SU‐E‐T‐210: Surviving a Visit by the Radiological Physics Center

W. Grant, J. Mcgary, I. Rosen, P. Nitsch, S. Davidson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To demonstrate an objective approach to determining if a negative report from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) of greater than 10% error is valid or has clinical significance. Methods: The discrepancy involved the clinical activity (mgRaEq) of Cs‐137 sources, some manufactured by 3M and some by Amersham. Measurements were made in the proprietary RPC Well Counter calibrated by the MD Anderson ADCL and our Well Counter (CNMC, Model 44D) calibrated by the same laboratory as well as the University of Wisconsin ADCL. In addition, we possess an Amersham Cs‐137 Check Source that had been calibrated by the UW‐ADCL in 2002. All clinical sources were checked in both Well Counters on the first visit. One clinical source and the Check Source were measured in a second visit that occurred 51 days later. Results: On the initial RPC visit, 9 of 25 sources had a minimum of an 8% discrepancy between the RPC and the Institution, with a maximum of 11%. Contributing errors included using the incorrect straw position by us, an unexplained 2.3% error in the RPC data identified 73 days post‐visit, a 2% variation in Chamber Factors for our Well Counter from the two ADCL's. When we use the 2004 value of Air Kerma Strength for the Check Source to determine a Calibration Factor of the Well Counter, all sources were within 0.5% of their decayed value established in 2002. Conclusions: This work emphasizes the value of having simple Constancy Check systems in a Quality Assurance program as ‘Accuracy’ has error bars. The disagreement in calibration data between the ADCL Laboratories, which was at the 2% maximum quoted in their Calibration Reports, is a reminder that there is uncertainty in measurements. Constancy Checks allow one to sort out discrepancies and to answer challenges to the validity of your program.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume39
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Physics
Calibration
Uncertainty
Air

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Grant, W., Mcgary, J., Rosen, I., Nitsch, P., & Davidson, S. (2012). SU‐E‐T‐210: Surviving a Visit by the Radiological Physics Center. Medical Physics, 39(6). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4735271

SU‐E‐T‐210 : Surviving a Visit by the Radiological Physics Center. / Grant, W.; Mcgary, J.; Rosen, I.; Nitsch, P.; Davidson, S.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Grant, W, Mcgary, J, Rosen, I, Nitsch, P & Davidson, S 2012, 'SU‐E‐T‐210: Surviving a Visit by the Radiological Physics Center', Medical Physics, vol. 39, no. 6. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4735271
Grant, W. ; Mcgary, J. ; Rosen, I. ; Nitsch, P. ; Davidson, S. / SU‐E‐T‐210 : Surviving a Visit by the Radiological Physics Center. In: Medical Physics. 2012 ; Vol. 39, No. 6.
@article{9d90be8b1c60469b95070637c18e6334,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐210: Surviving a Visit by the Radiological Physics Center",
abstract = "Purpose: To demonstrate an objective approach to determining if a negative report from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) of greater than 10{\%} error is valid or has clinical significance. Methods: The discrepancy involved the clinical activity (mgRaEq) of Cs‐137 sources, some manufactured by 3M and some by Amersham. Measurements were made in the proprietary RPC Well Counter calibrated by the MD Anderson ADCL and our Well Counter (CNMC, Model 44D) calibrated by the same laboratory as well as the University of Wisconsin ADCL. In addition, we possess an Amersham Cs‐137 Check Source that had been calibrated by the UW‐ADCL in 2002. All clinical sources were checked in both Well Counters on the first visit. One clinical source and the Check Source were measured in a second visit that occurred 51 days later. Results: On the initial RPC visit, 9 of 25 sources had a minimum of an 8{\%} discrepancy between the RPC and the Institution, with a maximum of 11{\%}. Contributing errors included using the incorrect straw position by us, an unexplained 2.3{\%} error in the RPC data identified 73 days post‐visit, a 2{\%} variation in Chamber Factors for our Well Counter from the two ADCL's. When we use the 2004 value of Air Kerma Strength for the Check Source to determine a Calibration Factor of the Well Counter, all sources were within 0.5{\%} of their decayed value established in 2002. Conclusions: This work emphasizes the value of having simple Constancy Check systems in a Quality Assurance program as ‘Accuracy’ has error bars. The disagreement in calibration data between the ADCL Laboratories, which was at the 2{\%} maximum quoted in their Calibration Reports, is a reminder that there is uncertainty in measurements. Constancy Checks allow one to sort out discrepancies and to answer challenges to the validity of your program.",
author = "W. Grant and J. Mcgary and I. Rosen and P. Nitsch and S. Davidson",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1118/1.4735271",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐210

