Managing TG-51 reference dosimetry in a large hospital network can be a challenging task. The objectives of this study are to investigate the effectiveness of using Statistical Process Control (SPC) to manage TG-51 workflow in such a network. All the sites in the network performed the annual reference dosimetry in water according to TG-51. These data were used to cross-calibrate the same ion chambers in plastic phantoms for monthly QA output measurements. An energy-specific dimensionless beam quality cross-calibration factor, , was derived to monitor the process across multiple sites. The SPC analysis was then performed to obtain the mean, , standard deviation, σk, the Upper Control Limit (UCL) and Lower Control Limit (LCL) in each beam. This process was first applied to 15 years of historical data at the main campus to assess the effectiveness of the process. A two-year prospective study including all 30 linear accelerators spread over the main campus and seven satellites in the network followed. The ranges of the control limits (±3σ) were found to be in the range of 1.7% - 2.6% and 3.3% - 4.2% for the main campus and the satellite sites respectively. The wider range in the satellite sites was attributed to variations in the workflow. Standardization of workflow was also found to be effective in narrowing the control limits. The SPC is effective in identifying variations in the workflow and was shown to be an effective tool in managing large network reference dosimetry.
References
[1]
Klein, E.E., Hanley, J., Bayouth, J., et al. (2009) Task Group 142 Report: Quality Assurance of Medical Accelerators. Medical Physics, 36, 4197-4212.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3190392
[2]
Almond, P.R., Biggs, P.J., Coursey, B.M., et al. (1999) AAPM’s TG-51 Protocol for Clinical Reference Dosimetry of High-Energy Photon and Electron Beams. Medical Physics, 26, 1847-1870. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598691
[3]
Smith, K., Balter, P., Duhon, J., et al. (2017) AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.a.: Linear Accelerator Performance Tests. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 18, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12080
[4]
Paul, J.M., Koch, R.F. and Philip, P.C. (1985) AAPM Task Group 21 protocol: Dosimetric Evaluation. Medical Physics, 12, 424-430. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.595704
[5]
McEwen, M., DeWerd, L., Ibbott, G., et al. (2014) Addendum to the AAPM’s TG-51 Protocol for Clinical Reference Dosimetry of High-Energy Photon Beams. Medical Physics, 41, Article ID: 041501. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4866223
[6]
Eclipse Beam Data (2009) Varian Medical Systems.
https://www.myvarian.com/s/?lang=en
[7]
Chang, Z., Wu, Q., Adamson, J., et al. (2012) Commissioning and Dosimetric Characteristics of TrueBeam System: Composite Data of Three TrueBeam Machines. Medical Physics, 39, 6981-7018. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4762682
[8]
Alvarez, P., Kry, S.F., Stingo, F. and Followill, D. (2017) TLD and OSLD Dosimetry Systems for Remote Audits of Radiotherapy External Beam Calibration. Radiation Measurements, 106, 412-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2017.01.005
[9]
Huq, M.S., Fraass, B.A., Dunscombe, P.B., et al. (2016) The Report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of Risk Analysis Methods to Radiation Therapy Quality Management. Medical Physics, 43, 4209-4262.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4947547
[10]
Montgomery, D.C. (2004) Intro to Statistical Quality Control 5th Edition with Minitab Student Release 14 Set. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
[11]
Shewhart, W.A. (1931) Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product. D. Van Nostrand Company, Incorporated.
[12]
Kovalchuk, N. and Xing, L. (2018) Machine Learning Applications in Medical Dosimetry. In: Chan, M., Ed., Recent Advancements and Applications in Dosimetry, Nova Science Publishers, New York, 331-349.
[13]
Pawlicki, T., Whitaker, M. and Boyer, A.L. (2005) Statistical Process Control for Radiotherapy Quality Assurance. Medical Physics, 32, 2777-2786.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2001209
[14]
Breen, S.L., Moseley, D.J., Zhang, B.B. and Sharpe, M.B. (2008) Statistical Process Control for IMRT Dosimetric Verification. Medical Physics, 35, 4417-4425.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2975144
[15]
Sanghangthum, T., Suriyapee, S., Srisatit, S. and Pawlicki, T. (2013) Statistical Process Control Analysis for Patient-Specific IMRT and VMAT QA. Journal of Radiation Research, 54, 546-552. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrs112
[16]
Fuangrod, T., Greer, P.B., Woodruff, H.C., et al. (2016) Investigation of a Real-Time EPID-Based Patient Dose Monitoring Safety System Using Site-Specific Control Limits. Radiation Oncology, 11, Article No. 106.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-016-0682-y
[17]
Puyati, W., Khawne, A., Barnes, M., Zwan, B., Greer, P. and Fuangrod, T. (2020) Predictive Quality Assurance of a Linear Accelerator Based on the Machine Performance Check Application Using Statistical Process Control and ARIMA Forecast Modeling. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 21, 73-82.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12917
[18]
Dosimetry of Small Static Fields Used in External Beam Radiotherapy (2017) International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
[19]
Mohan, R., Chui, C.-S., Fontenla, D., Han, K. and Ballon, D. (1988) The Effect of Angular Spread on the Intensity Distribution of Arbitrarily Shaped Electron Beams. Medical Physics, 15, 204-210. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.596252
[20]
Bland, M. (2000) An Introduction to Medical Statistics. 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[21]
Chan, M.F., Li, Q., Tang, X., et al. (2015) Visual Analysis of the Daily QA Results of Photon and Electron Beams of a Trilogy Linac over a Five-year Period. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 4, 290-299.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2015.44035
![\"\"](\"Edit_6bfb9907-c034-4197-97a7-e8337a7fc21a.png\")
, was derived to monitor the process across multiple sites. The SPC analysis was then performed to obtain the mean, ![\"\"](\"Edit_c630a2dd-f714-4042-a46e-da0ca863cb41.png\")
, standard deviation, 
