Comprehensive Australasian multicentre dosimetric intercomparison: Issues, logistics and recommendations

• Published in: Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology Vol. 53; no. 1; pp. 119 - 131
• Main Authors: Ebert, MA, Harrison, KM, Cornes, D, Howlett, SJ, Joseph, DJ, Kron, T, Hamilton, CS, Denham, JW
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Melbourne, Australia Blackwell Publishing Asia 01.02.2009
• Subjects: Australasia; clinical trial; Feasibility Studies; Interinstitutional Relations; quality assurance; Quality Assurance, Health Care - organization & administration; radiation dosimetry; Radiation Oncology - organization & administration; Radiometry - standards; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy, Conformal - standards; Reference Standards; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Australasia
• ISSN: 1754-9477; 1754-9485
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2009.02047.x

Summary The present paper describes the logistics of the 2004–2008 Australasian Level III Dosimetry Intercomparison. Dosimetric intercomparisons (or ‘audits’) can be used in radiotherapy to evaluate the accuracy and quality of radiation delivery. An intercomparison was undertaken in New Zealand and Australia to evaluate the feasibility and logistics of ongoing dosimetric intercomparisons that evaluate all steps in the radiotherapy treatment process, known as a ‘Level III’ intercomparison. The study commenced in 2002 with the establishment of a study team, definition of the study protocol, acquisition of appropriate equipment and recruitment of participating radiotherapy centres. Measurements were undertaken between October 2004 and March 2008, and included collation of data on time, costs and logistics of the study. Forty independent Australian and New Zealand radiotherapy centres agreed to participate. Measurement visits were made to 37 of these centres. Data is presented on the costs of the study and the level of support required. The study involved the participation of 16 staff at the study centre who invested over 4000 hours in the study, and of over 200 professionals at participating centres. Recommendations are provided for future phantom‐based intercomparisons. It is hoped that the present paper will be of benefit to any centres or groups contemplating similar activities by identifying the processes involved in establishing the study, the potential hazards and pitfalls, and expected resource requirements.