We develop guidelines for the quality assurance of radiation treatment planning systems (TPS) by comparing and reviewing recommendations from major countries and organizations, as well as by analyzing the AAPM, ESTRO, and IAEA TPS quality assurance guidelines. We establish quality assurance items fo...
We develop guidelines for the quality assurance of radiation treatment planning systems (TPS) by comparing and reviewing recommendations from major countries and organizations, as well as by analyzing the AAPM, ESTRO, and IAEA TPS quality assurance guidelines. We establish quality assurance items for acceptance testing, commissioning, periodic testing, system management, and security, and propose methods to perform each item within acceptable standards. Acceptance includes tests of hardware and network environments, data transmission, software, and benchmarking as specified by the system supplier, and apply the IAEA classification criteria. Commissioning includes dosimetric and non-dosimetric items for assessing TPS performance by applying the AAPM classification criteria and the latest technical items from the IAEA. Periodic quality assurance tests include daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, and occasional items by applying the AAPM classification criteria. System management and security items include the state and network connectivity of TPS, periodic data backup, and data access security. The guidelines for TPS quality assurance proposed in this study will help to improve the safety and quality of radiotherapy by preventing incidents related to radiotherapy.
We develop guidelines for the quality assurance of radiation treatment planning systems (TPS) by comparing and reviewing recommendations from major countries and organizations, as well as by analyzing the AAPM, ESTRO, and IAEA TPS quality assurance guidelines. We establish quality assurance items for acceptance testing, commissioning, periodic testing, system management, and security, and propose methods to perform each item within acceptable standards. Acceptance includes tests of hardware and network environments, data transmission, software, and benchmarking as specified by the system supplier, and apply the IAEA classification criteria. Commissioning includes dosimetric and non-dosimetric items for assessing TPS performance by applying the AAPM classification criteria and the latest technical items from the IAEA. Periodic quality assurance tests include daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, and occasional items by applying the AAPM classification criteria. System management and security items include the state and network connectivity of TPS, periodic data backup, and data access security. The guidelines for TPS quality assurance proposed in this study will help to improve the safety and quality of radiotherapy by preventing incidents related to radiotherapy.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
제안 방법
A check is also performed to verify that the field size and table field angle cannot be entered so as to exceed the regulated range of system parameters. Additionally, elements of the apparatus are examined, including the collimator and jaw, shielding block, MLC, automatic field, SAD and SSD, gentry, collimator, treatment table angle, and wedge. Finally, the beam and DRR target values are confirmed to lie within the allowed range.
2g). Evaluations of the PDD and profile in each field, and of the absolute dose above the beam centralaxis, were performed. The buildup region condition was an inhomogeneous compensation condition using a rectangular inhomogeneous model phantom and a mock human phantom, and the dose distribution and abovebeam-center absolute dose according to the field size were evaluated.
The goal of this study was to prepare integrated RTPS QA guidelines by referring to the relevant information for radiation treatment planning systems from developed countries and international organizations, and to deduce them in order to prepare implementation procedures. Guidelines were divided into RTPS acceptance tests and commissioning, periodic quality control, and system management and security, and the QA items and methods such as tolerances were checked.
Implementation of the test was performed under various SSD conditions with a 10×10 cm2 field, and 80-, 100-, 130-cm SSDs, as shown in Fig. 2a.
A periodic QA test checks whether the evaluated system performance and accuracy has been maintained and is reproducible, with respect to the RTPS acceptance test and commissioning during ordinary radiation treatment. Its goal is to check the stability and security of the treatment data files, verify the accuracy and function of peripheral devices used for data entry, check the security of the TPS software and output instruments, and verify software operations and accuracy. Periodic QA tests are performed often—daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly (Table 9), and the data is organized and stored so that changing trends in the results over time can be checked.
Radiation treatment planning and the current state of QA from related foreign organizations were analyzed and organized, from which relevant standards and procedures were prepared. Several quality control items and methods were separated by type, compared, and evaluated. These include the proposed RTPS (radiation treatment planning system) described in “Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning (TG-53)”10) from the AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine), “Commissioning and Quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer”5) from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and “Quality assurance of treatment planning systems.
