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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Palmer, Antony L, Bidmead, Margaret, Nisbet, Andrew
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