Radiation Protection

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
RADIATION PROTECTION N° 162
Criteria for Acceptability of Medical

Radiological Equipment used in Diagnostic
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and
Radiotherapy
Directorate-General for Energy

Directorate D — Nuclear Safety & Fuel Cycle
Unit D4 — Radiation Protection
2012
This report was prepared by Quality Assurance Reference Centre for the European
Commission under contract N°. ENER/10/NUCL/SI2.581655 and represents those
organisations’ views on the subject matter. The views and opinions expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the European Commission and should not be relied upon
as a statement of the Commission’s views. The European Commission does not guarantee
the accuracy of the data included in this report, nor does it accept responsibility for any use
made thereof.
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be
billed.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012
ISBN 978-92-79-27747-4
doi: 10.2768/22561
© European Union, 2012

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
2
FOREWORD
Luxembourg, October 2012
The work of the European Commission in the field of radiation protection is governed by the
Euratom Treaty and the secondary legislation adopted under it. Council Directive
97/43/Euratom (the Medical Exposure Directive, MED) is the legal act defining the Euratom
requirements on radiation protection of patients and of other individuals submitted to medical
exposure.
The MED requires the adoption of criteria of acceptability for equipment in order to indicate
when remedial action is necessary (including, if appropriate, taking the equipment out of
service).
In 1997 the Commission issued publication Radiation Protection 91 (RP91) containing a
non-binding set of criteria for acceptability of radiological installations. Later Commission
guidance on transposition of the MED into national legislation notes that RP91 "gives only
the absolute minimum requirements" and that "holders of installations should make effort(s)
to adopt more stringent criteria.”
The present report (RP162) updates and considerably expands the scope of RP91. The
recommended approach to the establishment and the use of criteria for acceptability of
radiological equipment, as well as the technical parameters and values contained in the
document, have been extensively reviewed and discussed between 2007 and 2012. This
was done in many technical meetings involving specialists in different areas, through an
open public consultation from January to June 2010 and in a dedicated workshop held in
Dublin in September 2011. The final result is a quite extensive set of non-binding criteria that
will help holders of radiological installations assess the (continuing) acceptability of the
equipment they use and undertake appropriate remedial action, if indicated.
The report should also be useful for regulators when deciding on the adoption of national
criteria for acceptability of radiological equipment. However, the Commission does not
recommend the direct adoption of the RP162 suspension levels in national regulations, as
this may pose unnecessarily stringent limitations on the use of equipment. The adoption of
regulatory restrictions on equipment use should be based on careful and thorough
evaluation of national circumstances. Hence, RP162 should be used by regulators only as
an example of criteria to be considered.
While primarily intended for holders of radiological equipment in clinical use and for
regulators dealing with safety of such equipment, this report could also be useful for wider
audiences. These include designers, manufacturers and suppliers of equipment as well as
other players involved in different stages of the equipment lifecycle.
The publication of this report in the Commission's Radiation Protection series of publications
has been recommended by the Group of Experts established under Article 31 of the
Euratom Treaty. It is our hope that it will contribute to a continuous improvement of the
protection of the health of the European citizens against the risks accompanying the growing
and generally beneficial use of ionising radiation in medicine.
Augustin Janssens
Head of Radiation Protection Unit
Directorate General for Energy
3
CONTENTS
FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................... 3
CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ 5
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 9
1.1 Background and purpose ......................................................................................... 9
1.2 Basis for criteria for acceptability in the European directives ................................. 11
1.2.1 Requirements of the Medical Exposure Directive (MED) ................................ 11
1.2.2 Requirements of the Medical Devices Directives (MDD) and equipment
standards ......................................................................................................... 13
1.3 To whom this document is addressed .................................................................... 14
1.4 Clarification of terminology and equipment lifecycle ............................................... 14
1.5 Criteria for acceptability .......................................................................................... 16
1.5.1 Approaches to criteria ..................................................................................... 16
1.6 Identifying and selecting suspension levels ............................................................ 17
1.7 Special considerations, exceptions and exclusions ................................................ 19
1.7.1 Special considerations .................................................................................... 19
1.7.2 Old equipment ................................................................................................. 19
1.7.3 Rapidly evolving technologies ......................................................................... 19
1.7.4 Exclusions ....................................................................................................... 20
1.8 Establishing conformity with criteria for acceptability ............................................. 21
1.9 Wider issues for the hospital, the MPE and the regulator ...................................... 22
1.10 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 22
2 Diagnostic Radiology ..................................................................................................... 23
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 23
2.2 X-ray generators and equipment for general radiography ...................................... 23
2.2.1 Introductory remarks and qualitative criteria ................................................... 23
2.2.2 Suspension levels for X-ray generators and general radiography................... 25
2.3 Radiographic image receptors ................................................................................ 29
2.3.1 Introductory remarks ....................................................................................... 29
2.3.2 Suspension levels for image receptors ........................................................... 30
2.4 Mammography ........................................................................................................ 33
2.4.2 Suspension levels for mammograph ............................................................... 34
2.5 Dental radiography ................................................................................................. 36
5
2.5.2 Suspension levels for dental equipment .......................................................... 37
2.6 Fluoroscopic systems ............................................................................................. 40
2.6.2 Suspensions levels for fluoroscopy equipment ............................................... 40
2.7 Computed tomography ........................................................................................... 42
2.7.2 Suspension levels for CT scanners ................................................................. 43
2.8 Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry .......................................................................... 44
2.8.2 Suspension levels for DXA systems ................................................................ 45
3 Nuclear Medicine ........................................................................................................... 47
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 47
3.2 Activity meters ........................................................................................................ 48
3.2.2 Suspension levels for activity meters .............................................................. 48
3.3 Well counters and probes ....................................................................................... 49
3.3.2 Suspension levels for well counters and probes ............................................. 49
3.4 Gamma camera systems ........................................................................................ 49
3.4.2 Suspension levels for planar gamma camera ................................................. 50
3.4.3 Suspension levels for whole body imaging system ......................................... 51
3.4.4 Suspension levels for SPECT systems ........................................................... 51
3.4.5 Gamma cameras used for coincidence imaging ............................................. 51
3.5 Positron emission tomography ............................................................................... 52
3.5.2 Suspension levels for PET systems ................................................................ 52
3.6 Combined modality systems ................................................................................... 53
3.6.2 Suspension levels for combined modality systems ......................................... 53
4 Radiotherapy ................................................................................................................. 55
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 55
4.2 Linear accelerators ................................................................................................. 55
4.2.2 Suspension levels for linear accelerators ........................................................ 56
4.3 Simulators ............................................................................................................... 60
6
4.3.2 Suspension levels for radiotherapy simulators ................................................ 60
4.4 CT simulators ......................................................................................................... 62
4.4.2 Suspension levels for CT simulators ............................................................... 63
4.5 Cobalt-60 units ....................................................................................................... 64
4.5.2 Suspension levels for Cobalt-60 units ............................................................. 64
4.6 Kilovoltage units ..................................................................................................... 66
4.6.2 Suspension levels for kilovoltage units ............................................................ 67
4.7 Brachytherapy ........................................................................................................ 67
4.7.2 Suspension levels for brachytherapy equipment ............................................. 68
4.8 Treatment planning systems .................................................................................. 68
4.8.2 Suspension levels for treatment planning systems ......................................... 69
4.9 Dosimetry equipment .............................................................................................. 69
4.9.2 Suspension levels for dosimetry equipment .................................................... 70
5 References and selected bibliography ........................................................................... 71
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 81
7
INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
This report provides a compendium of criteria which radiological, nuclear medicine and
radiotherapy equipment in normal use ought to be able to pass. The most common form of
criterion is a “suspension level” for a measurement of a performance or safety parameter.
Failure to meet a suspension level will establish that the operation of the equipment involved
is sufficiently poor to raise an alarm indicating action is required. The assessment up to this
point will generally be a matter for the holder1. The equipment failing to meet the suspension
level will have to be repaired, temporarily suspended from clinical service, designated usable
for limited purposes, or completely suspended from service. This will have serious
consequences for the practitioner(s) involved and for hospital/clinic management, particularly
if the equipment has to be suspended or replaced.
Sets of suspension criteria for particular equipment types are provided with advice on the
way they should be used. Particular emphasis is placed on the roles of the medical physics
expert, the medical practitioner and the holder of the equipment who is generally
represented by the management of the institution involved. The importance of the
practitioner and the holder/management is considered further in sections 1.3, 1.7, 1.8 and
1.9. Regulators will also have an interest in both the suspension levels and their application.
The report provides about 347 suspension levels across all the types of radiological
equipment. This may appear to be a large number, but it must be remembered they are
applied across about 30 equipment types. In practice, except at the beginning and end of the
life of equipment, a full set of suspension levels is unlikely to be used. Generally testing
against criteria for acceptability is triggered by evidence that something is wrong. This may
be, for example, deterioration in a quality assurance measure or an aspect of clinical
performance. The response to such an event will normally be limited to testing against the
criteria relating to the area of concern. The report presents a compendium of such criteria to
be selected from, rather than a list to be followed slavishly. At the beginning of the life of
equipment acceptance testing may well establish that most if not all of the suspension levels
are met without the need for further testing. Similar considerations may apply when
refurbished or second hand equipment is brought back into clinical use. Thus, in practice
actions will be determined from testing against a limited number of the criteria.
1.1 Background and purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide advice and detailed guidance to responsible
professionals in Member States on the implementation of part of the MED Directive (Council
Directive 97/43/EURATOM (1997). Specifically the MED requires that medical exposures be
justified and optimised. Optimisation includes satisfactory performance of the equipment
used. To help give effect to this, the Directive stipulates that criteria of acceptability for
radiological, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy equipment shall be adopted by Member
States (see section 1.2 below)2. In 1997, the European Commission published Radiation
Protection 91, proposing specific criteria for acceptability (RP 91, EC(1997b)) 3 to help
1
The holder is defined for the purpose of the MED (see page 9) as any natural or legal person who has the
legal responsibility under national law for a given radiological installation (Council Directive 97/43/EURATOM
(1997)), EC (1999)).
2
The terms Criteria of Acceptability and Criteria for Acceptability are both used in this report. Criteria of -
---- is used when specific reference is made to the MED in which it is employed. Criteria for ----- is generally
used otherwise, as it was the title of RP 91 and is the form widely used in practice.
3
Herein after referred to as RP 91.
9
CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABILITY OF MEDICAL RADIOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT
implement this requirement. Equipment performance not meeting the minimum standards
specified in RP 91 is regarded as unacceptable. This publication has been used as guidance
by individual professionals, particularly MPEs, and has also been incorporated into guidance
or legislation throughout the Member States and elsewhere in the world. The criteria for
acceptability apply to new equipment and to installed equipment, regardless of age. This
revised report is intended to meet the objectives set out in the box.
Objectives of RP-162
1. Update existing criteria for acceptability.

