A survey of radiotherapy quality control practice in the United Kingdom for the START trial.
OBJECTIVE
This paper compares the quality control checks performed in departments in the United Kingdom with those recommended by the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) in Report 81.


METHODS
The data were gathered by the quality assurance team for the START trial, during visits to individual departments. Data are compared with the frequencies suggested in IPEM report 81. Where applicable, data are also analyzed with respect to machine manufacturer.


RESULTS
All departments with linear accelerators check the output at least weekly for both photons and electrons, however 11% of departments do not perform a constancy check of the output on a daily basis. The majority of departments check flatness at gantry zero on a monthly basis. However 27% of departments never check at non-zero gantry angles. In 51% of departments no fluoroscopy checks are performed on simulators on a daily basis.


CONCLUSIONS
The majority of departments are following the frequencies suggested in IPEM report 81 although there are a number of discrepancies particularly for simulators. Accelerator type needs to be considered when designing quality assurance checks. In many departments more time than is currently allocated is needed on equipment, particularly simulators, to complete all of the checks suggested in Report 81.
Venables
K
K
Marie Curie Research Wing, Mount Vernon Hospital, Rickmansworth Road, Northwood, Middlesex, HA6 2RN, UK.
Winfield
E
E
Deighton
A
A
Aird
E
E
Hoskin
P
P
D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D015337:Multicenter Studies as Topic / Q000592:standards; D009684:Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital / Q000592:standards*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D011786:Quality Control; D018787:Radiation Oncology / Q000592:standards*; D011878:Radiotherapy / Q000592:standards; D006113:United Kingdom