T2 - Surviving a Visit by the Radiological Physics Center

AU - Grant, W.

AU - Mcgary, J.

AU - Rosen, I.

AU - Nitsch, P.

AU - Davidson, S.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Purpose: To demonstrate an objective approach to determining if a negative report from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) of greater than 10% error is valid or has clinical significance. Methods: The discrepancy involved the clinical activity (mgRaEq) of Cs‐137 sources, some manufactured by 3M and some by Amersham. Measurements were made in the proprietary RPC Well Counter calibrated by the MD Anderson ADCL and our Well Counter (CNMC, Model 44D) calibrated by the same laboratory as well as the University of Wisconsin ADCL. In addition, we possess an Amersham Cs‐137 Check Source that had been calibrated by the UW‐ADCL in 2002. All clinical sources were checked in both Well Counters on the first visit. One clinical source and the Check Source were measured in a second visit that occurred 51 days later. Results: On the initial RPC visit, 9 of 25 sources had a minimum of an 8% discrepancy between the RPC and the Institution, with a maximum of 11%. Contributing errors included using the incorrect straw position by us, an unexplained 2.3% error in the RPC data identified 73 days post‐visit, a 2% variation in Chamber Factors for our Well Counter from the two ADCL's. When we use the 2004 value of Air Kerma Strength for the Check Source to determine a Calibration Factor of the Well Counter, all sources were within 0.5% of their decayed value established in 2002. Conclusions: This work emphasizes the value of having simple Constancy Check systems in a Quality Assurance program as ‘Accuracy’ has error bars. The disagreement in calibration data between the ADCL Laboratories, which was at the 2% maximum quoted in their Calibration Reports, is a reminder that there is uncertainty in measurements. Constancy Checks allow one to sort out discrepancies and to answer challenges to the validity of your program.

AB - Purpose: To demonstrate an objective approach to determining if a negative report from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) of greater than 10% error is valid or has clinical significance. Methods: The discrepancy involved the clinical activity (mgRaEq) of Cs‐137 sources, some manufactured by 3M and some by Amersham. Measurements were made in the proprietary RPC Well Counter calibrated by the MD Anderson ADCL and our Well Counter (CNMC, Model 44D) calibrated by the same laboratory as well as the University of Wisconsin ADCL. In addition, we possess an Amersham Cs‐137 Check Source that had been calibrated by the UW‐ADCL in 2002. All clinical sources were checked in both Well Counters on the first visit. One clinical source and the Check Source were measured in a second visit that occurred 51 days later. Results: On the initial RPC visit, 9 of 25 sources had a minimum of an 8% discrepancy between the RPC and the Institution, with a maximum of 11%. Contributing errors included using the incorrect straw position by us, an unexplained 2.3% error in the RPC data identified 73 days post‐visit, a 2% variation in Chamber Factors for our Well Counter from the two ADCL's. When we use the 2004 value of Air Kerma Strength for the Check Source to determine a Calibration Factor of the Well Counter, all sources were within 0.5% of their decayed value established in 2002. Conclusions: This work emphasizes the value of having simple Constancy Check systems in a Quality Assurance program as ‘Accuracy’ has error bars. The disagreement in calibration data between the ADCL Laboratories, which was at the 2% maximum quoted in their Calibration Reports, is a reminder that there is uncertainty in measurements. Constancy Checks allow one to sort out discrepancies and to answer challenges to the validity of your program.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024785447&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024785447&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4735271

DO - 10.1118/1.4735271

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024785447

VL - 39

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -