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
. 2012 Nov;85(1019):e1067-73.
doi: 10.1259/bjr/46195110. Epub 2012 Jun 6.

A survey of the practice and management of radiotherapy linear accelerator quality control in the UK

A Palmer  1 , J Kearton, O Hayman
Affiliations

A survey of the practice and management of radiotherapy linear accelerator quality control in the UK

A Palmer et al. Br J Radiol. 2012 Nov.

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine current radiotherapy linear accelerator quality control (QC) practice in the UK, as a comparative benchmark and indicator of development needs, and to raise awareness of QC as a key performance indicator.

Methods: All UK radiotherapy centres were invited to complete an online questionnaire regarding their local QC processes, and submit their QC schedules. The range of QC tests, frequency of measurements and acceptable tolerances in use across the UK were analysed, and consensus and range statistics determined.

Results: 72% of the UK's 62 radiotherapy centres completed the questionnaire and 40% provided their QC schedules. 60 separate QC tests were identified from the returned schedules. There was a large variation in the total time devoted to QC between centres: interquartile range from 13 to 26 h per linear accelerator per month. There has been a move from weekly to monthly testing of output calibration in the last decade, with reliance on daily constancy testing equipment. 33% of centres thought their schedules were in need of an update and only 30% used risk-assessment approaches to determine local QC schedule content. Less than 30% of centres regularly complete all planned QC tests each month, although 96% achieve over 80% of tests.

Conclusions: A comprehensive "snapshot" of linear accelerator QC testing practice in the UK has been collated, which demonstrates reasonable agreement between centres in their stated QC test frequencies. However, intelligent design of QC schedules and management is necessary to ensure efficiency and appropriateness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
“Word cloud” diagram of primary influences determining UK radiotherapy centres' QC schedules for linear accelerators (font size proportional to number of citations) [3,8,15-21].
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Thomadsen B. Critique of traditional quality assurance paradigm. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 2008;71:S166–9 - PubMed
    1. Kapanen M, Bly R, Sipila P, Jarvinen H, Tenhunen M. How can a cost/benefit ratio be optimized for an output measurement program of external photon radiotherapy beams? Phys Med Biol 2011;56:2119–30 - PubMed
    1. McKenzie A, Briggs G, Buchanan R, Harvey L, Iles A, Kirby M, et al. Balancing costs and benefits of checking in radiotherapy. Report no. 92. York, UK: IPEM; 2006
    1. Blache L, Robbins P, Brown S, Jones P, Liu T, LeFever J. Risk management and its application to medical device management. Report no. 95. York, UK: IPEM; 2008
    1. Ishikura S. Quality assurance of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: toward improvement of patient safety and quality of care. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008;38:723–9 - PubMed