Diseño y resultados de la encuesta sobre control de calidad de aceleradores lineales

Miguel Martínez Albaladejo; Manuel Vilches Pacheco; Pedro Almendral Manzano; Eva Ambroa Rey; Carlos Luis Ferrer Gracia; Jaime Pérez-Alija Fernández; Ricardo Tortosa Oliver; Françoise Lliso Valverde

doi:10.37004/sefm/2023.24.1.005

Authors

Miguel Martínez Albaladejo Servicio de Radiofísica. Hospital General Universitario Santa Lucía, Cartagena. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7882-0792
Manuel Vilches Pacheco Servicio de Radiofísica y Protección Radiológica, Centro Médico de Asturias https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5952-8430
Pedro Almendral Manzano Servicio de Radiofísica. Hospital Universitario de Badajoz, Badajoz https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7728-8492
Eva Ambroa Rey Unidad de Radiofísica. Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa (CST), Terrassa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2921-3603
Carlos Luis Ferrer Gracia Servicio de Radiofísica. Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2837-5210
Jaime Pérez-Alija Fernández Servei de Radiofísica. Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0584-6318
Ricardo Tortosa Oliver 7. Servicio de Radiofísica. Hospital IMED, Elche https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5074-4181
Françoise Lliso Valverde 8. Unidad de Radiofísica, Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica. Hospital Universitari i Politecnic La Fe, Valencia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0832-7035

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37004/sefm/2023.24.1.005

Keywords:

Radiotherapy, linear accelerator, quality control, national survey

Abstract

In March 2021, the Spanish Society of Medical Physics task group on quality control of accelerators sent an online survey to the medical physics services and units regarding some aspects related to the purpose of their work. The survey was created with three objectives: to weigh the variability in the quality control plans, to establish the degree of adherence to national and international recommendations and to tune the task group criteria with those of the medical physics services and units in our field.

The survey results show great variability of criteria in all aspects and tests and confirm the difficulty of establishing a quality plan for this equipment that responds to the prioritization objectives and is applicable to all the existing circumstances within our field.

A quality control program should be established based on an objective analysis of the failure modes which enables the decision of which tests to include, establishing the necessary resources and optimizing their use. The development of a recommendation generally applicable is not easy, especially if we take into account the existing variety of equipment, instruments and therapeutic techniques developed.

References

Pinza C, Lliso F. Control de Calidad En Aceleradores Linealesde Uso Clínico. 2009.

Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al. Task group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys. 2009;36(9):4197-4212. doi:10.1118/1.3190392

Kirkby C, Ghasroddashti E, Angers CP, Zeng G, Barnett E. COMP report: CPQR technical quality control guideline for medical linear accelerators and multileaf collimators. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(2):22-28. doi:10.1002/acm2.12236

Patel I. Physics Aspects of Quality Control in Radiotherapy Report 81. In: IPEM Report 81, 2nd Edition. ; 2018.

Mans A, Schuring D, Arends MP, et al. The NCS code of practice for the quality assurance and control for volumetric modulated arc therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(19):7221-7235. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/61/19/7221

Smith K, Balter P, Duhon J, et al. AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.a.: Linear accelerator performance

tests. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(4):23-39. doi:10.1002/acm2.12080

Ford EC, Gaudette R, Myers L, et al. Evaluation of Safety in a Radiation Oncology Setting Using Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(3):852-858. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.10.038

Masini L, Donis L, Loi G, et al. Application of failure mode and effects analysis to intracranial stereotactic radiation surgery by linear accelerator. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014;4(6):392-397. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2014.01.006

Jaros D, Kolarevic G, Paraskevopoulou C, Katsari K. [P274] A failure mode and effect analysis of deep inspiration breathhold for left-sided breast cancer radiation therapy. Phys Med. 2018;52(2018):178-179. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.06.551

Teo PT, Hwang MS, Shields W (Gary), et al. Application of TG-100 risk analysis methods to the acceptance testing and commissioning process of a Halcyon linear accelerator. Med Phys. 2019;46(3):1341-1354. doi:10.1002/mp.13378

Huq MS, Fraass BA, Dunscombe PB, et al. The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management. Med Phys. 2016;43(7):4209-4262. doi:10.1118/1.4947547

O’Daniel JC, Yin FF. Quantitative Approach to Failure Mode and Effect Analysis for Linear Accelerator Quality Assurance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(1):56-62. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.035

Bonfantini F, Giandini T, Meroni S, et al. Application of failure mode and effects analysis to optimization of linac quality controls protocol. Med Phys. 2019;46(6):2541-2555. doi:10.1002/mp.13538

Ochi Y, Saito A, Kawahara D, et al. A novel risk analysis of clinical reference dosimetry based on failure modes and

effects analysis. Phys Med. 2019;58:59-65. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.01.014

Das IJ, Cheng CW, Watts RJ, et al. Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: Report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM. Med Phys. 2008;35(9):4186-4215. doi:10.1118/1.2969070

Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, et al. AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys. 1999;26(9):1847-1870. doi:10.1118/1.598691