Cargando…
A survey of quality control practices for high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy in the United Kingdom
PURPOSE: A survey of quality control (QC) currently undertaken in UK radiotherapy centres for high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy has been conducted. The purpose was to benchmark current accepted practice of tests, frequencies and tolerances to assure acceptable HDR/PDR equ...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Termedia Publishing House
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3561606/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23378853 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2012.32558 |
_version_ | 1782257987587407872 |
---|---|
author | Palmer, Antony L Bidmead, Margaret Nisbet, Andrew |
author_facet | Palmer, Antony L Bidmead, Margaret Nisbet, Andrew |
author_sort | Palmer, Antony L |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: A survey of quality control (QC) currently undertaken in UK radiotherapy centres for high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy has been conducted. The purpose was to benchmark current accepted practice of tests, frequencies and tolerances to assure acceptable HDR/PDR equipment performance. It is 20 years since a similar survey was conducted in the UK and the current review is timed to coincide with a revision of the IPEM Report 81 guidelines for quality control in radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All radiotherapy centres in the UK were invited by email to complete a comprehensive questionnaire on their current brachytherapy QC practice, including: equipment type, patient workload, source calibration method, level of image guidance for planning, prescribing practices, QC tests, method used, staff involved, test frequencies, and acceptable tolerance limits. RESULTS: Survey data was acquired between June and August 2012. Of the 64 centres invited, 47 (73%) responded, with 31 centres having brachytherapy equipment (3 PDR) and fully completing the survey, 13 reporting no HDR/PDR brachytherapy, and 3 intending to commence HDR brachytherapy in the near future. All centres had comprehensive QC schedules in place and there was general agreement on key test frequencies and tolerances. Greatest discord was whether source strength for treatment planning should be derived from measurement, as at 58% of centres, or from the certified value, at 42%. IPEM Report 81 continues to be the most frequently cited source of QC guidance, followed by ESTRO Booklet No. 8. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive survey of QC practices for HDR/PDR brachytherapy in UK has been conducted. This is a useful reference to which centres may benchmark their own practice. However, individuals should take a risk-assessment based approach, employing full knowledge of local equipment, clinical procedures and available test equipment in order to determine individual QC needs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3561606 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Termedia Publishing House |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35616062013-02-01 A survey of quality control practices for high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy in the United Kingdom Palmer, Antony L Bidmead, Margaret Nisbet, Andrew J Contemp Brachytherapy Original Paper PURPOSE: A survey of quality control (QC) currently undertaken in UK radiotherapy centres for high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy has been conducted. The purpose was to benchmark current accepted practice of tests, frequencies and tolerances to assure acceptable HDR/PDR equipment performance. It is 20 years since a similar survey was conducted in the UK and the current review is timed to coincide with a revision of the IPEM Report 81 guidelines for quality control in radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All radiotherapy centres in the UK were invited by email to complete a comprehensive questionnaire on their current brachytherapy QC practice, including: equipment type, patient workload, source calibration method, level of image guidance for planning, prescribing practices, QC tests, method used, staff involved, test frequencies, and acceptable tolerance limits. RESULTS: Survey data was acquired between June and August 2012. Of the 64 centres invited, 47 (73%) responded, with 31 centres having brachytherapy equipment (3 PDR) and fully completing the survey, 13 reporting no HDR/PDR brachytherapy, and 3 intending to commence HDR brachytherapy in the near future. All centres had comprehensive QC schedules in place and there was general agreement on key test frequencies and tolerances. Greatest discord was whether source strength for treatment planning should be derived from measurement, as at 58% of centres, or from the certified value, at 42%. IPEM Report 81 continues to be the most frequently cited source of QC guidance, followed by ESTRO Booklet No. 8. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive survey of QC practices for HDR/PDR brachytherapy in UK has been conducted. This is a useful reference to which centres may benchmark their own practice. However, individuals should take a risk-assessment based approach, employing full knowledge of local equipment, clinical procedures and available test equipment in order to determine individual QC needs. Termedia Publishing House 2012-12-28 2012-12 /pmc/articles/PMC3561606/ /pubmed/23378853 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2012.32558 Text en Copyright © 2012 Termedia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Palmer, Antony L Bidmead, Margaret Nisbet, Andrew A survey of quality control practices for high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy in the United Kingdom |
title | A survey of quality control practices for high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy in the United Kingdom |
title_full | A survey of quality control practices for high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy in the United Kingdom |
title_fullStr | A survey of quality control practices for high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy in the United Kingdom |
title_full_unstemmed | A survey of quality control practices for high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy in the United Kingdom |
title_short | A survey of quality control practices for high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy in the United Kingdom |
title_sort | survey of quality control practices for high dose rate (hdr) and pulsed dose rate (pdr) brachytherapy in the united kingdom |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3561606/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23378853 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2012.32558 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT palmerantonyl asurveyofqualitycontrolpracticesforhighdoseratehdrandpulseddoseratepdrbrachytherapyintheunitedkingdom AT bidmeadmargaret asurveyofqualitycontrolpracticesforhighdoseratehdrandpulseddoseratepdrbrachytherapyintheunitedkingdom AT nisbetandrew asurveyofqualitycontrolpracticesforhighdoseratehdrandpulseddoseratepdrbrachytherapyintheunitedkingdom AT palmerantonyl surveyofqualitycontrolpracticesforhighdoseratehdrandpulseddoseratepdrbrachytherapyintheunitedkingdom AT bidmeadmargaret surveyofqualitycontrolpracticesforhighdoseratehdrandpulseddoseratepdrbrachytherapyintheunitedkingdom AT nisbetandrew surveyofqualitycontrolpracticesforhighdoseratehdrandpulseddoseratepdrbrachytherapyintheunitedkingdom |