Skip to main content
Log in

Feasibility of an In-House Phantom for Mechanical and Geometrical QA

  • Published:
Journal of the Korean Physical Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We designed an in-house phantom for mechanical quality assurance (QA) and compared its performance against commercial available QA tools. The QA phantom is an acrylic cubic shape with dimensions of 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm, and with a pocket into which various adapter plates can be inserted. The plates were classified into three types (A, B, and C) according to their location and shape. An additional accessory can be used to check the alignment of lasers to the center of CT image scans. We evaluated the usefulness of the phantom by checking mechanical isocentricity, field size accuracy, isocenter and position coincidence between the treatment beam and the image guidance systems, and alignment of the lasers. All the tests carried out were within the tolerance limits. The isocenter of the gantry and collimator was within 1 mm and the field size was within 2 mm for both the commercial tool and the new phantom. The kV image of the isocenter was within 0.5 mm for both the commercial tool and the new phantom and that of the displacement of the off-center position from the isocenter was within 0.5 mm for both phantoms. Displacement between the laser origin and the center of a CT image scan was within 0.5 mm for the commercial tool and new phantom. The developed phantom can also be used to easily check the geometrical and mechanical parameters of medical linear accelerators (LINAC) and CT simulators.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. G. J. Kutcher et al., Med. Phys. 21, 581 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. E. E. Klein et al., Med. Phys. 36, 4197 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. A. W. Lightstone et al., Med. Phys. 32, 2380 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. F. F. Yin et al., AAPM Report No. 104, 2009.

  5. A. Gonzalez, I. Castro and J. A. Martinez, Med. Phys. 31, 1489 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. D. A. Low, Z. Li and R. E. Drzymala, Med. Phys. 22, 443 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. M. B. Sharpe, D. J. Moseley, T. G. Purdie, M. Islam, J. H. Siewerdsen and D. A. Jaffray, Med. Phys. 33, 136 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. S. Yoo, G. Y. Kim, R. Hammoud, E. Elder, T. Pawlicki, H. Guan, T. Fox, G. Luxton, F. F. Yin and P. Munro, Med. Phys. 33, 4431 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. J. P. Bissonnette, D. J. Moseley and D. A. Jaffray, Med. Phys. 35, 1807 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. M. Mamalui-Hunter, H. Li and D. A. Low, Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 5139 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyoung Ju Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, S., Kang, SK., Cheong, KH. et al. Feasibility of an In-House Phantom for Mechanical and Geometrical QA. Journal of the Korean Physical Society 72, 449–454 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.72.449

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.72.449

Keywords

Navigation