Display options
Cite
Kry SF, Peterson CB, Howell RM, et al. Remote beam output audits: a global assessment of results out of tolerance. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018;7:39-44doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.08.005.
Kry, S. F., Peterson, C. B., Howell, R. M., Izewska, J., Lye, J., Clark, C. H., Nakamura, M., Hurkmans, C., Alvarez, P., Alves, A., Bokulic, T., Followill, D., Kazantsev, P., Lowenstein, J., Molineu, A., Palmer, J., Smith, S. A., Taylor, P., Wesolowska, P., & Williams, I. (2018). Remote beam output audits: a global assessment of results out of tolerance. Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 739-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2018.08.005
Kry, Stephen F, et al. "Remote beam output audits: a global assessment of results out of tolerance." Physics and imaging in radiation oncology vol. 7 (2018): 39-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2018.08.005
Kry SF, Peterson CB, Howell RM, Izewska J, Lye J, Clark CH, Nakamura M, Hurkmans C, Alvarez P, Alves A, Bokulic T, Followill D, Kazantsev P, Lowenstein J, Molineu A, Palmer J, Smith SA, Taylor P, Wesolowska P, Williams I. Remote beam output audits: a global assessment of results out of tolerance. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018 Jul;7:39-44. doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.08.005. Epub 2018 Sep 16. PMID: 31872085; PMCID: PMC6927685.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018 Jul;7:39-44. doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.08.005. Epub 2018 Sep 16.

Remote beam output audits: a global assessment of results out of tolerance.

Physics and imaging in radiation oncology

Stephen F Kry, Christine B Peterson, Rebecca M Howell, Joanna Izewska, Jessica Lye, Catharine H Clark, Mitsuhiro Nakamura, Coen Hurkmans, Paola Alvarez, Andrew Alves, Tomislav Bokulic, David Followill, Pavel Kazantsev, Jessica Lowenstein, Andrea Molineu, Jacob Palmer, Susan A Smith, Paige Taylor, Paulina Wesolowska, Ivan Williams

Affiliations

  1. Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.
  2. Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.
  3. Department of Biostatistics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.
  4. Radiation Dosimetry Services, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.
  5. Dosimetry Laboratory, Dosimetry and Medical Radiation Physics Section, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna Austria.
  6. Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Melbourne, Australia.
  7. RadioTherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, London UK.
  8. Metrology for Medical Physics, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington UK.
  9. Department of Medical Physics, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Surrey UK.
  10. JCOG Division of Medical Physics, Department of Information Technology and Medical Engineering, Human Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University.
  11. EORTC Radiation Oncology Group, Brussels, Belgium.
  12. Department of radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

PMID: 31872085 PMCID: PMC6927685 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.08.005

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Remote beam output audits, which independently measure an institution's machine calibration, are a common component of independent radiotherapy peer review. This work reviews the results and trends of these audit results across several organisations and geographical regions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Beam output audit results from the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Services, International Atomic Energy Agency, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, and Radiation Dosimetry Services were evaluated from 2010 to the present. The rate of audit results outside a +/-5% tolerance was evaluated for photon and electron beams as a function of the year of irradiation and nominal beam energy. Additionally, examples of confirmed calibration errors were examined to provide guidance to clinical physicists and auditing bodies.

RESULTS: Of the 210,167 audit results, 1323 (0.63%) were outside of tolerance. There was a clear trend of improved audit performance for more recent dates, and while all photon energies generally showed uniform rates of results out of tolerance, low (6 MeV) and high (≥18 MeV) energy electron beams showed significantly elevated rates. Twenty nine confirmed calibration errors were explored and attributed to a range of issues, such as equipment failures, errors in setup, and errors in performing the clinical reference calibration. Forty-two percent of these confirmed errors were detected during ongoing periodic monitoring, and not at the time of the first audit of the machine.

CONCLUSIONS: Remote beam output audits have identified, and continue to identify, numerous and often substantial beam calibration errors.

Keywords: Global harmonization group; QA; calibration; dosimetry audit; remote beam output audit

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No conflict to declare

References

  1. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Dec 1;99(5):1094-1100 - PubMed
  2. Phys Med Biol. 1997 Dec;42(12):2393-409 - PubMed
  3. Radiother Oncol. 2003 Oct;69(1):91-7 - PubMed
  4. Radiother Oncol. 2008 Feb;86(2):258-63 - PubMed
  5. Radiother Oncol. 2000 Jan;54(1):65-72 - PubMed
  6. Radiat Meas. 2017 Nov;106:412-415 - PubMed
  7. Med Phys. 1999 Sep;26(9):1847-70 - PubMed
  8. Med Phys. 2014 Mar;41(3):032102 - PubMed
  9. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Mar 20;105(6):387-93 - PubMed
  10. Phys Med Biol. 1992 Feb;37(2):445-61 - PubMed
  11. Radiother Oncol. 2014 Jun;111(3):327-9 - PubMed
  12. Radiat Oncol. 2016 Dec 15;11(1):160 - PubMed
  13. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun 20;28(18):2996-3001 - PubMed
  14. Radiother Oncol. 2008 Feb;86(2):195-9 - PubMed
  15. Med Phys. 1992 Nov-Dec;19(6):1427-33 - PubMed
  16. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2003 Spring;4(2):102-11 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support