You might also read
Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.
Updated: Jul 15, 2025

Use of a Linear Accelerator for Conducting In Vitro Radiobiology Experiments
Published on: May 26, 2019
Robert F Krauss1, Salim Balik2, Eileen T Cirino3
1St. Francis Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
This AAPM guideline offers a structured approach for medical physicists to develop quality assurance programs for linear accelerators used in radiation therapy. The goal is to ensure that tests align with clinical use and detect errors that could affect patient safety. The committee reviewed existing QA recommendations and added tests for new linac components. Tests are grouped by type, such as dosimetry and mechanical checks, and include notes to help implement them. The guideline encourages institutions to adapt tests based on their specific practices and collaborate with vendors for effective QA. The ultimate responsibility for QA program implementation remains with the qualified medical physicist.
06:20Irradiator Commissioning and Dosimetry for Assessment of LQ α and β Parameters, Radiation Dosing Schema, and in vivo Dose Deposition
Published on: March 11, 2021
07:31Characterization of Recombination Effects in a Liquid Ionization Chamber Used for the Dosimetry of a Radiosurgical Accelerator
Published on: May 9, 2014
Area of Science:
Background:
Quality assurance in radiation therapy is essential for ensuring accurate and safe treatment delivery. Prior research has shown that linac QA programs must evolve to match clinical practices and new technologies. However, no prior work had resolved how to tailor tests to specific clinical use patterns. This gap motivated the AAPM to update its guidance. The original report lacked clarity on how to incorporate new linac components into QA testing. That uncertainty drove the need for revised performance criteria. No standardized approach existed for prioritizing tests based on clinical risk. This lack of consensus hindered consistent QA implementation across institutions. The AAPM recognized the need for a structured, evidence-based guideline. The committee aimed to address these limitations by aligning tests with clinical relevance and safety.
Purpose Of The Study:
This guideline aims to provide a structured framework for selecting linac performance tests that align with clinical use and safety. The goal is to assist QMPs in developing QA programs that reflect current practices. The committee sought to identify tests that detect errors relevant to specific treatment scenarios. The original report did not address newer linac features, such as advanced imaging systems. The updated guideline fills this gap by incorporating recent technological changes. The committee evaluated existing QA recommendations to determine necessary modifications. The purpose also includes defining how to establish reference data for performance monitoring. The guideline emphasizes collaboration with vendors to ensure tests are practical and effective.
Main Methods:
The committee reviewed current QA recommendations to identify outdated or insufficient tests. They assessed new linac components that have become standard in clinical practice. Tests were grouped by category, such as dosimetry and mechanical performance. Each test was evaluated for its relevance to patient safety and clinical outcomes. The committee prioritized tests based on their impact on treatment accuracy and risk. Implementation notes were added to clarify the purpose and method of each test. Vendor collaboration was encouraged to ensure tests are compatible with equipment upgrades. The final list was selected through consensus to reflect a balanced and comprehensive approach.
Main Results:
The guideline proposes a categorized list of performance tests for linacs, grouped by clinical relevance and safety impact. Dosimetry tests were emphasized for their role in ensuring accurate radiation delivery. Mechanical tests were included to detect misalignments affecting treatment precision. Tests for imaging systems were added to reflect their growing use in treatment planning. Reference data acquisition methods were standardized to ensure consistency across institutions. The committee recommended routine isocenter verification to maintain machine accuracy. Tests after maintenance and upgrades were emphasized to prevent post-service errors. Implementation notes were provided to guide QMPs in executing each test effectively.
Conclusions:
The updated guideline provides a structured approach for QMPs to develop linac QA programs that align with clinical use and safety. The committee emphasized the importance of tailoring tests to specific treatment scenarios. The inclusion of new components reflects the evolving nature of linac technology. The prioritization of tests based on risk ensures that critical issues are addressed first. The guideline encourages collaboration with vendors to enhance test feasibility and effectiveness. Implementation notes help QMPs understand the purpose and execution of each test. The committee acknowledged that institutions must adapt tests to their own clinical practices. The ultimate responsibility for QA program implementation remains with the QMP.
The guideline provides a categorized list of performance tests to ensure linac accuracy and safety in clinical use.
Tests are selected based on clinical relevance, risk to patient safety, and alignment with current linac technology.
Isocenter verification ensures that the machine's radiation source aligns with the treatment target, reducing delivery errors.
Vendors are encouraged to collaborate with QMPs to ensure tests are practical and compatible with equipment upgrades.
Yes, dosimetry tests are emphasized due to their critical role in ensuring accurate radiation delivery.
Yes, the guideline encourages institutions to analyze their own risks and adjust tests accordingly.