Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2008;71(1 Suppl):S98-S102.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.089.

QA issues for computer-controlled treatment delivery: this is not your old R/V system any more!

Benedick A Fraass  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

QA issues for computer-controlled treatment delivery: this is not your old R/V system any more!

Benedick A Fraass. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008.

Abstract

State-of-the-art radiotherapy treatment delivery has changed dramatically during the past decade, moving from manual individual field setup and treatment to automated computer-controlled delivery of complex treatments, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy and other similarly complex delivery strategies. However, the quality assurance methods typically used to ensure treatment is performed precisely and correctly have not evolved in a similarly dramatic way. This paper reviews the old manual treatment process and use of record-and-verify systems, and describes differences with modern computer-controlled treatment delivery. The process and technology used for computer-controlled treatment delivery are analyzed in terms of potential (and actual) problems, as well as relevant published guidance on quality assurance. The potential for improved quality assurance for computer-controlled delivery is discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Statement: The author is an investigator in a research agreement between the University of Michigan and Varian Oncology Systems.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic of the computer-controlled treatment delivery process.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Output from the CCRS system QA review software illustrating planned parameters, normally completed treatments, and noting an exception detected by review software (inset).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Collaborative Working Group. Boyer AL, Butler EB, DiPetrillo TA, Engler M, Fraass BA, et al. Intensity modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51:880–914. - PubMed
    1. Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M, Hanson WF, Leibel S, Morton RJ, Palta JR, Purdy JA, Reinstein LE, Svensson GK, et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys. 1994;21:581–618. - PubMed
    1. Kartha PK, Chung-Bin A, Wachtor T, Hendrickson F. Accuracy of radiotherapy treatment. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys. 1977;2:797–799. - PubMed
    1. Perry H, Mantel J, Lefkofsky M. A programmable calculator to acquire, verify and record radiation treatment parameters from a linear accelerator. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys. 1976;1:1023–1026. - PubMed
    1. Rosenbloom ME, Killick LJ, Bentley RE. Verification and recording of radiotherapy treatments using a small computer. Br J Radiol. 1977;50:637–644. - PubMed

Publication types