Illustrated instructions for mechanical quality assurance of a medical linear accelerator. (3rd March 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Court, Laurence; Wang, He; Aten, David; Brown, Derek; MacGregor, Hannelie; du Toit, Monique; Chi, Melinda; Gao, Song; Yock, Adam; Aristophanous, Michalis; Balter, Peter
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 19:Number 3(2018)
• Page Start: 355
• Page End: 359
• Publication Date: 2018-03-03
• Subjects: quality assurance -- training; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12265
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

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.