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
Practice Guideline
. 2017 Jul;18(4):23-39.
doi: 10.1002/acm2.12080. Epub 2017 May 26.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.a.: Linear accelerator performance tests

Koren Smith  1 , Peter Balter  2 , John Duhon  3 , Gerald A White Jr  4 , David L Vassy Jr  5 , Robin A Miller  6 , Christopher F Serago  7 , Lynne A Fairobent  8
Affiliations
Practice Guideline

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.a.: Linear accelerator performance tests

Koren Smith et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Jul.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a list of critical performance tests in order to assist the Qualified Medical Physicist (QMP) in establishing and maintaining a safe and effective quality assurance (QA) program. The performance tests on a linear accelerator (linac) should be selected to fit the clinical patterns of use of the accelerator and care should be given to perform tests which are relevant to detecting errors related to the specific use of the accelerator.

Methods: A risk assessment was performed on tests from current task group reports on linac QA to highlight those tests that are most effective at maintaining safety and quality for the patient. Recommendations are made on the acquisition of reference or baseline data, the establishment of machine isocenter on a routine basis, basing performance tests on clinical use of the linac, working with vendors to establish QA tests and performing tests after maintenance.

Results: The recommended tests proposed in this guideline were chosen based on the results from the risk analysis and the consensus of the guideline's committee. The tests are grouped together by class of test (e.g., dosimetry, mechanical, etc.) and clinical parameter tested. Implementation notes are included for each test so that the QMP can understand the overall goal of each test.

Conclusion: This guideline will assist the QMP in developing a comprehensive QA program for linacs in the external beam radiation therapy setting. The committee sought to prioritize tests by their implication on quality and patient safety. The QMP is ultimately responsible for implementing appropriate tests. In the spirit of the report from American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100, individual institutions are encouraged to analyze the risks involved in their own clinical practice and determine which performance tests are relevant in their own radiotherapy clinics.

Keywords: quality assurance.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Svensson GK, Baily NA, Loevinger R, et al. Physical Aspects of Quality Assurance in Radiation Therapy, AAPM Task Group 24. American Institute of Physics; 1984.
    1. Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M, et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys. 1994;21:581–618. - PubMed
    1. Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys. 2009;36:4197–4212. - PubMed
    1. Fontenot JD, Alkhatib H, Garrett JA, et al. AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 2.a: commissioning and quality assurance of X‐ray—based image‐guided radiotherapy systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15:3–13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bissonnette J, Balter PA, Dong L, et al. Quality assurance for image‐guided radiation therapy utilizing CT‐based technologies: a report of the AAPM TG‐179. Med Phys. 2012;39:1946–1963. - PubMed

Publication types