2. Update and extend criteria for acceptability to new types of installations. In diagnostic
radiology, the range of systems available has been greatly extended (e.g. computed
radiography, digital radiography, digital fluoroscopy, multislice computed tomography
(MSCT) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)). In nuclear medicine there are
now positron emission tomography (PET) systems and combined modalities. In
radiotherapy, there are linear accelerators with multileaf collimators.
3. Identify an updated and more explicit range of methods to better assess the criteria for
acceptability.
4. Provide criteria for acceptability that are achievable throughout the Member States.
5. Provide advice on implementation and verification in practice, including advice on how
to deal with situations where criteria for acceptability do not exist, or where there is rapid
innovation in equipment.
6. Deal, where practical, with the implications for screening techniques, paediatric
examinations, high dose examinations and other special issues noted in the MED.
7. Promote approaches that are, as far as possible, consistent with those employed by the
Medical Devices Directive (MDD) (Council Directive 93/42/EC (1993)), industry,
standards organizations and professional bodies.
RP 91 considered diagnostic radiological installations including conventional and computed

tomography, dental radiography and mammography, and, in a limited way, radiotherapy and
nuclear medicine installations. However, development of new systems and technologies,
improvements in traditional technologies and changing clinical needs have created situations
where the criteria need to be reviewed to contribute to the standards of equipment
performance are upheld. To give effect to this, the Commission, on the advice of the Article
31 Group of Experts, initiated a study aimed at reviewing and updating RP 91, which has led
to this revised report. As with RP 91, this report is designed to ensure patient safety and
efficacious diagnosis or treatment. Staff safety issues are not addressed here and are
comprehensively addressed in the European Basic Safety Standards (BSS) (Council
Directive (1996)) and its associated publications.
To achieve the objectives of RP 162, the development and review process has involved a
wide range of individuals and organizations, including experts from relevant professions,
professional bodies, industry, standards organizations and international organizations. It
was easier to achieve the last objective (item 7 in the box) with radiotherapy than with
diagnostic radiology. This is because of a long tradition of close working relationships
between radiotherapy physics and the international standards organisations, which has
facilitated the development and adoption of common standards in radiotherapy. An attempt
10
INTRODUCTION
has been made, with the cooperation of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
to parallel this approach in diagnostic radiology and to extend it, where it already exists, in
nuclear medicine.
The criteria for acceptability developed generally fall into two categories, qualitative and
quantitative (Table 1-1). Qualitative prohibitions apply to certain equipment types or features
(e.g. prohibition of direct fluoroscopy or requirement for patient dose indication systems).
These generally arise from the MED, the law or widely accepted norms of good practice.
Methodology.
Table 1-1 Two Categories of Criteria for Acceptability
Category Features
Qualitative Criteria Qualitative prohibitions of some equipment
types or features (e.g. direct fluoroscopy is
not allowed by the MED).
Quantitative Criteria also known as Based on quantitative indices, which must be
Suspension Levels met (e.g. leakage radiation from X-Ray tube
housing must be less than the prescribed
value). The quantitative limit is generally
described as a Suspension Level.
Quantitative indices of performance can be measured and suspension levels which must be
met are provided. If these are not met, the equipment must be suspended from use and the
poor performance must be investigated. The equipment may be returned to use following
remedial action. Alternatively its clinical use may be restricted or terminated after a risk
assessment, if satisfactory performance cannot be restored. The processes involved are
more fully presented in sections 1.4 to 1.9.
It is important to bear in mind that the present report follows the precedent established in
RP 91 and is limited to safety and performance issues with radiological, nuclear medicine
and radiotherapy equipment. It does not address mechanical and electrical safety, standards
of operation, and wider issues such as those associated with, for example, the requirements
for suitable buildings/installations and information technology (IT) systems, such as picture
archiving and communication systems (PACS), displays, radiological information systems
(RIS) and radiotherapy networks.
1.2 Basis for criteria for acceptability in the European directives
1.2.1 Requirements of the Medical Exposure Directive (MED)
The work of the EC in the field of radiation protection is governed by the Euratom Treaty and
the Council Directives made under it. The most prominent is the BSS for the protection of
radiation workers and the public. This was originally adopted in 1959. The current version,
Council Directive (1996), is presently being revised. Radiation protection of persons
undergoing medical examination or treatment was first addressed in Council Directive
84/466/EURATOM. This was replaced by MED (Council Directive 97/43/EURATOM
(1997))4. This prescribes a number of measures to ensure that medical exposures are
delivered under appropriate conditions. It requires, among other things:
4
Council Directives (1996) and the MED, Council Directive 97/43/EURATOM (1997), are at the time of writing,
being incorporated into a single “recast” Directive which draws together the various European Radiation
11
 acceptance testing of new equipment,
 identification of criteria of acceptability for equipment safety and performance

throughout its life, and
 establishment of quality assurance programmes.
This report addresses the second of these, criteria of acceptability, and updates RP 91,
which addressed the same area (EC (1997)). However, some overlapping and confusion
between these three areas above has arisen and this is addressed in sections 1.4 and 1.5
below.
The MED requires that all radiation doses arising from medical exposure of patients for
diagnosis or health screening programmes shall be kept as low as reasonably achievable
consistent with obtaining the required diagnostic information, taking into account economic
and social factors (ALARA). Requirements in respect of dose monitoring systems are
specified explicitly. These extend to all new equipment which: “shall have, where practicable,
a device informing the practitioner of the quantity of radiation produced by the equipment
during the radiological procedure.”
Additionally Article 9 requires that: “Appropriate radiological equipment ----- and ancillary
equipment are used for the medical exposure
• of children,
• as part of a health-screening programme,
• involving high doses to the patient, such as interventional radiology, computed
tomography or radiotherapy.”
and that: “Special attention shall be given to the quality assurance programmes, including
quality control measures and patient dose or administered activity assessment, as
mentioned in Article 8, for these practices.”
The requirements in respect of criteria of acceptability are stated specifically in Article 8 as
follows: “Competent authorities shall take steps to ensure that necessary measures are
taken by the holder of the radiological installation to improve inadequate or defective
features of the equipment. They shall also adopt specific criteria of acceptability for
equipment in order to indicate when appropriate remedial action is necessary, including, if
appropriate, taking the equipment out of service.” This places responsibilities on both
holders and competent authorities, and the Commission’s guidance (EC (1999)) on
transposition of the Directive into national legislation notes that the holder is responsible for
ensuring these standards are drawn up and being used. It further notes that the “EC
provide(s) guidance concerning criteria of acceptability for radiological and nuclear medicine
equipment [RP 91]. However, this guidance gives only the absolute minimum requirements
for equipment. Holders of installations should make effort(s) to adopt more stringent criteria.”
Some practical consequences of these requirements are listed in the box below. This report
deals only with the first and second points and concentrates primarily on the latter. It updates
and extends the advice provided in RP 91 (EC (1997b)). However, it is not intended to act
as a guide to quality assurance and quality control programmes, which are comprehensively
dealt with elsewhere (e. g. EC (2006); AAPM (2006b); IPEM (2005a), IPEM (2005b); AAPM
(2002); BIR (2001); Seibert (1999); IPEM (1997a), IPEM (1997b), IPEM (1997c)).
Protection Directives including the MED and the BSS. It is not anticipated that the requirements in this area
will change significantly.
12
INTRODUCTION
Practical Consequences of the MED Directive
1. Acceptance testing must be carried out before the first use of the equipment for clinical
purposes (MED 8.2).
2. Necessary measures must be taken by the holder of the radiological installation to
improve inadequate or defective features of equipment (MED 8.3). Competent
authorities must ensure the holders of equipment adopt and apply specific criteria of
acceptability for equipment in order to indicate when intervention is necessary, including
taking the equipment out of service (MED 8.3).
3. Quality assurance programmes including quality control measure must be implemented
by the holder (MED 8.2).
1.2.2 Requirements of the Medical Devices Directives (MDD) and

equipment standards
Since 1993, the safety aspects of design, manufacturing and marketing of medical devices,
have been dealt with by the Medical Devices Directive (MDD) (Council Directive 93/42/EC
(1993)). The MDD was substantially amended in 2007 by Council Directive 2007/47/EC
(2007). This includes an obligation for “a post-market surveillance plan”, which requires the
manufacturers/suppliers to monitor and act on problems that emerge after installation of the
device during its life in use.
When a device is compliant with the Essential Requirements of the MDD, it can be “CE
marked”. This allows it to be marketed throughout the EU. Compliance with the MDD is often
achieved, in practice, through conformity with the standards issued by the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and/or the European Committee for Electrotechnical
Standardization (CENELEC)5. Conformity with IEC or CENELEC standards is frequently
included as part of the specification of equipment at the time of purchase and is generally
confirmed during contractual acceptance (acceptance testing) by the purchaser. Many IEC
standards are adopted and harmonized by CENELEC6.
The MDD includes requirements for devices emitting ionising radiation. These do not
override the requirements of Directives adopted under the Euratom Treaty and it is important
to note that the Euratom Treaty Directives have precedence over other instruments in this
area such as standards. Not withstanding this, care must be taken when transposing
requirements arising from the MED into national legislation. It is essential that the need of
end users and regulators are respected as well as those of industry and standard
organisations. There is a need for harmonization and recognition of the global nature of the
equipment supply industry.
5
The IEC is the world's leading organization involved in preparing and publishing International Standards for all
electrical, electronic and related technologies. The standards cover a vast range of technologies, including
power generation, transmission and distribution to home appliances and office equipment, semiconductors,
fibre optics, batteries, and medical devices to mention just a few. Many, if not all, of the markets involved are
global. Within the EU CENELEC is the parallel standards organization and in practice adopts many IEC
standards and harmonises them within the European context.
6
The complete list of harmonised standards is available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-
standards/harmonised-standards/medical-devices/index_en.htm.
13
1.3 To whom this document is addressed
Advice on good practice with respect to equipment performance is frequently addressed to

