Abstract
The Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists (COMP) in close partnership with the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR) has developed a series of Technical Quality Control (TQC) guidelines for radiation treatment equipment. These guidelines outline the performance objectives that equipment should meet in order to ensure an acceptable level of radiation treatment quality. The TQC guidelines have been rigorously reviewed and field tested at various Canadian radiation treatment facilities. The development process enables rapid review and update to keep the guidelines current with changes in technology (the most updated version of this guideline can be found on the CPQR website). This particular TQC details recommended quality control for kilovoltage X Ray radiotherapy machines.
Keywords: kilovoltage, quality control, radiotherapy
1. INTRODUCTION
The Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR) is an alliance among the three key national professional organizations involved in the delivery of radiation treatment in Canada: the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO), the Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists (COMP), and the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists (CAMRT). Financial and strategic backing is provided by the federal government through the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC), a national resource for advancing cancer prevention and treatment. The mandate of the CPQR is to support the universal availability of high‐quality and safe radiotherapy for all Canadians through system performance improvement and the development of consensus‐based guidelines and indicators to aid in radiation treatment program development and evaluation.
This document contains detailed performance objectives and safety criteria for Kilovoltage X Ray Radiotherapy Machines. Please refer to the overarching document Technical Quality Control Guidelines for Canadian Radiation Treatment Centres1 for a programmatic overview of technical quality control, and a description of how the performance objectives and criteria listed in this document should be interpreted.
All information contained in this document is intended to be used at the discretion of each individual center to help guide quality and safety program improvement. There are no legal standards supporting this document; specific federal or provincial regulations and license conditions take precedence over the content of this document.
2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Kilovoltage radiotherapy units, although eclipsed first by ⁶⁰Co irradiators and then by linear accelerators, remain useful in the mix of energies available to a radiotherapy program. Low‐energy X ray beams have application in the treatment of skin lesions and shallow tumors. The quality assurance program for the kilovoltage units must match the rigor of that for the most modern irradiators and is every bit as important in order to safely deliver an accurate dose to the patient for those lesions they are appropriate to treat.
Application of kilovoltage radiotherapy is divided into two categories based on the chosen tube voltage. The lower energy range (the “superficial” range; X ray tube potentials of 30 kVp or 40 kVp to 100 kVp and tube currents of a few milliamperes) is used to treat surface lesions. Filtration of up to 6 mm of Al is added to remove the very low energy photons and “harden the beam.” Applicator cones, attached directly to the tube‐housing head, are the usual method by which the irradiation area is defined. Variable collimators are also available on some units and require additional quality control tasks over those performed for applicators. Treatment is performed at short source‐to‐surface distance (SSD) (e.g., less than 20 cm) and the lesion depth must be less than a few millimeters. Therefore, the “kilovoltage” range is selected when surface to shallow lesions are treated. In so doing, tissue greater than that at a moderate depth is spared when treating surface lesions.
“Orthovoltage” therapy refers to radiation treatment using X ray tube potentials in the 100–300 kVp range, although 200−300 kVp may be the more practical specification. This deeper radiotherapy equipment uses beam currents of up to 20 mA and applied filtration equivalent to produce half‐value layer (HVL) values of 0.1–4 mm Cu. Coned applicators or movable diaphragms are used to define these beams. While coned applicators may be constructed mostly of metal (e.g., Cu), they have a clear plastic end to aid in viewing the target region. Hence, attention must be given to the integrity of the plastic portion. The depth dose distribution in the orthovoltage energy range is dependent on factors such as kVp, HVL, SSD, and field size. Maximum dose occurs close to the skin, with 90% of the dose being delivered within a tissue depth (water depth) of 2 cm.
Detailed descriptions of various types of kilovoltage X ray radiotherapy machines and various quality control tests have been published in the literature.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
3. RELATED TECHNICAL QUALITY CONTROL GUIDELINES
In order to comprehensively assess kilovoltage X ray radiotherapy machines performance, additional guideline tests as outlined in related CPQR Technical Quality Control (TQC) guidelines must also be completed and documented, as applicable. Related TQC guidelines, available at cpqr.ca, include:
Safety Systems
Major Dosimetry Equipment
4. TEST TABLES (TABLES 1, 2, 3, 4)
Table 1.
