Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Quality Assurances for Proton Therapy Delivery Equipment

B Arjomandy

B Arjomandy1*, E Klein2 , P Taylor3 , C Ainsley4 , S Safai5 , N Sahoo6 , M Pankuch7 , S Park8 , J Farr9 , Y Kase10 , J Flanz11 , E Yorke12 , D Followill13 , (1) McLaren Cancer Institute, Flint, MI, (2) Washington University, Saint Louis, MO, (3) UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, (4) University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, (5) Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen - Psi, ,(6) MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, (7) CDH Proton Center, Warrenville, IL, (8) McLaren-Flint, Flint, MI, (9) St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, (10) Shizuoka Cancer Center, Sunto-gun, ,(11) Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, (12) Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, (13) UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX


SU-E-T-649 (Sunday, July 12, 2015) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: The number of proton therapy centers has increased dramatically over the past decade. Currently, there is no comprehensive set of guidelines that addresses quality assurance (QA) procedures for the different technologies used for proton therapy. The AAPM has charged task group 224 (TG-224) to provide recommendations for QA required for accurate and safe dose delivery, using existing and next generation proton therapy delivery equipment.

Methods: A database comprised of QA procedures and tolerance limits was generated from many existing proton therapy centers in and outside of the US. These consist of proton therapy centers that possessed double scattering, uniform scanning, and pencil beams delivery systems. The diversity in beam delivery systems as well as the existing devices to perform QA checks for different beam parameters is the main subject of TG-224. Based on current practice at the clinically active proton centers participating in this task group, consensus QA recommendations were developed. The methodologies and requirements of the parameters that must be verified for consistency of the performance of the proton beam delivery systems are discussed.

Results: TG-224 provides procedures and QA checks for mechanical, imaging, safety and dosimetry requirements for different proton equipment. These procedures are categorized based on their importance and their required frequencies in order to deliver a safe and consistent dose. The task group provides daily, weekly, monthly, and annual QA check procedures with their tolerance limits.

Conclusions: The procedures outlined in this protocol provide sufficient information to qualified medical physicists to perform QA checks for any proton delivery system. Execution of these procedures should provide confidence that proton therapy equipment is functioning as commissioned for patient treatment and delivers dose safely and accurately within the established tolerance limits. The report will be published in late 2015.

Contact Email: