• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.98-106
• /
• 2007

In June 2005, Yonsei University Medical Center, Severance Hospital upgraded a full-PACS system by adding twenty (5 mega pixels) Totoku ME511L flat panel LCD display devices for diagnostic interpretation purposes. Here we report upon the quantitative (or visual) acceptance testing of the twenty Totoku ME511L display devices for reflection, luminance response, luminance spatial dependency, resolution, noise, veiling glare, and display chromaticity based on AAPM TG 18 report. The tools used in the tests included a telescopic photometer, which was used as a colorimeter, illuminance meter, light sources for reflection assessment, light-blocking devices, and digital TG18 test patterns. For selected 8 flat panel displays, mean diffuse reflection coefficient ($R_d$) was $0.019{\pm}0.02sr^{-1}$. In the luminance response test, luminance ratio (LR), maximum luminance difference ($L_{max}$), and deviation of contrast response were $550{\pm}100,\;2.0{\pm}1.9%\;and\;5.8{\pm}1.8%$, respectively. In the luminance uniformity test, maximum luminance deviation was $14.3{\pm}5.5%$ for the 10% luminance of the TG18-UNL10 test pattern. In the resolution test with luminance measurement method, percent luminance (${\Dalta}L$) at the center was $0.94{\pm}0.64%$. In all cases of noise testing, rectangular target In every square in the three quadrants was visible and all 15 targets except the smallest one in the every corner pattern and the center pattern. The glare ratio (GR) was $12,346{\pm}1,995$. The color uniformity, (u',v'), was $0.0025{\pm}0.0008$. Also, the research results of qualify control guideline of primary disply devices suitable for domestic circumstance are presented All test results are in-line with the criteria recommended by AAPM TG18 report and are thus fully acceptable for diagnostic image interpretation. As a result, the acceptance testing schedule described provides not only an acceptance standard but also guidelines for quality control, optimized viewing conditions, and a means for determining the upgrading time of LCD display devices for diagnostic interpretation.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.112-117
• /
• 2015

In order to establish the quality control on patient safety following the guideline presented by American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) TG-100 committee, we aim to analyze the modes based on errors occurred during treatment of patients at the radiation oncology department at Yeungnam University Hospital and establish a quality control guideline for patient safety when patient-centered radiation treatment is conducted. We aim to analyze the errors that can occur during radiation treatment at the radiation department, and assess the frequency of error, the severity of error affecting patients, and probability of proceeding without noticing error, with scores. The places where errors can take place were divided into CT simulation treatment room, treatment planning room, and treatment room for the analysis. In CT simulation treatment room, an error from using the immobilization device showed the highest Risk Priority Number (RPN) value of 60, and an error from simulation treatment information input showed the lowest of 6. In treatment planning room, an error from selecting the radiation dose calculation model showed the highest RPN value of 168, and an error of patient treatment start date showed the lowest of 36. In treatment room, a Table Bar error showed the highest RPN value of 252, a weight change error showed 190, and a Pillow error showed the lowest of 24.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.267-276
• /
• 1998

Any detector inserted into a phantom should have such a geometry that it caused as small as possible perturbation of the electron fluence. Plane parallel chambers meet this requirement better than other chambers of configurations. IAEA protocol recommends the use of plane parallel chambers for this reason. However, the cylindrical chambers are widely used for convenient. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the absorbed dose due to the differences of four different dosimetry protocols such as IAEA protocol using cylindrical chamber, TG 21 protocol using cylindrical chamber, Markus protocol using plane parallel chamber, and TG 39 report for the calibration of plane parallel chamber in electron beams. Depth-ionization measurements for the electron beams of nominal energy 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 MeV from Siemens accelerator with a 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size were made using a radiation field analyser with 0.125 cc ion chamber. Dosimetric measurements by IAEA and TG 21 protocol were made with a farmer type ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. Dosimetric measurements by Markus protocol were made with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. The cavity-gas calibration factor for the plane parallel chamber was obtained with the use of 18 MeV electron beam as guided by TG 39 report. Dosimetric measurements by TG 39 were performed with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. For all the energies and protocols, measurements were made along the central axis of the distance of 100 cm (SSD = 100 cm) with 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size at the depth of d$_{max}$ for each electron beam, respectively. In the case of 18 MeV, the discrepancy of 0.9 % between IAEA and TG 21 was found and the two protocols were agreed within 0.7 % for other energies. In the case of 18 MeV and 6 MeV, the discrepancies of $\pm$ 0.8 % between Markus and TG 39 was found, respectively and the two protocols were agreed within 0.5 % for other energies. Since the discrepancy of 1.6 % between cylindrical and plane parallel chamber was found for 18 MeV, it is suggested to get the calibration factor using other method as guided. by TG 39.9.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.92-100
• /
• 2018