or focused on the needs or responsibilities of a particular group. For example, the standards
produced by IEC and CENELEC are primarily aimed at manufacturers and suppliers.
The primary audience to which this report is addressed is the holders and end-users of the
equipment (specifically health care agencies and professionals, including hospitals, other
institutions, medical physicists including MPEs7, practitioners, radiographers, clinical
technologists and other staff/agents including health service management professionals, all
of whom have a role in the deployment of equipment for use with patients).
In addition, it should be of value to regulators in assessing if holders of radiological
installations meet their obligations with respect to equipment performance under Article 8.3
of the MED. This is in keeping with the precedent implicitly established in the scope and
format adopted for RP 91. This report addresses the needs of these groups while taking due
account of the reality of globalization of the equipment industry, the associated standards
and the harmonization objectives, viz a viz the MDD noted in 1.2.2.
The technical parts of sections 2, 3, and 4 assume that those reading and using them are
trained to the level expected of an MPE or equivalent. They must be familiar with this
Introduction and have a good working knowledge of the relevant types of equipment and
appropriate testing regimes.
1.4 Clarification of terminology and equipment lifecycle
A critical reading of the MED, RP 91 and the professional literature demonstrates some
variability in the meaning of terms such as remedial levels, suspension levels, acceptance
testing, commissioning of equipment, and criteria for acceptability since they came into
widespread use in the 1990s. In the interest of clarity, the relevant terms and how they are
used in this report are set out in Tables 1-2 and 1-3.
The concepts of “remedial” and “suspension” levels for equipment performance are widely
used in the quality assurance literature. To clarify how they are used here, the term
satisfactory performance has been introduced to identify the state of the equipment from
which suspension or remedial levels depart (Table 1-2). This report is concerned with
suspension levels only. Remedial levels are, on the other hand, well described in
numerous quality assurance publications (e.g. AAPM (2005); IPEM (2005a), IPEM (2005b);
AAPM (2002); IPEM (1997a), IPEM (1997b), IPEM (1997c)). Failure to meet a suspension
level requires that the equipment be taken out of service until it is restored to satisfactory
performance or until its use is reviewed in a formal risk assessment. Following the risk
assessment, the suspended equipment may be used in limited circumstances (Table 1-2
and sections 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9).
7
Throughout the report, the term MPE is used as shorthand for an expert in medical physics who has
competences and knowledge in diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine or radiotherapy. This publication
assumes that an MPE is an expert authorised to act independently. In some countries this may not yet be the
case.
14
INTRODUCTION
Table 1-2 Definitions and Actions associated with Satisfactory Performance,

Remedial and Suspension Levels
State Definition and / or Action

Satisfactory Performance Operation of the equipment with all performance and
safety criteria within the holder’s prescribed values.
Remedial Level Contravened Poor performance sufficiently close to satisfactory
performance that it will not reduce the clinical
effectiveness or equipment safety, but requiring
remedial action to restore satisfactory performance as
soon as the service availability permits it. Remedial
levels are set by the holder or his/her agent, e.g. an
MPE, and take account of the clinical use of the
equipment.
Suspension Level Contravened Failure to comply with one or more suspension levels.
This requires immediate suspension of the equipment
from clinical use and investigation of the cause of the
unsatisfactory performance. Remedial action to
restore satisfactory performance may be possible.
Alternatively, following a documented risk
assessment, prepared by the MPE and the
practitioner, the suspended equipment maybe
considered for use in limited circumstances. The
holder and the operators must be advised in writing of
the suspension and the related limitation(s) in use.8 If
neither of these actions is possible, the equipment
must be suspended from use.
Criteria for acceptability will be applied to equipment at various times throughout its
lifecycle9. Thus they must be carefully distinguished from other formal assessments that
occur particularly at the point where the equipment is accepted by the holder and then
brought into clinical use (Table 1-3). In particular, suspension levels must be clearly
distinguished from the levels set for acceptance tests (Table 1-3). The latter are used to
establish that the equipment meets the supplier’s specification and/or to verify contractual
obligations have been met. The specification may demand, for example, a higher level of
performance than that required to meet the suspension levels set to verify compliance with
the criteria for acceptability envisaged in the MED. However, on the other hand, new
equipment meeting the requirements of acceptance testing should normally comply with
criteria for acceptability including suspension levels. This is because the acceptance tests for
modern equipment will often be more demanding, in terms of performance, than the criteria
for acceptability. Quality assurance programmes involve many additional elements beyond
the suspension levels presented here, and will inevitably involve the consideration of
remedial levels.
8
Examples of how this might arise include the following: 1. In radiotherapy, a megavoltage unit with poor
isocentric accuracy could be restricted to palliative treatment until the unit could be replaced. 2. In nuclear
medicine, a rotational gamma camera with inferior isocentric accuracy could be restricted to static
examinations. 3. In diagnostic radiology, an X-ray set with the beam-limiting device locked in the maximum
field of view position might be used to obtain radiographs requiring that format in specific circumstances.
9
The criteria are applicable to refurbished and second hand equipment, for which there is now a substantial
market.
15
Table 1-3 Usages of the Terms Acceptance Testing, Commissioning and Criteria of
Acceptability
Term How and when Applied

Acceptance Testing To ensure compliance of new equipment with its
specification on installation. Generally involves the
supplier, the MPE and users.
Establishing compliance with As detailed in this report and applied as necessary
Criteria for Acceptability throughout the life of the equipment.
including suspension levels
Commissioning Commissioning is generally done before the first use of
equipment on a patient. It involves issues over and
above those in acceptance testing (e.g. clinical
protocols), and will usually involve the radiological
practitioner, technologists, MPE and the supplier’s
applications specialist.
1.5 Criteria for acceptability
1.5.1 Approaches to criteria
In Table 1-1 the criteria for acceptability were divided into two categories, qualitative
criteria and quantitative criteria, also known as suspension levels. The qualitative criteria
derive from legislation or widely accepted norms for good practice. They include, for
example, the requirements that:
 In the case of fluoroscopy, examinations without an image intensification or
equivalent techniques are not justified and shall therefore be prohibited, and
 Fluoroscopic examinations without devices to control the dose rate shall be limited to
justified circumstances,
both of which are from the MED.

Suspension levels, on the other hand, rely on measurements. They provide numerical limits
for acceptable performance in respect of the parameters identified for each of the equipment
types in sections 2, 3 and 4. Some organisations specify measurement methodologies
without indicating the performance level to be achieved. This is not uncommon in many of
the standards issued by, for example, IEC, CENELEC and some professional bodies. While
this approach has the advantage that it is easier to get consensus on standards among the
manufacturers, professions and others involved, it also has disadvantages. These include a
lack of transparency, associated limitations on accountability and risk of misapplication in the
hands of inexperienced users.
A wide ranging, consistent suite of approaches to performance and safety assessment of
radiological equipment has been proposed by the UK Institute of Physics and Engineering in
Medicine (IPEM (2005a), IPEM (2005b); IPEM (1997a), IPEM (1997b), IPEM (1997c),
Report 32 Series). The American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM (2006b), AAPM
(2005), AAPM (2002)) and British Institute of Radiology (BIR (2001)) have also published
much useful material. Much of this material is for use in routine quality assurance
programmes, and is reasonably based on the assumption that deviations from the baseline
16
INTRODUCTION
performance of equipment at installation will provide an adequate means of detecting unsafe

or inadequately performing equipment. While this approach may be reasonable in the hands
of experienced medical physicists, it can prove unsatisfactory when used to provide
suspension levels as understood in the MED. For example, if the baseline is, for some
reason, unsafe or unsatisfactory, there is then no absolute safe standard against which
performance can be measured. Consequently the approach using baseline performance as
a benchmark has not been adopted in most instances in this publication Where possible,
the emphasis has been to propose absolute suspension levels, taking account of the
considerations in sections 1.7.2, 1.8 and 1.9 below. This is consistent with the approach
adopted in many countries, including, for example, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy,
and Luxembourg, which have adopted numerical limits for performance values based on RP
91 or other sources including the IPEM 32 series (IPEM (1995), IPEM (1997a), IPEM
(1997b), IPEM (2010)).
1.6 Identifying and selecting suspension levels
With the exception of RP 91 there is no formal consolidated literature on criteria for

acceptability of radiological equipment. The MED requires that criteria be established and
available sources judged to be suitable were reviewed to identify potential criteria, principally
as suspension levels. The most important primary source of suspension levels was IEC
standards. In addition the recommendations of international organizations, professional
bodies, and the scientific/medical literature all contain values for performance and safety that
might be imported as suspension levels. The levels recommended draw on all these sources
and are, only exceptionally, new recommendations. Those selected and included are a
subset of those available. As employed here, they are cautionary in the sense that they
require both that the use of the equipment be stopped and that a risk assessment be
undertaken. They represent the minimum standard for the safety and performance
acceptable in the EU identified by the expert judgement of the working group and reviewers.
They are also informed by the social, legal and political circumstances that prevail in the EU.
The suspension levels identified have varying degrees of authority and consensus attaching
to them. These are represented by grouping them under the headings A to D in order of
preference (Table 1-4).
Table 1-4 Types of Suspension Level
Suspension Level Definition