The RTPS vendor and the CQMP perform an acceptance test using the specifications, along with an inspection of the hardware and related equipment, algorithms, DVH, software, and a check of the system input and output during normal operations. For these items, the AAPM and IAEA propose hardware, software, and benchmarking inspection items.
Currently in Korea, reports from the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission examinations and the Korean Society of Medical Physicists are limited to the QA of radiation treatment items, and while their legal implementation and resulting recommendations are made, standards and procedures for RTP QA systems have not been prepared. The analysis of the current state of foreign QA guidelines in conjunction with the guidelines from this research can be used to establish an approach for RTPS QA, which will enhance radiation safety and improve treatment.
The goal of this study was to prepare integrated RTPS QA guidelines by referring to the relevant information for radiation treatment planning systems from developed countries and international organizations, and to deduce them in order to prepare implementation procedures.
The verification and maintenance of RTPS performance and dose precision and accuracy are necessary for patient and equipment data management. Through this research, the key QA items from international reports by the AAPM, IAEA, and ESTRO on RTP QA are assembled and recommended, confirming that different QA items are recommended by each organization. Currently in Korea, reports from the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission examinations and the Korean Society of Medical Physicists are limited to the QA of radiation treatment items, and while their legal implementation and resulting recommendations are made, standards and procedures for RTP QA systems have not been prepared.
With open square fields of 5×5, 10×10, 20×20, 30×30, 40×40, 5×20, 20×5 cm2 and rectangular-wedge-shaped fields of 5×5, 10×10, 15×15 cm2, the relative and absolute dose distributions were investigated.
Within the incident field, the tissue loss condition was tested in a 20×20 cm2 incident field (Fig. 2d); field conditions included an open off-axis field and wedged off-axis field (Fig. 2e, 2f), and the indeterminate field condition was with respect to the MLC (Fig. 2g).
성능/효과
First, to check the system installation and user environment, server instruments, and majority of the terminal equipment and peripheral devices, the whole system is assessed, and early parameters are determined. Second, to check the transmission and record of patient anatomical data, a phantom is used, wherein CT data is transmitted and its geometric data verified, and a check is made as to whether any problems arose with the CT image-related tools.
Evaluations of the PDD and profile in each field, and of the absolute dose above the beam centralaxis, were performed. The buildup region condition was an inhomogeneous compensation condition using a rectangular inhomogeneous model phantom and a mock human phantom, and the dose distribution and abovebeam-center absolute dose according to the field size were evaluated.
Additionally, apart from the manual operation and CT images, other image modalities such as outline formation functions are verified, and patient data is confirmed to have been correctly entered and used. Third, to check the structural outline, whether by manual or automatic means, the outline functions that use CT images, 3D structure drawing functions, outline formation through interpolation, and automatic margin functions are checked to be within allowed errors. The relativistic electron density is manually set up, and whether or not changes in the density and MU value density reflections occurred for each pixel is checked.
참고문헌 (11)
Whosaeng: Increased radiation therapy in cancer patients (http://m.whosaeng.com/a.html?uid94023).
KEIT. 2017. PD Issue report. Technology trend and industry status of radiation therapy equipment. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology.
WHO. 2008. Radiotherapy risk profile. World Health.
RPOP. Short case histories of major accidental exposure events in radiotherapy (https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/InformationFor/HealthProfessionals/2_Radiotherapy/AccidentPrevention.htm).
IAEA. Technical Reports Series no. 430. Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. 2004; 430.
ESTRO. 2004. Booklet no. 7. Quality assurance of treatment planning systems. Practical examples for non-IMRT photon beams. European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology.
AAPM. 1998. Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53. Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
NSSC. 2015. Notification no. 2015-005. Technological standards for radiation safety of medical field. Nuclear Safety and Security Commission.
KSMP. AAPM Task Group 142 report. Quality assurance of medical accelerators. Korean Society of Medical Physics. 2016;142.
S. Choi, D. Park, K. Kim, et al. Suggestion for Comprehensive Quality Assurance of Medical Linear Accelerator in Korea. Prog. Med. Phys. 2015;26(4):294-303.
J. Venselaar, H. Welleweerd, B. Mijnheer. Tolerances for the accuracy of photon beam dose calculations of treatment planning systems. Radiother. Oncol. 2001;60(2):191-201.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.