Daily quality control tests
| Designator | Test | Performance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tolerance | Action | ||
| Daily | |||
| DK1 | kVp and mA indicators | Functional | |
| DK2 | Beam‐off at key‐off test | Functional | |
| DK3 | Beam interrupt | Functional | |
| DK4 | Backup timer/monitor unit channel check | 1% | 2% |
| DK5 | Dosimetric test: output check | 2% | 4% |
Table 2.
Weekly quality control tests
| Designator | Test | Performance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tolerance | Action | ||
| Weekly | |||
| WK1 | Couch movement and brakes | Functional | |
| WK2 | Unit motions and motion stops | Functional | |
| WK3 | Interlocks for added filters/kVp‐filter choice | Functional | |
| WK4 | Dosimetric test: output check | 2% | 4% |
Table 3.
Monthly quality control tests
| Designator | Test | Performance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tolerance | Action | ||
| Monthly | |||
| MK1 | Mechanical stability and safety | Functional | |
| MK2 | Cone/filters integrity and cone indicators | Functional | |
| MK3 | Physical distance indicators | 2 mm | 3 mm |
| MK4 | Accuracy of head tilt and rotation readouts | 1° | 1.5° |
| MK5 | Light/x ray field coincidence | 2 mm | 3 mm |
| MK6 | Light field size | 2 mm | 3 mm |
| MK7 | X ray field size indicator | 2 mm | 3 mm |
| MK8 | X ray field uniformity | 5% | 8% |
| MK9 | Output verification and reproducibility with head tilt and rotation | 2% | 4% |
| MK10 | Timer accuracy verification | 1% | 2% |
| MK11 | Dose rate output constancy | 2% | 4% |
| MK12 | Records | Complete | |
Table 4.
Annual quality control tests
| Designator | Test | Performance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tolerance | Action | ||
| Annual | |||
| AK1 | Reference dosimetry | 1% | 2% |
| AK2 | Timer and end‐effect error | Characterize | ±0.05 min |
| AK3 | Output linearity | n/a | 1% |
| AK4 | Output reproducibility | 2% | 3% |
| AK5 | Output error associated with beam interrupt | 2% | 4% |
| AK6 | Beam quality | 10% | 15% |
| AK7 | Alignment of focal spots | 0.5 mm | 1 mm |
| AK8 | Focal spot size | Reproducible | |
| AK9 | Percentage depth dose verification | Characterize and document | |
| AK10 | Profiles verification | Characterize and document | |
| AK11 | Independent quality control review | Complete | |
Notes on daily tests
| DK1 | Functional check of kVp and mA indicators |
| DK2 | Functional check of beam‐off at key‐off |
| DK3 | Functional check of the beam interrupt button (radiation stop and restart when the radiation on button is pressed again) |
| DK4 | Quantitative verification of correct operation of backup timer or backup monitor unit |
| DK5 | Quantitative dosimetric test: output reproducibility test at the chosen energies and filter combinations. If the output is stable with time, this test can be done weekly (so replaced by WK4 according to Table 2) on the condition that there are documents and reports to support it |
Notes on weekly tests
| WK1 | Functional check of couch motion and brakes (where applicable) |
| WK2 | Functional check of unit motions and motion stops |
| WK3 | Functional check of interlocks for added filters, correct placement of filters, and the matching of filters with kVp value |
| WK4 | Quantitative dosimetric test: output reproducibility test for all energies. This test can be limited to the energies used clinically on the condition that any additional energies cannot be chosen at any time (by removing the corresponding filters from the treatment room, for example) |
Notes on monthly tests
| MK1 | Verification that the unit and accessories are firmly anchored and may be used without endangering patients or staff |
| MK2 | Verification of the integrity of the filters and cones and cone indicators |
| MK3 | Verification of the optical and/or mechanical distance indicator if the unit is equipped with one |
| MK4 | Verification of the angle readouts |
| MK5 | Performance parameters refer to agreement at each edge. This test does not apply to all machine designs |
| MK6 | Geometric test to verify the light field sizes (where applicable) |
| MK7 | Confirmation of radiation field size when a variable collimation system is provided. At least two field sizes must be checked |
| MK8 | Using a film, the flatness and symmetry of the X ray beam must be assessed for the largest cone |
| MK9 | Quantitative dosimetric test: output reproducibility test at all energies with varying head tilt and rotation27 |
| MK10 | If the unit is equipped with a timer, its accuracy must be checked against a stop watch over a range of doses of 10−1000 cGy |