Type A This is based on an international standard or a formal
international or national regulation.
Type B This is based on formal recommendations by scientific,
medical or professional bodies.
Type C This is based on material published in well-established peer
reviewed scientific or medical journals and/or (exceptionally)
based on reviewed recommendations from the drafting
group. For Types A/C and B/C, see the text.
Type D The need for a Type D suspension level arises when it has
not been possible to make recommendations for explicit
suspension levels (see text).
17
Type A
This type is based on an international standard or a formal international or
national regulation.
Compliance with the relevant CENELEC/IEC or national standard can be taken as
compliance with criteria that the industry has deemed to be essential for good
performance and safety. Development in this area is essential to the harmonization
referred to above. In particular, agreed methodology is essential in any system of
equipment testing. Standards organizations provide a useful role model in this regard,
which this report has tried to emulate10.
Type B
This type of criterion is based on formal recommendations of scientific, medical
or professional bodies.
Where international or national standards are not available or are out of date, advice is
often available from professional bodies, notably IPEM, AAPM, NEMA, BIR, ESTRO,
EANM and ACR. Detailed advice on testing individual systems is available from the
AAPM, earlier IPEM publications and a wide range of material published by many
professional bodies and public service organizations. Much of the material is peer
reviewed.
Type C
This type of suspension level is based on material published in well-established
peer reviewed scientific or medical journals.
When neither standards nor recommendations issued by professional bodies are
available, the published scientific literature was reviewed, and a recommendation was
made by the drafting group and submitted to expert review. Where this process led to
consensus, the suspension level and method of measurement has been adopted and
is recommended in the relevant section.
Occasionally a Type A or B method/suspension level has been modified by the drafting
group, and the resulting, revised method/suspension level is reached using the Type C
process described here. Where this has occurred the suspension level is described as
Type A/C or B/C as appropriate. This notation is also used, with the addition of an
asterisk,C*(see section 2.1), where the method is A or B but the test involves use of
data from a patient protocol.
Type D
The need for a Type D suspension level arises only when it has not been
possible to make recommendations for explicit suspension levels.
10
When equipment standards are developed so that their recommendations can be addressed to and accepted
by both “manufacturers and users”, the question of establishing criteria of acceptability becomes much
simplified. Highly developed initiatives in this regard have been undertaken in radiotherapy (see IEC (2007)
and IEC (2008c)). These “provide guidance to manufacturers on the needs of radiotherapists in respect of the
performance of MEDICAL ELECTRON ACCELERATORS and they provide guidance to USERS wishing to
check the manufacturer’s declared performance characteristics, to carry out acceptance tests and to check
periodically the performance throughout the life of the equipment”. This approach has much to offer to other
areas.
18
INTRODUCTION
This may occur for a variety of reasons. For example, where the technology involved is
evolving rapidly, listing a value could be counterproductive because it could become
out of date rapidly and/or it could act as an inhibitor of development. In such situations
it is recommended that the suspension level should be determined by the holder based
on the advice of the MPE in conjunction with the practitioner.
Each suspension level proposed in sections 2, 3 and 4 belong to one of these four
categories. In each case, the category is identified and at least one reference to the primary
source for the value and the recommended method of measurement is given. Test methods
are not generally described in this report. They are generally those described in the
reference provided.
1.7 Special considerations, exceptions and exclusions
1.7.1 Special considerations
The MED requires that special consideration be given to equipment in the following
categories:
• Equipment for screening,
• Equipment for paediatrics and
• High dose equipment, such as that used for CT, interventional radiology, or
radiotherapy.
The following chapters and sections address these issues where it is possible to do so.
Equipment used for paediatrics and in screening programmes is often similar or sometimes
identical to general purpose equipment. Where this is the case, additional guidance for the
special problems of paediatrics, such as the requirement for a removable grid in general
radiology or fluoroscopy, and the special needs with regard to CT exposure programmes are
noted. The requirements for mammography are based on those appropriate to breast
screening programmes.
1.7.2 Old equipment
Exceptions to the recommended criteria may arise in various circumstances. These include
cases where equipment has to be assessed that when installed was compliant with safety
and performance standards that predate the criteria/suspension levels presented here. In
such cases, the equipment must be reassessed according to the criteria of this report
including the risk assessment. Following that, the MPE must make a recommendation to the
holder. These recommendations must take a balanced view of the overall situation, including
the economic/social circumstances, older technology etc, and the purpose for which the
equipment is deployed. It is possible that the MPE may recommend that the equipment be
operated subject to restrictions on its use.
1.7.3 Rapidly evolving technologies
Medical imaging and radiation therapy are areas in which many new developments are
occurring. Encouraging development in such an environment is not well served by the
imposition of rigid criteria. Such criteria, when rigorously enforced, could become obstacles
to development and hence are not proposed here. The suspension levels presented here
are for well-established systems. When systems of novel design present themselves, the
19
MPE should agree suspension levels with the holder (EC (1999)) 11. The levels proposed by
the MPE must be framed to be effective for new technology, take account of related longer
established technologies, any CENELEC/IEC standards available, newly available test
methods, the manufacturer’s recommendations, related scientific and professional
opinion/published literature and the maxim that the new technology should aspire to be at
least as safe as the technology it is replacing.
1.7.4 Exclusions
Within this report, the term “equipment” has been interpreted to mean the main types of
equipment used in diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. This follows the
precedent established in RP 91 (EC (1997b)). It is important to be aware that treatment of
the whole installation is outside the scope of this report. Thus, the requirements for an
acceptable physical building with shielding that will adequately protect staff, the public and
patients, power supplies and ventilation have not been addressed. However, these are areas
of growing concern in which the requirements have changed considerably as both
equipment and legislation have changed. In addition acceptable solutions to new problems,
arising from equipment development, legislation, and dose limits/constraints are different in
different parts of the world. Consequently, there are areas particularly shielding and IT that
are now in urgent need of attention.
The contribution of IT networks to improving or compromising equipment functionality can
bear on both justification and optimization. This can apply to both PACS or RIS networks in
diagnostic imaging, and planning and treatment networks in radiotherapy centres. The
requirements for acceptability of such networks are beyond the scope of this report. Likewise
display monitors and viewing boxes are not treated here.
As already mentioned, this report focuses on qualitative criteria and suspension levels. It is
not intended to provide a template for quality assurance programmes. In addition to the
specified criteria, the equipment needs to be safe for the operator and to be operated
competently. Neither of these issues is within the remit of this report, and both are equally
important for good clinical practice. With regard to competent operation, the following need
continuing attention: safety training, good professional training, equipment supplier specific
training, staff competency assessment, training records, equipment quality assurance, clear
clinical protocols including patient identification, incident and accident reporting with active
feedback, clinical audit, and clear employment policies utilising professional registers of
qualified persons. All of these features can be incorporated into a quality management
system.
With regard to wider equipment safety considerations, there are many national and
international standards for medical devices, whose intention is to ensure the safety of
equipment in respect of, for example electrical, mechanical, and software hazards. This
report is not intended to duplicate these standards and processes. Where such standards
and their relationship with radiation safety issues are sufficiently mature, their requirements
have been referenced but not reproduced here. This is the case in many aspects of
radiotherapy (Sections 1.5 and 4). Where the relationship is less mature, or there continues
to be an overlap between safety standards and the performance issues that have become
the main focus of this report, some of the basic safety issues are repeated in this report. For
11
The holder of the equipment is accorded a clear role in this regard in the guidance for the transposition into
national regulations (EC (1999)). In it, it is noted that the holder is responsible that the criteria are drawn up
and being used. This is not surprising as it is also part of the responsibility of the holder in respect of all other
types of equipment in the institution.
20
INTRODUCTION
example, tube leakage, which is essentially a safety standards issue, continues to be

