Yongsook C. Lee, William Romaguera, Stephen D. Davis, D Jay Wieczorek, Vibha Chaswal, Ranjini Tolakanahalli, Minesh P. Mehta, Noah S. Kalman, Alonso N. Gutierrez
{"title":"初步三年半的机器性能评估浅表放射治疗单位","authors":"Yongsook C. Lee, William Romaguera, Stephen D. Davis, D Jay Wieczorek, Vibha Chaswal, Ranjini Tolakanahalli, Minesh P. Mehta, Noah S. Kalman, Alonso N. Gutierrez","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>This work reports on results of periodic machine quality assurance (QA) tests for our superficial radiation therapy (SRT) unit (SRT-100 Vision) performed for the first three- and half- year.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Results of machine warm-up, dosimetry, mechanical, safety and imaging QA tests for our SRT-100 Vision unit were reviewed and analyzed. Dosimetry tests included output constancy, backup timer, timer accuracy, beam quality (half value layer [HVL]), applicator factors (AFs), absolute output calibration, output constancy with varying x-ray tube head rotation, output reproducibility, output linearity, timer and end-effect error, percent depth dose (PDD) verification and congruence between radiation field and applicator size. Mechanical tests encompassed unit stability as well as applicator integrity and indicators. Safety tests consisted of visual and audio monitors, beam-on indicator, interlocks, and energy/filter indicators. Imaging tests for ultrasound covered functional check, spatial integrity, and image quality check. The QA tests were performed for three kilovoltage (kV) x-ray energies (50, 70, and 100 kV<sub>p</sub>) and six applicators (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 cm in diameter).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Daily mandatory machine warm-up was successfully completed on each day of treatment. The results of all dosimetry tests for three energies were within the recommended tolerance. Daily, and monthly outputs and annual absolute outputs were < ± 3.0%, < ± 2.0%, and < ± 1.3%, respectively. Backup timer displayed timer set ± 0.0%. Timer accuracy was < ± 1.0 sec. HVLs and AFs were < ± 1.1% and < ± 0.3%, respectively. Outputs for different head angles were < ± 1.0% and output reproducibility was within 0.1%. Output linearity was < ± 0.6% and end-effect errors were < ± 0.0006 min. PDDs were < ± 2.2%. Congruence was < ± 0.5 mm. Monthly mechanical tests confirmed mechanical robustness of our unit. Daily safety features were verified to be functional each day. Monthly imaging tests for ultrasound showed good functionality, image quality, and spatial integrity meeting the set tolerance.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The QA results demonstrated high performance and stability of our SRT-100 Vision unit over the first three and a half years of operation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70258","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Initial three- and half-year machine performance assessment of a superficial radiation therapy unit\",\"authors\":\"Yongsook C. Lee, William Romaguera, Stephen D. Davis, D Jay Wieczorek, Vibha Chaswal, Ranjini Tolakanahalli, Minesh P. Mehta, Noah S. Kalman, Alonso N. Gutierrez\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.70258\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>This work reports on results of periodic machine quality assurance (QA) tests for our superficial radiation therapy (SRT) unit (SRT-100 Vision) performed for the first three- and half- year.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Results of machine warm-up, dosimetry, mechanical, safety and imaging QA tests for our SRT-100 Vision unit were reviewed and analyzed. Dosimetry tests included output constancy, backup timer, timer accuracy, beam quality (half value layer [HVL]), applicator factors (AFs), absolute output calibration, output constancy with varying x-ray tube head rotation, output reproducibility, output linearity, timer and end-effect error, percent depth dose (PDD) verification and congruence between radiation field and applicator size. Mechanical tests encompassed unit stability as well as applicator integrity and indicators. Safety tests consisted of visual and audio monitors, beam-on indicator, interlocks, and energy/filter indicators. Imaging tests for ultrasound covered functional check, spatial integrity, and image quality check. The QA tests were performed for three kilovoltage (kV) x-ray energies (50, 70, and 100 kV<sub>p</sub>) and six applicators (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 cm in diameter).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Daily mandatory machine warm-up was successfully completed on each day of treatment. The results of all dosimetry tests for three energies were within the recommended tolerance. Daily, and monthly outputs and annual absolute outputs were < ± 3.0%, < ± 2.0%, and < ± 1.3%, respectively. Backup timer displayed timer set ± 0.0%. Timer accuracy was < ± 1.0 sec. HVLs and AFs were < ± 1.1% and < ± 0.3%, respectively. Outputs for different head angles were < ± 1.0% and output reproducibility was within 0.1%. Output linearity was < ± 0.6% and end-effect errors were < ± 0.0006 min. PDDs were < ± 2.2%. Congruence was < ± 0.5 mm. Monthly mechanical tests confirmed mechanical robustness of our unit. Daily safety features were verified to be functional each day. Monthly imaging tests for ultrasound showed good functionality, image quality, and spatial integrity meeting the set tolerance.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The QA results demonstrated high performance and stability of our SRT-100 Vision unit over the first three and a half years of operation.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70258\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70258\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70258","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Initial three- and half-year machine performance assessment of a superficial radiation therapy unit
Purpose
This work reports on results of periodic machine quality assurance (QA) tests for our superficial radiation therapy (SRT) unit (SRT-100 Vision) performed for the first three- and half- year.
Methods
Results of machine warm-up, dosimetry, mechanical, safety and imaging QA tests for our SRT-100 Vision unit were reviewed and analyzed. Dosimetry tests included output constancy, backup timer, timer accuracy, beam quality (half value layer [HVL]), applicator factors (AFs), absolute output calibration, output constancy with varying x-ray tube head rotation, output reproducibility, output linearity, timer and end-effect error, percent depth dose (PDD) verification and congruence between radiation field and applicator size. Mechanical tests encompassed unit stability as well as applicator integrity and indicators. Safety tests consisted of visual and audio monitors, beam-on indicator, interlocks, and energy/filter indicators. Imaging tests for ultrasound covered functional check, spatial integrity, and image quality check. The QA tests were performed for three kilovoltage (kV) x-ray energies (50, 70, and 100 kVp) and six applicators (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 cm in diameter).
Results
Daily mandatory machine warm-up was successfully completed on each day of treatment. The results of all dosimetry tests for three energies were within the recommended tolerance. Daily, and monthly outputs and annual absolute outputs were < ± 3.0%, < ± 2.0%, and < ± 1.3%, respectively. Backup timer displayed timer set ± 0.0%. Timer accuracy was < ± 1.0 sec. HVLs and AFs were < ± 1.1% and < ± 0.3%, respectively. Outputs for different head angles were < ± 1.0% and output reproducibility was within 0.1%. Output linearity was < ± 0.6% and end-effect errors were < ± 0.0006 min. PDDs were < ± 2.2%. Congruence was < ± 0.5 mm. Monthly mechanical tests confirmed mechanical robustness of our unit. Daily safety features were verified to be functional each day. Monthly imaging tests for ultrasound showed good functionality, image quality, and spatial integrity meeting the set tolerance.
Conclusions
The QA results demonstrated high performance and stability of our SRT-100 Vision unit over the first three and a half years of operation.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