| MK11 | Should be checked for all beam qualities for MU‐based systems |
| MK12 | Documentation relating to the daily quality control checks, preventive maintenance, service calls and subsequent checks must be complete, legible, and the operator identified |
Notes on annual tests
| AK1 | Using a high‐quality dosimetry system calibrated against the local secondary standard, all beams and cones in use are recalibrated |
| AK2 | Timer and end‐effect error measurement may be performed in conjunction with AK3 |
| AK3 | Output linearity measurement for a clinically used filter/cone combination at a standard SSD and a dose range of 10−1000 cGy |
| AK4 | Output reproducibility verification for a clinically used filter/cone combination. These measurements should be repeated at typical tilt and head rotation used for treatments |
| AK5 | Output error when the beam is interrupted during the irradiation for a clinically used filter/cone combination |
| AK6 | The HVL of any clinically used beams is measured. The HVLs measured in millimeters of Al or millimeters of Cu as appropriate are compared with the values obtained at commissioning. These tolerances acknowledge measurement uncertainty |
| AK7 | Focal spot—quantitative measurement, assessed relative to acceptance test value where applicable |
| AK8 | Using a pin hole or resolution tool |
| AK9 | Verification of percentage depth dose measurements for all used filter/cone combinations against baseline |
| AK10 | Verification of inplane and crossplane profiles at different depths for all used filter/cone combinations against baseline |
| AK11 | To ensure redundancy and adequate monitoring, a second qualified medical physicist must independently verify the implementation, analysis, and interpretation of the quality control tests at least annually |
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No conflict of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the many people who participated in the production of this guideline. These include the institutions that participated in External Validation Testing (BC Cancer Agency – Fraser Valley Centre, Surrey, British Columbia and CIUSSS du Centre‐Ouest‐de‐l’Île‐de‐Montréal – Hôpital général juif, Montreal, Quebec); Michelle Nielsen and Normand Freniere (associate editors for COMP); COMP's Quality Assurance and Radiation Safety Advisory Committee; the COMP Board of Directors; Erika Brown, Michael Milosevic, and the CPQR Steering Committee, and all individuals that submitted comments during the community review of this guideline. The production of this manuscript has been made possible through a financial contribution from Health Canada, through the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.
REFERENCES
- 1. Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy . Technical quality control guidelines for Canadian radiation treatment centres. 2016. May 1. Available from: http://www.cpqr.ca/programs/technical-quality-control
- 2. Amdur RJ, Kalbaugh KJ, Ewald LM, et al. Radiation therapy for skin cancer near the eye: kilovoltage x rays versus electrons. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23:769–779. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Belanger R, Papin PJ, editors. University Health Physics: Health Physics Society 2003 Summer School. Madison (WI): Medical Physics Publishing; 2003. ISBN 978‐1930524156. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Biggs P, Ma CM, Doppke K, Niroomand‐Rad A, Beatty J. Kilovoltage x rays In: Van DJ. The Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology: A Compendium for Medical Physicists and Radiation Oncologists. Madison (WI); Medical Physics Publishing; 1999:287−312. [Google Scholar]
- 5. British Institute of Radiology . Central axis depth dose data for use in radiotherapy. Br J Radiol, Supplement no. 25. London: British Institute of Radiology; 1996. ISBN 978‐0905749389. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Bushong SC. Radiologic Science for Technologists – Physics, Biology and Protection, 7th edition. St. Louis (MO): Mosby Inc; 2001. ISBN 978‐0323013376. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Canadian Standards Association . Medical electrical equipment. Part 2: particular requirements for the safety of therapeutic x ray generators CAN/CSA‐C22.2 no.601.2.8‐92. Rexdale, Ontario: 1992. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Gerig L, Soubra M, Dalhani D. Beam characteristics of the Therapax DXT300 orthovoltage therapy unit. Phys Med Biol. 1994;39:1377–1392. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/39/9/006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Government of Ontario . Healing Arts Radiation Protection act. [cited 2016 Jun 07] Toronto (ON): Publications Ontario; 1990. Available from: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h02_e.htm [Google Scholar]