The manufacturer of a linear accelerator (LINAC) has reported that the target melting phenomenon could be caused by a non-recommended output setting and the excessive use of monitor unit (MU) with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Due to these reasons, we observed an unexpected beam interruption during the treatment of a patient in our institution. The target status was inspected and a replacement of the target was determined. After the target replacement, the beam profile was adjusted to the machine commissioning beam data, and the absolute doses-to-water for 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams were calibrated according to American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group (TG)-51 protocol. To verify the beam data after target replacement, the beam flatness, symmetry, output factor, and percent depth dose (PDD) were measured and compared with the commissioning data. The difference between the referenced and measured data for flatness and symmetry exhibited a coincidence within 0.3% for both 6 MV and 10 MV, and the difference of the PDD at 10 cm depth ($PDD_{10}$) was also within 0.3% for both photon energies. Also, patient-specific quality assurances (QAs) were performed with gamma analysis using a 2-D diode and ion chamber array detector for eight patients. The average gamma passing rates for all patients for the relative dose distribution was $99.1%{\pm}1.0%$, and those for absolute dose distribution was $97.2%{\pm}2.7%$, which means the gamma analysis results were all clinically acceptable. In this study, we recommend that the beam characteristics, such as beam profile, depth dose, and output factors, should be examined. Further, patient-specific QAs should be performed to verify the changes in the overall beam delivery system when a target replacement is inevitable; although it is more important to check the beam output in a daily routine.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.168-177
• /
• 2015

For evaluating the treatment planning accurately, the quality assurance for treatment planning is recommended when patients were treated with IMRT which is complex and delicate. To realize this purpose, treatment plan quality assurance software can be used to verify the delivered dose accurately before and after of treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of treatment plan quality assurance software for each IMRT plan according to MLC DLG (dosimetric leaf gap). Novalis Tx with a built-in HD120 MLC was used in this study to acquire the MLC dynalog file be imported in MobiusFx. To establish IMRT plan, Eclipse RTP system was used and target and organ structures (multi-target, mock prostate, mock head/neck, C-shape case) were contoured in I'mRT phantom. To verify the difference of dose distribution according to DLG, MLC dynalog files were imported to MobiusFx software and changed the DLG (0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.3, 1.6 mm) values in MobiusFx. For evaluation dose, dose distribution was evaluated by using 3D gamma index for the gamma criteria 3% and distance to agreement 3 mm, and the point dose was acquired by using the CC13 ionization chamber in isocenter of I'mRT phantom. In the result for point dose, the mock head/neck and multi-target had difference about 4% and 3% in DLG 0.5 and 0.7 mm respectively, and the other DLGs had difference less than 3%. The gamma index passing-rate of mock head/neck were below 81% for PTV and cord, and multi-target were below 30% for center and superior target in DLGs 0.5, 0.7 mm, however, inferior target of multi-target case and parotid of mock head/neck case had 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. The point dose of mock prostate showed difference below 3.0% in all DLGs, however, the passing rate of PTV were below 95% in 0.5, 0.7 mm DLGs, and the other DLGs were above 98%. The rectum and bladder had 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. As the difference of point dose in C-shape were 3~9% except for 1.3 mm DLG, the passing rate of PTV in 1.0 1.3 mm were 96.7, 93.0% respectively. However, passing rate of the other DLGs were below 86% and core was 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. In this study, we verified that the accuracy of treatment planning QA system can be affected by DLG values. For precise quality assurance for treatment technique using the MLC motion like IMRT and VMAT, we should use appropriate DLG value in linear accelerator and RTP system.