Paper detail

Study of quality assurance regulations for linear accelerators in Korea: A comparison study between the current status in Korea and the international guidelines

Quality assurance (QA) for medical linear accelerators is indispensable for appropriate cancer treatment. Some international organizations and western advanced countries provide QA guidelines for linear accelerators. Currently, QA regulations for linear accelerators in Korean hospitals specify a system in which each hospital stipulates its independent hospital-based protocols for QA procedures (HP_QAPs) and conducts QA based on these HP_QAPs while regulatory authorities verify whether items under these HP_QAPs have been performed. However, because this regulatory method cannot guarantee the quality of universal treatment, and QA items with tolerance criteria are different in many hospitals, the presentation of standardized QA items and tolerance criteria is essential. In this study, QA items in HP_QAPs from various hospitals and those presented by international organizations. Concordance rates between QA items for linear accelerators that were presented by the aforementioned organizations and those currently being implemented in Korean hospitals were shown to exhibit a daily QA of 50%, a weekly QA of 22%, a monthly QA of 43%, and an annual QA of 65%, and the overall concordance rates of all QA items were approximately 48%. In comparison between QA items being implemented in Korean hospitals and those being implemented in western advanced countries, concordance rates were shown to exhibit a daily QA of 50%, a weekly QA of 33%, a monthly QA of 60%, and an annual QA of 67%, and the overall concordance rate of all QA items were approximately 57%. The results of this study indicate that the HP_QAPs currently implemented by Korean hospitals as QA standards for linear accelerators used in radiation therapy do not meet international standards. To solve this problem, it is necessary to develop national standardized QA items and procedures for linear accelerators.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.