- 10. International Atomic Energy Agency . International Code of Practice IAEA Technical Reports Series no. 277. Absorbed Dose Determination in Photon and Electron Beams. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency; 1987. ISBN 92‐0‐100597‐0. [Google Scholar]
- 11. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements . Report 23: Measurement of Absorbed Dose in a Phantom Irradiated by a Single Beam of x or Gamma Rays. Washington (DC): International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1973. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine . Report no. 54: Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Linear Accelerators. York, England: 1988. ISBN 978‐0904181487. [Google Scholar]
- 13. Khan F. The Physics of Radiation Therapy, Second Edition, Chapter 4. Baltimore (MA): Williams and Wilkins; 1994. ISBN 978‐0683045024. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Klevenhagen SC, Aukett RJ, Harrison RM, Moretti C, Nahum AE, Rosser KE. The IPEMB code of practice for the determination of absorbed dose for x‐rays below 300 kV generating potential (0.035 mm Al–4 mm Cu HVL; 10–300 kV generating potential). Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:2605–2625. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/41/12/002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M, et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys. 1994;21:581–618. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.597316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Ma CM, Coffey CW, DeWerd LA, et al. Report of Task Group 61: AAPM protocol for 40‐300 kV x‐ray beam dosimetry in radiotherapy and radiobiology. Med Phys. 2001;28:868–893. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1374247 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Mayles WPM, Lake R, McKenzie A, et al., editor. Physics Aspects of Quality Control in Radiotherapy IPEM Report 81. York, England: Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine; 1999. ISBN 0‐904181‐91‐X. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Ministry of Health . X‐ray equipment in medical diagnosis. Part A: recommended safety procedures for installation and use, safety code 20A. Health Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Ministry of Public Works and Government Services, Canada; 2000. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/safety-code_20-securite/index-eng.php
- 19. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements . Structural Shielding Design and Evaluation for Medical use of x Rays and Gamma Rays of Energies up to 10 MeV, Report no. 49. Washington (DC): NCRP; 1976. ISBN 978‐0913392316. [Google Scholar]
- 20. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements . Dosimetry of x ray and Gamma‐ray Beams for Radiation Therapy in the Energy Range 10 keV to 50 MeV, report no. 69. Washington (DC): NCRP; 1981. ISBN 978‐0913392553. [Google Scholar]
- 21. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements . Operational radiation safety program, report no. 127. Washington (DC); 1998. ISBN 978‐0929600598. [Google Scholar]
- 22. Nikolic M, Van DJ. Use of a megavoltage constancy meter for orthovoltage quality assurance. Med Phys. 1993;20:1747–1750. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.596962 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Government of Canada . Radiation emitting devices regulations, C.R.C., c. 1370. [cited 2016 Jun 07]. Minister of Justice; 2001. Available from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C.R.C.,_c._1370.pdf
- 24. Roessler CE, editor. Management and Administration of Radiation Safety Programs: Health Physics Society 1998 Summer School. Madison (WI): Medical Physics Publishing; 1998. ISBN 978‐0944838853. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Videla N, Gillies BA. Ontario Standards for Quality Assurance: Cobalt‐60 Teletherapy Units. Toronto (ON): Cancer Care Ontario; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 26. World Health Organization . Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1988. ISBN 978‐9241542241. [Google Scholar]
- 27. Goharian M, Nygren I, Tambasco M, Villarreal‐Barajas JE. Angular dependence of the output of a kilovoltage x‐ray therapy unit. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010;11:276–284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]