present in the diagnostic radiology section of the report.
1.8 Establishing conformity with criteria for acceptability
Qualitative criteria and suspension levels will be applied by the holders in each Member
State with appropriate oversight from the national competent authority(ies). It must be borne
in mind that the competent authorities for the MED are generally not the same as those for
the MDD. In addition the criteria for acceptability are introduced and applied in the context of
increasing oversight in health care, for example, the developing requirements for clinical
audit particularly in the radiological world. This is accompanied by an increasingly
demanding environment for individual and institutional accreditation.
To verify that the criteria for acceptability are being met, the holder must appoint a
competent person or persons. The person(s) appointed should be an MPE or have similar
standing, whose role will include signing off on the protocols/tests to establish compliance.
Who performs the tests in practice is a matter for local arrangements and may vary with the
circumstances precipitating performance of the tests. For example, on receipt of new
equipment, the MPE may choose to include tests for criteria for acceptability with the
acceptance tests following discussion and agreement with the suppliers’ engineers.
In practice, the MPE may perform the tests, write them up, sign them off and report on them.
Alternatively, he/she may accept and use results provided by the manufacturer’s team. The
test methods recommended in this report often rely on non-invasive measurements that
would be available to the end user, but alternative approaches proposed by the
manufacturer and agreed in advance with the MPE may be acceptable. In these
circumstances, results acquired during acceptance testing will often provide sufficient
information for the MPE to make a judgement on whether or not the equipment performance
is within suspension levels. Institutions should establish a local practice that enables
compliance to be confidently verified, with minimum duplication of effort by a suitably
qualified person acting on behalf of the holder. In radiotherapy, this is well established, as
illustrated by commonplace joint acceptance testing by the manufacturer’s team and the
holder’s MPE.
Compliance with appropriate suspension levels should also be verified at times other than
installation. Examples include after significantly reconfiguring or updating equipment,
following major maintenance, following an alert raised during quality control measurements,
before significant changes in intended use, and otherwise as required12.
When equipment fails to meet the criteria it must be suspended from use with patients. This
must be undertaken in a way that is proportionate to the criteria that have not been met, the
clinical needs in the institution and national circumstances. A risk assessment of the various
possible options must be prepared by the MPE in consultation with the relevant
practitioner(s) and, where necessary, representative(s) of the holder. The options include, for
example, immediate suspension of the equipment, where the failure of compliance is serious
enough to warrant it. They may also include assessment of the option that the equipment be
replaced temporarily13 or permanently. Alternatively a phased suspension or limitations on
the range of use of the equipment may be considered. In the latter case, the specific
circumstances under which the equipment may continue to be used must be carefully
defined and documented in the risk assessment. The risk assessment must be
12
An example of major maintenance would be replacement of an X-ray tube.
13
Temporary replacement with mobile facilities for CT and vascular suites is not uncommon while new
permanent replacements are planned. These involve additional risks.
21
communicated by the MPE, promptly and in writing, to senior management of the holder and
the users of the equipment.
Finally, the judgement and advice of the MPE is critically important in establishing the basis
on which acceptability should be determined when the recommended qualitative criteria and
suspension levels are incomplete or lack precision, when the equipment is very old, when it
involves an unanticipated new technology, or when it is subject to special arrangements or
exemptions.
1.9 Wider issues for the hospital, the MPE and the regulator
An MPE employed in a hospital will frequently have duties that embrace both facilitating the
role and mission of the holder, and providing advice on compliance with these criteria. Good
governance arrangements will ensure these responsibilities are exercised without coming
into conflict with each other.
The hospital MPE’s role, in identifying how one or more criteria are not met, is exercised
alone. This is without prejudice to the unique responsibility medical/radiological practitioners
hold in respect of the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients.
The advice given in this publication is directed toward the holder and the holder’s staff and is
consistent with the implementation advice given by the Working Party on the MED
(EC 1999). It is also equivalent, in many respects, to advice and protocols on best practice
that apply to almost every aspect of contemporary institutional medical practice. It is not
envisaged that regulators will play a major role in implementing this advice on a day-to-day
basis. In practice, it is expected that the holder will be responsible for implementing it. They
will, in mature services, from within their own competence oversee the acceptability of their
equipment. Where equipment fails to meet the criteria it will normally be removed from use
and replaced, or services will be suitably altered, without involving regulators directly.
Regulators may become involved by adopting and/or making available criteria (or some
suitable alternatives). Holders must in due course adopt the regulator’s criteria and may or
may not add to them. Regulatory inspections are likely to seek evidence of compliance with
these or suitable alternative criteria. Where evidence is not available or where there is
concrete evidence that the criteria (or suitable alternatives) are not complied with, regulators
become an important agent for enforcement. In practice, in many institutions failure of
compliance should already be known through internal advice from the MPE, clinical audit, or
accreditation programmes. Where a problem exists and none of these approaches have
identified it, there are likely to be many other serious problems in the institution.
1.10 Conclusions
The guidance provided in this introduction is crucial to the effective use of the sets of
qualitative criteria and suspension levels for radiological, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy
equipment to be found in sections 2, 3, and 4 of this report. Following this advice will ensure
that the requirements of the MED are met in a way that is consistent with sound medical
practice and the global harmonization of the radiological equipment industry.
22
DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY
2 DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
Since RP 91 was published (EC (1997b)), there have been a number of major developments
in diagnostic radiology. Perhaps key among these is routine use of digital detectors (e.g.
large area flat panel detectors) in radiology and fluoroscopy, as well as multiple slice
computed tomography. These developments among others, require revised and new
acceptability criteria.
Manufacturers have incorporated many other new features into medical imaging systems, for
example those based on software and IT innovations. These have resulted in improved and
more stable performance. For example newer X-ray generators are much improved when
compared with their predecessors. These improvements also create the need to revisit
criteria for acceptability.
The implementation of a quality culture within radiology departments and the evolution of
quality assurance programmes have also had an impact on criteria and suspension levels. In
part the development and availability of relatively stable instrumentation for dose
determination in radiology has contributed to this.
However, in rapidly evolving areas of radiology, such as CT scanning, acceptability criteria
have not kept pace with technological developments. There is a deficit in the availability of
well tested consensus-based criteria and suspension levels.
Acceptability criteria for all types of diagnostic radiology equipment are summarised in the
following sections and are almost all based on physical or engineering performance or safety
features. In a small number of instances, which includes CT scanners, the drafting teams
were not satisfied that the available criteria based on equipment alone provided sufficiently
robust reassurance of acceptability. In such cases a review of dose parameters or key
patient dose protocols, and their comparison to accepted reference levels (eg., DRLs), can
be meaningful, and represent the acceptability of the equipment as it is used in practice.
However, such measurements are outside of the normal scope of this report. Nevertheless
about 10 suspension levels in this section are dependent on patient protocol doses and they
are duly flagged14. Failure to meet these levels must be viewed cautiously as it may reflect
problems with the equipment or the protocol, or both. This will always require skilful
interpretation and will almost inevitably give rise to the need for further investigation. If the
investigation reveals that equipment problems are responsible, proceed within the
framework of this document. If it reveals patient dose protocol problems they should be
addressed within other areas in the optimisation programme.
2.2 X-ray generators and equipment for general radiography
2.2.1 Introductory remarks and qualitative criteria
General radiographic systems still provide the great majority of X-ray examinations. They
may be subdivided in practice into a number of subsidiary specialist types of system. This
section deals with the suspension levels applicable to X-ray generators and general
radiographic equipment. It also includes or is applicable to mobile systems, and system
subcomponents/devices such as automatic exposure control (AEC) or grids. Part of what is
14
Each of these is accompanied by a short footnote drawing attention to the paragraph above and the
suspension level type is distinguished by adding an asterisk (see section 1.6).
23
presented here is also applicable to generators for fluoroscopic equipment, dental CBCT and
DXA systems. However, the criteria have not been developed with specialized X-ray
equipment, such as mammographic, dental, and CT units in mind. These are covered in
sections 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, and 2.8. Irrespective of the type of equipment, if there are obvious
serious electrical or mechanical safety defects, then the system must be suspended from
clinical use.
The criteria here refer to X-ray tube and generator, output, filtration and half value layer
(HVL), beam alignment, collimation, the grid, AEC, leakage radiation and dosimetry.
Suspension levels are specified in the tables below, and should be used with due
consideration for the remarks on HVL and filtration, image quality, paediatric concerns, AEC,
mobile devices, and spatial resolution. The equipment types listed in the box are not
acceptable on the basis of the qualitative criteria stated.
Unacceptable X-Ray generators and equipment for general radiology
 Equipment without the ability to collimate the beam,
 Systems intended to include paediatric use, without the option to remove the grid, (for
new equipment, specified more than one year after the publication of RP 162),
 Equipment without a device (where practicable) to show the quantity of radiation,
 Equipment without AEC devices (where practicable).
HVL/filtration
Total filtration in general radiography should not normally be less than 2.5 mm Al. The first
HVL is an important metric used as a surrogate measurement for filtration. It shall not be
less than the values given in Tables 2-2 or 2-3 in the next section, which depend on the year
in which they were CE marked.
Paediatric Issues
Requirements for radiography of paediatric patients differ from those of adults, partly related
to differences in size and immobilization during examination (EC 1999) IEC 2009) (see notes
and suspensions level in Tables 2.1 and 2.18). Beam alignment and collimation are
particularly important in paediatric radiology, where the whole body, individual organs and
their separations are smaller. The X-ray generator and tube must have sufficient power and
suitable range of timer settings to facilitate short exposure times. In addition the option to
remove the grid from a radiography table/image receptor is essential in a system for
paediatric use, as is the capacity to disable the AEC, use manual exposure factors, and
where relevant set shorter exposures. Systems used with manual exposures (like dedicated
mobile units for bedside examinations) should have exposure charts for paediatric patients.
Special radiation quality requirements are stated for paediatric applications (Table 2-1: HVL
or sufficient total filtration).
Image Quality and Spatial Resolution
There are unresolved difficulties in determining objective measures of image quality that are
both reproducible and reflect clinical performance. Image quality must be sufficient for the
diagnostic tasks that the system is used for. This may be subjectively assessed by, for
example, an experienced practitioner. High contrast bar patterns provide simple assessment
that often proves valuable (Table 2-1). Both of these approaches may be augmented by
24
semi subjective assessments, or other quantitative assessments at the discretion of the MPE
and the practitioner.
Automatic exposure control (AEC)
The AEC should ensure each patient receives the correct exposure. It is also necessary
with modern generators that pre-programmed exposure systems be assessed based on the
suppliers’ specification and the MPE’s evaluation. The optical density of the film or the
receptor dose under AEC must be as detailed in Table 2-4 and 2-5. The option to manually
override the AEC is essential.
IEC (2009) states that if the normal termination depends upon a radiation measurement,
then the safety measure shall comprise means for termination of irradiation in the event of a
failure of the normal termination. Either the product of X-ray tube voltage, X-ray tube current
and loading time shall be limited to not more than 60 kWs per irradiation, or the current-time
product shall be limited to not more than 600 mAs per irradiation (see Tables 2.4 and 2.5).
The operation of a guard-timer must be checked for extreme situations. Compliance is
checked by inspection and by the appropriate functional tests. It should be noted that the
tube may be damaged if the test is done incorrectly (IPEM, 2005a).
Mobile devices
With mobile devices the criteria for equipment for general radiography are applicable except
the requirements for the AEC, which cannot always be met in practice.
2.2.2 Suspension levels for X-ray generators and general radiography
The suspension levels for X-Ray generators and general radiography systems are provided
in Tables 2-1 to 2-5.
Table 2-1 Suspension Levels for General Radiography Systems
Physical Suspension Level Reference Type Notes and Observations

Parameter
X-RAY SYSTEM
X-ray tube and
generator
Tube voltage
Tube voltage Deviation from set EC (1997) A
accuracy voltage > 10 % or 10 kVp IPEM (2005a)
whichever is the greater
X-ray tube output
Magnitude of Y outside range of 25 to EC (1997) A/C Nearest nominal kV to 80
output (Y) at 1m 80 μGy/mAs at 80 kV and IPEM (1995)
total filtration of 2.5 mm ICRU (2005)
Al
Repeatability of Deviation from mean EC (1997) A
output for a Fixed value of measurements > IPEM (2005a)
setting 20 %
Consistency of Deviation from mean IPEM (2005a) B Fixed kV
output in µGy/mAs value of measurements >
for a range of mA 20 %
and mAs values
Half-value layer
(HVL ) /total
filtration
HVL or sufficient HVL < values specified in IEC (2008a) A Paediatric systems should
25

Parameter
total filtration Tables 2.2 and 2.3 IEC (1994) have optional additional Cu
IEC (2009) filtration of 0.1 or 0.2 mm
(EC 1996)
For newer paediatric
equipment manufactured in
compliance with IEC
60601-2-54 additional
0.1mm Cu or total 3.5mm
Al is required (IEC, 2009)
Exposure time
Accuracy of Deviation from set time > IPEM (2005a) B Where shorter exposures
exposure time 20 % (for times ≥ 100 are required in practice,
ms). they should be accurate ,
Deviation from set time > particularly for paediatrics
30 % (for times < 100 (EC, 1996c)
ms).
Alignment
X-ray/light beam Misalignment in any IPEM (2005a) B
alignment direction > 3 % of focus-
image receptor distance
Light beam/bucky Alignment of crosswire EC (1997) A

centering with center of Bucky >
1% of focus-image
receptor distance
Collimation
Automatic X-ray beam outside the EC (1997) A Automatic collimation must
collimation active area of the image allow smaller fields than
receptor > 2% of the the whole image receptor
focus-image receptor area
distance
Grid
Grid artefacts If significant grid artefacts EC (1997) A See method in EC (1997)
are visible
Moving grid If lamellae visible on EC (1997) A Should not be visible at the
image shortest exposure time
used in clinical practice.
Focal Spot (FS)

and Resolution
Spatial resolution < 1.6 lp/mm JORF (2007) A Test to be performed with
(as indicator of 20 cm of PMMA between
focal spot test object and receptor.
integrity) Resolution limited by focal
spot size and detector
characteristics.
Leakage
radiation
Leakage radiation Ka(1 m) > 1 mGy in one IEC (2008a) A
hour at maximum rating EN (2008a)
specified by the EC (1997)
manufacturer ICRU (2005)
26

Parameter
Dosimetry
Integrated “dose Overall uncertainty > ± 25 IEC (2000) A
indicator” %
calibration
(DAP/KAP meter
accuracy)
Table 2-2 Suspension levels for minimum first HVL
Parameter Suspension level Reference Type Notes and

Observations
X-ray Tube Voltage Minimum
permissible first
kV
HVL
mm Al
50 1.8
60 2.2
70 2.5
80 2.9 IEC (2008a)
90 3.2 EN (2008a) A
100 3.6
110 3.9
120 4.3
130 4.7
140 5.0
150 5.4
Alternative means of demonstrating compliance consistent with the standard above are also
acceptable.
27
Table 2-3 Suspension levels for minimum HVL for equipment CE marked pre-2012
Parameter Suspension level Reference Type Notes and

