanics , law , operating system
Although published in 2009, the AAPM TG‐142 report on accelerator quality assurance still proves a challenge for full clinical implementation. The choice of methodologies to satisfy TG‐142 requirements is critical to a successful application. Understanding the philosophy of TG‐142 can help in creating an institution‐specific QA practice that is both efficient and effective. The concept of maintaining commissioned beam profiles is still found confusing. The physicist must also consider technologies not covered by TG‐142 (i.e. arc therapy techniques). On the horizon is TG‐198 report on implementing TG‐142. Although the community still lacks a final TG‐100 report, performing a failure‐mode ‐and‐effects analysis and statistical process control analysis to determine the institution‐specific clinical impact of each TG‐142 test may be useful for identifying trends for pro‐active surveillance. Learning Objectives: 1. To better understand the confusing and controversial aspects of TG‐142. 2. To understand what is still missing from TG‐142 and how to account for these tests in clinical practice 3. To describe which QA tests in TG‐142 yield the largest potential clinical result if not discovered.