Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Departmental action limits for TQA energy variations defined by means of statistical process control methods

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to define departmental action limits for energy percentage variation measured by means of step-wedge helical Tomotherapy quality assurance module. Individual charts using the Statistical Process Control techniques have been used to identify retrospectively out-of-control situations ascribable to documented actions performed on the Tomotherapy system. Using the in-control data of our analysis process capability indices (cp, cpk, cpm and cpmk) are calculated in order to document the real working condition of the Tomotherapy system. Our findings indicate use of an action limit of 1.0% for energy percentage variation difference between the measured and reference output is a good working condition of a Tomotherapy system. cp and cpk indices are suggested as good indices that correctly report the system capability. A method for calculating and reporting Tomotherapy action limits for the integrated self-checking TQA energy check was shown in this study. SPC technique has proven to be efficient in defining departmental action limits from retrospective data for TQA energy measurements, hence optimally enabling corrective improvements in the process of quality assurance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gérard K, Grandhaye JP, Marchesi V, Kafrouni H, Husson F, Aletti P (2009) A comprehensive analysis of the IMRT dose delivery process using statistical process control (SPC). Med Phys 36(4):1275–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Webb S (1998) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: dynamic MLC (DMLC) therapy, multisegment therapy and tomotherapy. An example of QA in DMLC therapy. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie: Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft [et al]. 174:8–12

    Google Scholar 

  3. Balog J, Olivera G, Kapatoes J (2003) Clinical helical tomotherapy commissioning dosimetry. Med Phys 30(12):3097–3106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Binny D, Lancaster CM, Trapp JV, Crowe SB (2017) Statistical process control and verifying positional accuracy of a cobra motion couch using step-wedge quality assurance tool. J Appl Clin Med Phys 18(5):70–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Binny D, Mezzenga E, Lancaster CM, Trapp JV, Kairn T, Crowe SB (2017) Investigating output and energy variations and their relationship to delivery QA results using Statistical Process Control for helical tomotherapy. Phys Medica 38:105–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Langen KM, Papanikolaou N, Balog J et al (2010) QA for helical tomotherapy: report of the AAPM Task Group 148a. Med Phys 37(9):4817–4853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mezzenga E, D’Errico V, Sarnelli A et al (2016) Preliminary retrospective analysis of daily Tomotherapy output constancy checks using Statistical process control. PLoS ONE 11(2):e0147936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D et al (2018) Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med Phys 45(4):e53–e83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sanghangthum T, Suriyapee S, Srisatit S, Pawlicki T (2013) Retrospective analysis of linear accelerator output constancy checks using process control techniques. J Appl Clin Med Phys 14(1):147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Choi HH, Ho JP, Yang B, Cheung KY, Yu SK (2014) Correlation between TQA data trends and TomoHD functional status. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15(2):345–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Binny D, Lancaster CM, Harris S, Sylvander SR (2015) Effects of changing modulation and pitch parameters on tomotherapy delivery quality assurance plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys 16(5):85–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shimizu H, Sasaki K, Iwata M et al (2016) Rotational output and beam quality evaluations for helical tomotherapy with use of a third-party quality assurance tool. Radiol Phys Technol 9(1):53–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Buttrey SE (2009) An excel add-in for statistical process control charts. J Stat Softw 30(13):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Montgomery DC (2009) Statistical quality control, vol 7. Wiley, New York

  15. Noyez L (2009) Control charts, Cusum techniques and funnel plots. A review of methods for monitoring performance in healthcare. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 9(3):494–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pawlicki T, Whitaker M, Boyer AL (2005) Statistical process control for radiotherapy quality assurance. Med Phys 32(9):2777–2786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boggs PB, Wheeler D, Washburne WF, Hayati F (1998) Peak expiratory flow rate control chart in asthma care: chart construction and use in asthma care. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 81(6):552–562

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fasting S, Gisvold SE (2003) Statistical process control methods allow the analysis and improvement of anesthesia care. Can J Anaesth 50(8):767–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pitkänen MA, Holli KA, Ojala AT, Laippala P (2001) Quality assurance in radiotherapy of breast cancer variability in planning target volume delineation. Acta Oncol 40(1):50–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang Z, Low Y, Fang X (1998) PCI-based tolerance as an interface between design specifications and statistical quality control. Comput Ind Eng 35(1–2):201–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang Y, Yang M, Zhang Y (2006) Concurrent design for process quality, statistical tolerance, and SPC. Commun Stat Theory Methods 35(10):1869–1882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tang LC, Than SE (1999) Computing process capability indices for non-normal data: a review and comparative study. Qual Reliab Eng Int 15(5):339–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Anderson TW, Darling DA (1954) A test of goodness of fit. J Am Stat Assoc 49(268):765–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all medical physics teams from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, IRST, Meldola and ICON Cancer Centres for their valuable input and contribution to this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICON Cancer Centres, Radiation Therapy, North Lakes, 4509, Australia

    Diana Binny

  2. Queensland University of Technology Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, 4000, Australia

    Diana Binny, Tanya Kairn, Scott B. Crowe & Jamie V. Trapp

  3. Medical Physics Unit, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo Per Lo Studio E La Cura Dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS, 47014, Meldola, Italy

    Emilio Mezzenga & Anna Sarnelli

  4. Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Cancer Care Services, Brisbane, 4029, Australia

    Tanya Kairn & Scott B. Crowe

Authors
  1. Diana Binny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emilio Mezzenga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Sarnelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tanya Kairn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Scott B. Crowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jamie V. Trapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Binny.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No grants were used in this study and there are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Binny, D., Mezzenga, E., Sarnelli, A. et al. Departmental action limits for TQA energy variations defined by means of statistical process control methods. Phys Eng Sci Med 43, 29–34 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00791-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00791-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation