Table 3.

Sample comments and responses from community review of the MLA TQC guideline. Test acronyms are indicated in parentheses

Comment from Community	Response from Expert Reviewers
Test DL7 (Room Radiation Monitors): We only have one radiation monitor in our treatment room. Should it be “Room radiation monitor” (no “s”)?	Action taken: Test descriptor was changed to ‘Radiation monitoring system’.
When looking at positioning accuracy, in particular the laser/crosshair daily QC, was any consideration given to the tolerance for IMRT set by TG142 of 1.5 mm?	No action taken: Given that CPQR states both a tolerance and action level (1 and 2 mm, respectively), we consider that the test is reasonably aligned with TG142.
It would appear that there are no open field profile or depth dose measurements in the annual tests but that the profile requirements for the monthly tests have been increased substantially. Is this your intent or is it an omission? TG142 does include annual tests for the change of flatness and symmetry from baseline for example. I am also not confident enough in our monthly profile measurement techniques to make significant beam adjustments based solely on these measurements and would thus continue to do annual measurements in a water tank.	Action taken: Test AL1 (Profile reproducibility) and AL2 (Depth dose reproducibility:) have been added to specifically describe water‐tank scanning or an acceptable surrogate on an annual basis. The monthly testing of PDD and profile is meant to be a simple point measurement check, whereas the annual test establishes complete and consistent curves.
Test ML16 (Light/radiation coincidence): To my mind, the tolerance and action levels are too large. It should be 1 and 2 mm.	No action taken: These limits were discussed extensively at the COMP Winter School and the consensus was that 2 and 3 mm were acceptable.