Observations
X-ray Tube VoltageMinimum
(see Note 1) permissible first
kV HVL
mm Al
From 30 upwards < See “Notes and IEC (1994) Linear extrapolation
50 Observations” EN (1994) used
50 1.5
60 1.8
70 2.1
80 2.3 A
90 2.5
100 2.7
110 3.0
120 3.2
130 3.5
140 3.8
150 4.1
>150 See “Notes and Linear extrapolation
Observations” used
Table 2-4 AEC Suspension Levels for Film/ Screen systems

Parameter
AEC Further methodology in
verification IEC (2009)
Limitation of Focal spot charge > EC (1997) A
overexposure 600 mAs IEC (2009)
EN (2009)
Verification of OD outside of range IPEM B
AEC optical 0.9 - 1.4 (1997a)
density (OD)
under reference
conditions
Repeatability of Film density > ±0.3 IPEM B
OD OD from mean value (2005a)
Verification of Film density for each IPEM B Exception when sensors
sensors of AEC sensor > ±0.5 OD (2005a) are set up differently by
from mean value BHPA (2008) design.
Verification of Film density for a EC (1997) A
AEC phantom thickness >
±0.3 OD from mean
value for all
thicknesses
28
Table 2-5 AEC Suspension Levels for CR and DDR

Parameter
AEC verification Further methodology in IEC
(2009)
Limitation of Maximal focal spot EC (1997) A
overexposure charge > 600 mAs IEC (2009)
EN (2009)
Verification of ≥ 10 μGy Walsh et al C Suspension level for CR is
receptor air- (2008) double the maximum
kerma for CR Bowden et al expected values
and DDR (2011) mentioned by Walsh et al
Systems under (2008) ie 3-5 µGy.
IPEM (2010)
AEC Maximum expected dose
for DDR may be marginally
higher to take due account
of geometry and presence
or absence of grid (Walsh
et al. 2008, Bowden et al,
2011).
Alternative agreed
methodologies are
acceptable and may
require adjustment in
suspension level.
AEC device DDI or measured IPEM (2010) B DDI as used in IPEM
repeatability kerma differs by > 40 (2010). See also IEC
% from mean value (2009).
Verification of DDI or measured IPEM (2010) B
AEC at various kerma for a given
phantom phantom thickness
thicknesses differs by > 40 %
from mean value for
all thicknesses
2.3 Radiographic image receptors
2.3.1 Introductory remarks
The Suspension Levels for screens, cassettes, CR and DDR are presented in Tables 2-6 to
2-9. They do not deal with the requirements for mammography or dental radiography. A
wider approach which includes quality assurance of film, film processing and image
receptors of all types is a critical part of an overall day to day quality system but is not
addressed here (IPEM (2005a); BIR (2001); Papp (1998); IPEM (1997a)).
Installation and calibration of a CR system is extremely important. It is also essential to note
that the X-ray systems needs to be properly set up for use with CR/DDR systems. In
particular, the AEC needs to be appropriately set up (AAPM (2006a); IPEM (2010)).
Details on desirable specifications and features of CR systems as well as their proper
installation can be found in AAPM Report 93 (AAPM (2006a)). These guidelines should be
29
followed prior to acceptability testing. To date, unlike film systems, there are not many
publications on the performance of CR systems. However, the recent publication in the IPEM
Report 32 series provides useful guidance on quality assurance of these systems (IPEM
(2010)). The suspension levels identified will almost inevitably need adjustment in line with
future evidence and guidance (Table 2-8).
Likewise, with DDR systems, the tube, generator, workstation and/or laser printer must be
known to be working properly. When testing the tube and generator, it is advisable to keep
the detector out of the beam or protect it with lead. As with CR, few publications are
available on suspension levels and the advice given above for CR, prevails (Table 2-9).
2.3.2 Suspension levels for image receptors
Table 2-6 Suspension Levels for screens (mammography and dental excluded
Physical Suspension Reference Type Notes and

Parameter Level Observations
Screens and Significant visible EC (1997) B See also IEC
Cassettes artefacts present. IPEM (2005a) (1993c).
BIR (2001)
IPEM (1997a)
Relative Deviations from IPEM (2005a) B/C See also EC (1997).
Speed of mean relative
batch of speed > 20%
Intensifying
Screens
Film Screen Non-uniform IPEM (1997a) B See also IEC (1993c)
Contact density or loss of and EC (1997).
sharpness.
Table 2-7 Suspension Levels for cassettes and CR Plates
Physical Suspension Level Reference Type Notes and

Parameter Observations
Condition of Damage to plate IPEM (2005a) B See also Table 2.6.
cassettes and
image plates
Visual check of Artefacts likely to IPEM (2010) B
uniformity affect clinical image
quality
30
Table 2-8 Suspension Levels for CR readers see notes 1 and 2

Dark Noise Agfa SAL>100 AAPM (2006a) B/C With new technologies,
Fuji pixel value > 284 equivalent agreed
values should be used.
Kodak EIGP > 80
Kodak EIHR > 380
Konica pixel value <
3975
Signal transfer If relationship unknown IPEM (2010) B/C
properties (STP) or complex
Measured Deviation from mean IPEM (2010) B
uniformity value of STP corrected
ROI values > 20 %
Erasure cycle >1% IPEM (2010) B
efficiency
Detector Dose Deviation from mean IPEM (2010) B
Indicator (DDI) value of DDI > 20 % AAPM (2006a)
repeatability
Scaling errors: Errors > 4% IPEM (2010) B/C
(distance
measurement)
Blurring Clinically significant IPEM (2010) B/C
visible blurring present
Image quality: Spatial resolution < 2.8 DIN (2001) A Use phantom described
lp/mm for dose ≤ 10 in the standard or
High Contrast μGy. suitable equivalent,
Limiting Spatial
positioned at 45 to the
Resolution
edges of the CR plate.
Spatial resolution < 2.4
lp/mm for dose ≤ 5 Also note AAPM
μGy. (2006a), IPEM (2010) &
Walsh et al. (2008).
Image Quality: < 7 steps are visible DIN (2001) A Use phantom described
in the standard or
Low Contrast agreed equivalent.
Resolution
Also note AAPM
(2006a), IPEM (2010) &
Walsh et al. (2008).
Laser beam Occasional jitter IPEM (2010) B/C
function
Moiré Patterns Moiré Patterns visible IPEM (2010) B/C
1. The suspension levels quoted for Dark Noise are valid at the time of publication. However as CR is an
evolving technology specification of dark noise may evolve also.
2. Signal transfer properties (STP) refers to a test to be done during the acceptance testing of the CR Reader in
order to establish the relationship between receptor dose and pixel value.
31
Table 2-9 Suspension Levels for DDR systems see notes 1, 2

Dark Noise Excessive noise in IPEM (2010) B/C
the system
Signal transfer Relationship IPEM (2010) B/C
properties (STP) unknown or complex
Image retention >1% IPEM (2010) B
Detector Dose Deviation of the IPEM (2010) B
Indicator (DDI) mean value of DDI >
repeatability 20 %
Measured and Deviation from IPEM (2010) B/C
visual uniformity mean value of STP
corrected ROI
values > 20 %
Scaling errors Errors > 4 % IPEM (2010) B/C
Blurring / line Clinically significant IPEM (2010) B/C
defects / stitching visible blurring
artefacts present or defective
lines
Image quality: High Spatial resolution < DIN (2001) A Use phantom
contrast Limiting 2.8 lp/mm for dose ≤ described in the
Spatial Resolution 10 μGy. standard, positioned at
45 ˚ to the edges of
the DR detector. Also
Spatial resolution <
note AAPM (2006a),
2.4 lp/mm for dose ≤
IPEM (2010) & Walsh
5 μGy
et al.(2008).
Image Quality Low < 7 steps are visible DIN (2001) A Use phantom
Contrast Resolution described in the
standard or suitable
equivalent.
Also note AAPM
(2006a), IPEM (2010)
& Walsh et al. (2008)
and new
developments in the
area.
1. System transfer properties refers to relationship established at acceptance test of the DDR system between
receptor dose and pixel value.
2. It should be noted that a number of manufacturers have installed automatic QA software on their DDR
equipment.
32
2.4 Mammography
Mammography involves the radiological examination of the breast using X-rays and is
primarily used for the detection of breast cancer at an early stage. It is widely used in
screening programmes involving healthy populations. Early detection of breast cancer in a
healthy population places particular demands on radiological equipment as high quality
images are required at a low dose. Symptomatic patients may also benefit from these
considerations. Perhaps because of the exacting demands of mammography, acceptability
criteria and suspension levels are well developed (IPEM (2005b); EC (2006)).
Mammography should be performed on equipment designed and dedicated specifically for
imaging breast tissue. Either film/screen or digital detectors may be used. Tables 2-10 to
2-13 summarise the suspension criteria for conventional and digital mammography
equipment. The qualitative criteria for mammography equipment are set out in the box
Unacceptable Mammography Equipment
 Equipment without AEC.

 Non digital equipment without a grid.
 Equipment with the focus-to- image receptor distance less than 60 cm.
 Equipment with a field of view less than 18 x 24 cm2 (excluding stereotactic devices).
 Equipment without a foot pedal operated motorized compression plate and readout of
compression thickness and force.
33
2.4.2 Suspension levels for mammograph
Table 2-10 Suspension Levels for Mammography
Physical Notes and

Suspension Level Reference Type
AEC short term Deviation from mean value of IEC (2011)
A
Repeatability mAs > 15%
X-ray field extending beyond
the image receptor > 5 mm on
X-ray/Image any side.
EC (2006) A
receptor Alignment Chest wall side: distance
between image receptor and
edge > 5 mm
No breast compression device
shall be able to apply a force
exceeding 300 N;
For power-driven compression,
Compression the breast compression device IEC (2011)
A
shall be able to apply a
force of at least 150 N, and it
shall be unable to apply a
force exceeding 200 N;
Compression Force
Change in force > 20 N IPEM (2005a) B Over 30s period
Consistency
Deviation of tube voltage > 2
Tube voltage IPEM (2005a) B
kVp from set value.
> 2 s for standard breast 4.5 Excluding slot
Exposure Time EC (2006) A
cm PMMA scanning systems.
Specific radiation ≤ 120 µGy/mAs @ 50cm for 28
EC (2006) A
output kVp, Mo, Mo
2 cm > 1 mGy
3 cm > 1.5 mGy
Dosimetry (Average 4 cm > 2 mGy
Glandular Dose, 4.5 cm > 2.5 mGy EC (2006) A/C*
AGD)15 5 cm > 3 mGy
6 cm > 4.5 mGy
7 cm > 6.5 mGy
Or kVp/100 for
some
< 0.28 mm Al @ 28 kVp for combinations of
HVL IEC (2011) A
Mo, Mo target/filter
materials (IEC
2011).
15
This suspension level is patient dose protocol dependent. Hence failure to meet it may reflect problems with
the protocol, the equipment or both, and further investigation is necessary to establish if the problem lies in
the equipment. See and follow advice in last paragraph of section 2.1.
34
Table 2-11 Suspension Levels for Film/Screen Mammography Systems
Physical Notes and

