Table 2.

The worst δ values and the main possible sources of errors encountered during regulatory audits in therapeutic beam dosimetry from 1995 to 2007.

Case No.	Equipment	Year	Percent Deviation	Sources of Errors
1	Co‐60	1996	13.4	No check source used
2	Co‐60	1996	$-12.5$	No check source used
3	Co‐60	1996	12.4	No barometer used
4	Co‐60	1996	$-22.3$	Misuse of dosimetry protocol
5	Co‐60	1996	$-18.7$	Misuse of dosimetry protocol
6	Co‐60	1996	$-16.2$	Misuse of dosimetry protocol
7	LINAC 6 MV	1997	$-19.0$	Physicist not properly trained
8	LINAC 6 MV	1997	16.3	Wrong factors applied to dose calculation
9	LINAC 6 MV	1997	$-11.6$	Physicist not properly trained
10	Co‐60	1997	$-15.5$	Wrong factors applied to dose calculation
11	Co‐60	1997	14.0	Uncalibrated dosimeter
12	Co‐60	1998	11.0	No check source used
13	LINAC 6 MV	1998	$-16.0$	Uncalibrated dosimeter
14	Co‐60	1998	13.0	Uncalibrated dosimeter
15	LINAC 6 MV	1999	$-23.4$	Wrong factors applied to dose calculation
16	LINAC 4 MV	2001	$-10.6$	No check source used
17	LINAC 4 MV	2001	$-10.7$	No check source used
18	Co‐60	2001	10.0	Physicist not properly trained
19	Co‐60	2002	13.0	Uncalibrated dosimeter
20	LINAC 4 MV	2004	15.2	Physicist not properly trained
21	LINAC 10 MV	2004	$-10.2$	Wrong factors applied to dose calculation
22	LINAC 6 MV	2004	18.6	Wrong factors applied to dose calculation
23	LINAC 6 MV	2005	$-15.0$	Uncalibrated dosimeter
24	LINAC 6 MV	2005	$-10.1$	Physicist not properly trained
25	Co‐60	2005	$-16.2$	Wrong factors applied to dose calculation
26	Co‐60	2005	12.3	No check source used
27	LINAC 10 MV	2005	16.4	No check source used
28	LINAC 15 MV	2005	19.7	No check source used
29	LINAC 6 MV	2005	$-14.4$	Uncalibrated dosimeter
30	LINAC 6 MV	2006	$-15.0$	Uncalibrated dosimeter