Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 89, Issue 3 , Pages 330-337, December 2008

Moving from IMRT QA measurements toward independent computer calculations using control charts

  • Todd Pawlicki

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, UC San Diego, CA, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Todd Pawlicki, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Diego, 3855 Health Sciences Dr. #0843, La Jolla, CA 92093-0843, USA.
  • ,
  • Sua Yoo

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, NC, USA
  • ,
  • Laurence E. Court

      Affiliations

    • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham & Women’s Hospital, MA, USA
  • ,
  • Sharon K. McMillan

      Affiliations

    • Radiation Oncology Department, Decatur Memorial Hospital, IL, USA
  • ,
  • Roger K. Rice

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, UC San Diego, CA, USA
  • ,
  • J. Donald Russell

      Affiliations

    • Community Cancer Center, OR, USA
  • ,
  • John M. Pacyniak

      Affiliations

    • Hulston Cancer Center, Cox Health Systems, MO, USA
  • ,
  • Milton K. Woo

      Affiliations

    • Medical Physics Department, Odette Cancer Centre, Ont., Canada
  • ,
  • Parminder S. Basran

      Affiliations

    • Medical Physics Department, Odette Cancer Centre, Ont., Canada
  • ,
  • Jason Shoales

      Affiliations

    • Scott & White Memorial Hospital, TX, USA
  • ,
  • Arthur L. Boyer

      Affiliations

    • Scott & White Memorial Hospital, TX, USA

Received 5 May 2008; received in revised form 27 June 2008; accepted 6 July 2008. published online 13 August 2008.

Abstract 

Background and purpose

In this study, we investigated IMRT QA using Statistical Process Control for the purpose of comparing the processes of patient-specific measurements and the corresponding independent computer calculations.

Materials and methods

Point dose data from the treatment planning system (TPS), independent computer calculations, and physical measurements for prostate and head and neck cases were studied. Control charts were used to analyze the IMRT QA processes from several institutions in the academic and community setting. Control charts are a method to describe the performance of a process. The width of the control chart limits (or action limits) describes the process’ ability to meet clinical specifications of ±5%. In all, 24 process comparisons were made (12 measurement QA and 12 independent computer calculation QA).

Results

For head and neck IMRT QA, the average process ability for the measurement QA was ±6.9% compared to ±7.2% for the independent computer calculation QA. For prostate IMRT QA, the average process ability was 4.4% for both measurement QA and independent computer calculation QA. It was found that 11 of the 24 processes were in control. At none of the institutions were the processes of measurements and independent computer calculations both in control and performing within clinical specifications.

Conclusion

There is room to improve the processes of IMRT QA measurements and independent computer calculations. In situations where the improvement of the processes is such that each is in control and well within clinical specifications, it may be appropriate to suspend patient-specific IMRT QA measurements for every patient in the place of independent computer calculations.

Keywords: Statistical Process Control, Control charts, IMRT QA, Independent computer calculation

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0167-8140(08)00369-1

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2008.07.002

Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 89, Issue 3 , Pages 330-337, December 2008