Parameter observations
And if not
Standard Film IPEM correctable by
OD < 1.3 or > 2.1 B
Density (2005a) AEC density
control.
Deviation from mean value
of OD > ±0.15 from
AEC Thickness
standard breast (4.5 cm EC (2006) A
Compensation
PMMA) for 2 cm to 7 cm of
tissue-equivalent material.
Film/Screen
>1 cm² of poor contact EC (2006) A
Contact
High Contrast
< 12 lp/mm EC (2006) A
Resolution
Threshold EC (2006)
> 1.5% for 5-6 mm detail A
Contrast
Table 2-12 Suspension levels for Digital Mammography Systems
Physical Notes and

With CNR calculated from 5
cm of PMMA and 0.2 mm Al
and X-ray exposure to just
pass the contrast/detail
criteria set as a reference,
CNR at other thicknesses of
PMMA acquired under
clinical conditions should not This test could be
AEC Thickness be replaced by
EC (2006) A
Compensation 2.0 cm < 115 % another validated
equivalent test.
3.0 cm < 110 %
4.0 cm < 105 %
4.5 cm < 103 %
5.0 cm < 100 %
6.0 cm< 95 %
7.0 cm< 90 %
With clinical exposure using Should be
an equivalent of 5cm PMMA achievable at 3
mGy AGD;
> 0.85 % 5-6 mm
Threshold Images can be
> 2.35 % 0.5 mm EC (2006) A read by human
Contrast
> 5.45 % 0.25 mm observer or using
> 23.0 % 0.10 mm tested software
tools (Young et
al, 2008). Test
35
Physical Notes and

could be
replaced by
another validated
equivalent.
Table 2-13 Suspension Levels for stereotactic biopsy tables
Physical
Suspension Level Reference Type Notes
Parameter
With clinical exposure using
an equivalent of 5cm PMMA,
Threshold contrast threshold value Small field
> 1.25 % for 5-6 mm details NHS (2007) A/C
contrast digital systems.
> 5 % for 0.5 mm details
> 8 % for 0.25 mm details
Deviation in alignment > 1
Accuracy of
mm in X and Y or > 3 mm in IPEM (2005b) B/C
localization
Z.
2.5 Dental radiography
Dental radiography, though often delivering a low dose, is the most frequently conducted X-
ray examination. The following are not acceptable for intra oral dental imaging:
Unacceptable Intra-oral Dental Equipment
 Film class lower than E for which special justification has not been made (EC
(2004)).
 Non rectangular collimators on intraoral equipment, for which special justification
has not been made (IEC (1994), EC (2004)).
 Rectangular collimation on intra oral equipment, resulting in a field size greater than
40 x 50 mm (IPEM (2005a)).
There are no specific qualitative criteria for dental extra-oral system systems.
Results of testing dental equipment are available in Gallagher et al. (2008), EC (1997), IEC
standards, and the criteria for dental equipment adopted by EU member states (FANC
besluit (2008); IPEM (2008); JORF (2007); IPEM (2005a); Directive R-08-05 (2005); SEFM-
SEPR (2002); IEC (2000a)). Revised IEC standards for dental equipment are due to be
issued at the time of finalizing this publication (IEC 60601-2-63 (draft, CDV, 2011), IEC
60601-2-65 (draft, CDV, 2011)).
36
Use of cone beam CT (CBCT)/ Dental Volumetric Tomography (DVT) for dental applications
has risen steadily since its introduction about a decade ago. The design and specification of
this types of equipment still varies considerably. The approach here (Table 2-16) is based on
that recommended by the EC SEDENTEXCT project.
2.5.2 Suspension levels for dental equipment
Suspension levels for various types of dental equipment are provided in Tables 2-14 to 2-16.
Where exposure settings or pre-programmed exposure protocols are provided with the
equipment, their appropriateness should be checked as part of the confirmation that the
equipment is acceptable. A distinction should be made between exposure settings for adults
and children. Image quality suspension levels for digital dental systems are not readily
available, but where applicable, the provisions of Tables 2.7 to 2.9 can be used for guidance.
Table 2-14 Suspension Levels for Dental x-Ray Tubes and Generators (excluding
CBCT)
Physical parameter Suspension level Reference Type Notes and

Observations
X-ray tube and generator

Tube voltage range, Intra Outside the range IEC (1994), A
Oral 60 to 90 kVp EC (2004)
Tube voltage range, Outside the range IEC (1994), A See also
Cephalometric and all 60 to 125 kVp EC (2004) IEC 60601-2-63
others except CBCT (draft, CDV,
Tube voltagel accuracy Deviation from set EC (1997) A 2011),
kVp > 10 % IEC 60601-2-65
Exposure time accuracy Deviation from set EC (1997) A (draft, CDV,
exposure time > 20 2011).
%
Exposure time precision Deviation from EC (1997) A
measured value of
time > 10 %
Repeatability of radiation Deviation from mean EC (1997) A
output measured output >
20 %
FSD for Intra Oral < 20 cm IEC (1994) A
Equipment
HVL Operating voltage < IEC (1994) A
70 kVp, HVL < 1.5
mm Al. Other
systems see Table
2.3
37
Table 2-15 Suspension Levels for Dental CBCT Equipment
Physical parameter Suspension Reference Type Notes and

level observations
X-ray tube and
generator
Tube and generator See Table 2-1 SEDENTEXCT A/C Tube and
(2011) generator tests
as in Table 2.1
as far as
applicable.
Dosimetry
Integrated “dose See Table 2-17 IEC (2000a) A/C Calibration as
indicator” calibration Toroi et al. far as possible
(DAP/KAP meter (2009) follows Table
accuracy) 2-1.
IAEA (2011)
SEDENTEXCT
(2011)
DAP/KAP16 Deviation > 2 x HPA (2010) A/C* Achievable
achievable dose SEDENTEXCT dose used
(2011) pending the
availability of
DRLs.
CTDI – free in air Does not meet IPEM (2005a) B/C Use if CTDI is
manufacturer’s HPA (2010) quoted by the
specification or manufacturers
deviation from
baseline > 40 %
Field of View and
alignment
Field of View Field > size of the HPA (2010) A/C Film or suitable
solid detector SEDENTEXCT CR or DR
(2011) detector.
Protocol
agreed with
supplier. See
also IEC
60601-2-63
(draft, CDV,
2011)
Image quality
Image noise Deviation from HPA (2010) A/C
baseline > 25 % IPEM (2005a)
16
38
Physical parameter Suspension Reference Type Notes and

level observations
Spatial resolution < 1 lp/mm (in Bundesregierung B High contrast
high resolution BRD (2004) resolution bar
mode) pattern
Image density values Deviation from HPA (2010) A/C Quality Control
manufacturer’s IPEM (2005a) phantom
specification > 25
%
Artefacts Any artefacts D
likely to impact
on clinical
diagnosis
Table 2-16 Suspension Levels for Dosimetry for dental systems excluding CBCT

Parameter Level observations
Intra-Oral
Incident air kerma > 4 mGy Napier (1999) A/C* Some authorities
for mandibular lower EC (2004) recommend a lower
molar tooth17 level. See JORF
(2007)
Panoramic Systems
Kerma area product > 100 mGycm2 or IPEM (2005a) B/C*
of a typical clinical current national
exposure or reference dose
calculated kerma
area product from
dose width product
or equivalent17
Cephalometry Systems
Incident air kerma > 3 mGy EC (2004) A/C*
for skull AP/PA17 Hart D, Hillier MC,
et al. (1996)
Incident air kerma > 1.5 mGy EC (2004) A/C*
for skull lateral17 Hart D, et al.
(1996)
17
39
2.6 Fluoroscopic systems
Fluoroscopic systems can be highly flexible and are open to a wide range of applications.
They may offer a multiplicity of modes (and sub-modes) of operation. A set of the modes and
submodes that represent the intended uses of the equipment should be identified for
acceptability testing. For example, the main “cardiac mode(s)” and associated sub-modes
might be tested in a unit whose intended application will be in the area of cardiac imaging. If
the unit is later deployed for different purposes the need for new acceptance testing will have
to be considered by the practitioner and the MPE.
In many cases fluoroscopic systems are supplied as dedicated units suitable for cardiac,
vascular, gastrointestinal or other specific applications. Powerful mobile units are available
and are generally flexible. In all cases the MPE will have to consider the intended application
of the unit and the environment in which it will be installed and used. With respect to the X-
ray generator, many of the criteria of acceptability are similar to those prevailing for general
radiographic systems.
The following are not acceptable, in accordance with the MED, supported by requirements of
IEC (2009):
Unacceptable Fluoroscopy Equipment
 Equipment without a device (where practicable) to show the quantity of radiation,

Equipment using direct fluoroscopy.
 Equipment without a functioning audible 5 minute timer.
 Equipment without devices to control the dose rate in the absence of special
justification.
 Systems intended to include paediatric use, without the option to remove the grid, (for
new equipment, specified more than one year after the publication of RP 162).
 Equipment without beam collimation facilities.
2.6.2 Suspensions levels for fluoroscopy equipment
Table 2-17 Suspension Levels for Fluoroscopy and Fluorography Equipment
Physical Suspension Level Reference Type Notes

Parameter
Collimation Limits Deviation > 3 % of IEC (2009) A

SID in either lateral or CFR (2010)
longitudinal directions
or > 4 % for the sum
of the two directions
Radiation/Image Radiation area > 1.25 IEC (2009) A
field size * image area
Half-value layer Tables 2-2 and 2-3 IEC (2008a) A
apply IEC (1994)
40
Physical Suspension Level Reference Type Notes

Parameter
Patient Entrance > 100 mGy/min at EC (1997) A/C* Values include
Dose Rates appropriate position Martin (1998) back scatter with
(Fluoroscopy/normal grid in place
mode)18
Patient Entrance > 2 mGy/frame IPEM (2005a) B/C* See also Martin
Dose per frame (1998) for method
(Normal digital
fluorographic
For cardiac mode: Dowling et al
acquisition mode)18
> 0.2 mGy/frame (2008)
Image receptor Air > 1 μGy/second IPEM (1996) B
Kerma Rate IPEM (2005a)
(Fluoroscopy normal
mode)
Image receptor Air > 5 μGy/frame IPEM (2005a) B/C
Kerma per frame.
(Normal digital
fluorographic
For cardiac mode: > Dowling et al
acquisition mode)
0.5 μGy/frame. (2008)
Integrated “dose Deviation of the IEC (2010) A 35% accuracy
indicator” calibration measured and Toroi et al (2009) only applies above
(DAP/KAP meter indicated values > 2.5 Gy cm2 and
accuracy) 35 % 100 mGy and 6
mGy/min,
respectively.
High contrast Spatial Resolution: EC (1997) A
resolution < 0.8 lp/mm for field
sizes > 25 cm
< 1 lp/mm for field
sizes ≤ 25
Low contrast Threshold Contrast: >
EC (1997) A
sensitivity 4%
(Fluoroscopy mode)
Radiation output Deviation of radiation See Table 2.1 A
using manual output from values
settings specified in Table 2.1
18
41
2.7 Computed tomography
CT examinations are among the highest dose procedures encountered routinely in medical
imaging and account for the largest single component of diagnostic medical irradiation in
some countries (NCRP (2009)). Thus monitoring of CT equipment is important both in terms
of individual examinations and population effects. The design, proper functioning, and the
optimal use of equipment substantially influences CT dose. This can be particularly
important when pregnant patients or children are involved. CT scanners are under continual
technical development resulting in increasing clinical application (Nagel (2002)). In the last
two decades the development of helical and multidetector scanning modes allowed greatly
enhanced technical abilities and clinical application (Kalender (2011)).
CT scanners may be replaced for reasons that, in theory, include poor equipment
performance as demonstrated by failure to meet acceptability criteria or suspension levels.
In practice it is also likely that replacement is frequently with a view to meeting increased
demands on the service, or to take advantage of new developments which enable improved
diagnostics, faster throughput or other clinical benefits. In practice there are few (if any)
examples of CT scanners being removed from use on the basis of their failure to meet
criteria of acceptability/suspension levels and it is possible that more work in this area is
necessary particularly in the area of image quality. In reality technological development by
manufacturers is often the major consideration in equipment replacement. In this context
particular attention is drawn to opportunities for evaluation that arise from testing involving
patient dose protocols as mentioned in the last paragraph of section 2.1. Not withstanding
the above there is a substantial market for used, refurbished or second hand CT scanners,
and the criteria here apply to such equipment.
CT scanners are also a component of PET-CT systems. The CT acceptability
criteria/suspension levels presented here can be applied to the CT component of these
special equipment types. Suspension levels for CT scanners are provided in Table 2-18. CT
scanners are increasingly utilised in radiotherapy in support of treatment planning (Mutic
(2003); IPEM (1999)) and are further discussed in section 4. These criteria are not suitable
for cone beam CT systems with 360˚ rotation time greater than 2 seconds
(Bundesärztekammer (2007)).
The following are not acceptable:
Unacceptable CT Equipment
 Absence of automatic dose modulation in new equipment specified more than one year
after the publication of RP 162 (IEC (2009a)).
 Lack of paediatric protocols in scanners used with children.
 Single slice CT scanners that have not been subject to a formal risk assessment in
respect of the procedures for which they are being used.
 Scanners with artefacts likely to impact on clinical diagnosis.
 Absence of indication of CTDIw or CTDIvol in new equipment specified more than one
year after the publication of RP 162 (IEC (2009a)).
 Absence of a DICOM structured dose report in new equipment specified more than one
year after the publication of RP 162 (IEC (2009a)).
42
2.7.2 Suspension levels for CT scanners
Table 2-18 Suspension Levels for CT Scanners
Physical
Suspension Level Reference Type Notes and Observations
Parameter
Display should be
Accuracy of IAEA checked for standard
Deviation of (2011) head and body exams.
indicated dose
measured dose from A/C
parameters IEC (2011d) For scanners with
indicated dose> 20 %
(CTDIvol) detector z-coverage > 40
mm see IEC (2009a).
Adult routine Head
(acute stroke) > ACR (2008)
80 mGy NRPB
Patient protocol (2005)
Adult Abdomen > A/C*
doses (CTDIvol)19
30 mGy IEC (2004a)
Paediatric Abdomen
(5 year old) > 25 mGy
Deviation of CTDI
free-in-air from IAEA
CTDI free-in-air A/C
manufacturer’s (2011)
specifications > 20 %
Deviation of noise IEC (2004a)

Image noise from the specified IAEA A/C
values > 15 % (2011)
Deviation of CT IAEA
Different values will apply
CT number number accuracy > (2011)
A/C for other materials.
accuracy 10 HU for water up to IPEM
30cm diameter (2005a)
Deviation of CT
number from specified
value> 10 HU for
water up to 20cm IAEA
Different values will apply
CT number diameter (2011)
A/C for other materials.
uniformity Deviation of CT IPEM
number from specified (2005a)
value > 20 HU for
water above 20cm
diameter
Deviation of image IEC (2004a)
slice width from
Image slice width IAEA A
nominal value >
0.5 mm for < 1 mm ; (2011)
19
43
Physical
Suspension Level Reference Type Notes and Observations
Parameter
> 50 % for slices of 1
to 2 mm;
> 1 mm for slices
above 2 mm
IAEA
Deviates from (2011)
Irradiated beam
manufacturers’ A/C
width IPEM
specifications
(2005a)
IAEA
CT alignment lights > ± 5 mm (2011) A
Scan Projection IAEA

Radiography > ± 2 mm (2011) A
(SPR) accuracy IEC (2004a)
Deviation ≥ 10% from IAEA Field test calibration
manufacturer’s (2011) method against
Spatial resolution specification or 0.5 A manufacturer’s method
IEC (2004a) must be agreed
lp/mm whichever is
greater IEC (2004a).
EC (1998)
Couch top Deviation > 2 mm IPEM
alignment and from specified (2005a) A/C
index accuracy distance IAEA
(2011)
2.8 Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry
Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is a widely used method for quantifying bone
mineral density (BMD) and body mass composition assessment (IAEA (2010)). Its
application has more recently been extended to include estimation of body fat. It is
performed on equipment specifically designed for and dedicated to these purposes. Similar
examinations are performed with CT but give much higher doses (Kalender, 1995).
44
2.8.2 Suspension levels for DXA systems
Table 2-19 Suspension Levels for DXA Equipment

Entrance surface > 500 μGy, (spine Larkin et al (2008) C* Based on upper level
air-kerma (incl. examination) or Njeh et al (1999) of dose from
backscatter)20 outside Sheahan et al equipment type with
manufacturer’s (2005) highest dose.
specification by >
35 %
Other features of Use Table 2-1 as
x- ray generator appropriate
BMD precision of Deviation of Larkin et al (2008) C For other phantoms
an individual measured BMD > 3 Sheahan et al see IAEA (2010).
machine % from (2005)
manufacturer’s
BIR (2001)
specification
IAEA (2010)
20
45
NUCLEAR MEDICINE
3 NUCLEAR MEDICINE
3.1 Introduction
The safe, efficient and efficacious practice of nuclear medicine involves the integration of a
number of processes. The quality of each process will have an impact on the overall quality
of the clinical procedure and ultimately on the benefit to the patient. It is important, therefore,
that each process be conducted within the framework of a quality assurance programme
that, if followed, can be shown to achieve the desired objectives with the desired accuracy
(EANM (2010)).
The objective of this section is to specify the suspension levels for the equipment used in
Nuclear Medicine procedures. It sets out criteria for acceptability for activity meters, well
counters and probes, gamma cameras, SPECT and PET systems. Although the quality
assurance of radiopharmaceuticals is an important process, it is not an objective of this
report. Neither is the in-house production of radiopharmaceuticals, often established in
connections with PET installations, utilising either self-shielded cyclotrons or cyclotrons in
specially designed bunkers. This activity is regarded as a radiopharmaceutical
manufacturing activity and therefore also outside the scope of this document.
The suspension levels stated are intended to assist in the decision making process
regarding the need for recalibration, maintenance or removal from use of the equipment
considered. For all imaging modalities important qualitative criteria apply: visual inspection
for artefacts. Equipment must be suspended if artefacts are expected to have an impact on
clinical diagnosis.
It should be noted, however, that for radiotherapeutic applications, relevant suspension
levels may well be different from the ones suggested in this section. This would be the case
if the equipment is used for modern image-based dosimetry studies before, during and after
radionuclide therapy. Special considerations apply in these situations and an MPE should be
consulted in this case. Each part of this section is comprised of a brief introduction and a list
of relevant equipment. For each piece of equipment, a brief introduction, a table with the
critical performance parameters and the suspension levels are given. References to
recommended test methods for each parameter are also given. This section considers:
1 Activity meters21
2 Well counters and probes
3 Gamma camera systems
4 Positron emission tomography
5 Combined modality systems
21
Often referred to as dose or radionuclide calibrators.
47
3.2 Activity meters
Activity meters are used to measure the radioactivity to be administered to patients for
diagnosis or therapy.
The activity levels of clinically administered radiopharmaceuticals for diagnosis are governed
primarily by the need to balance the effectiveness and the safety of the medical procedure,
i.e. optimising the amount of administered activity to the patient to achieve the required
objective e.g. diagnostic image quality, while maintaining a justifiable radiation risk.
Unsealed radioactive sources are also administered to patients orally, intravenously or
injected into various parts of the body for curative or palliation purposes. The treatment of
the patient depends on the activity and radionuclide used to give the prescribed absorbed
dose to target tissue (IPEM (2011); EANM (2011); EANM (2008)).
Various radionuclides are used for Nuclear Medicine procedures. Activity meters must be
capable of measuring the activity of a particular radionuclide (gamma or beta emitting)
accurately over a wide range of energies for correct determination of the radioactivity to be
administered to the patient. They must also be capable of measuring accurately over a wide
range of activities.
The performance of activity meters must be assured through a quality assurance programme
conforming to international, European or national standards (NPL (2006); EC (1997)). The
suspension levels are given in Table 3-1 for each critical parameter together with the type of
criterion used and a reference to a recommended test method.
3.2.2 Suspension levels for activity meters
Table 3-1 Suspension Levels for Activity Meters
Physical Parameter Suspension Level Reference Type Notes and

Observations
Accuracy >5% NPL (2006) A
Linearity >5% NPL (2006) A
System reproducibility >1% NPL (2006) A
The suspension levels given in Table 3-1 are for instruments used for the measurement of
the activity of gamma emitting sources with energies above 100keV. If these instruments are
calibrated to measure isotopes emitting low gamma ray energies (below 100 keV) or beta or
alpha emitting sources (Siegel et al. (2004)) special measures need to be taken in order to
overcome vial and geometry dependent readings. This could be achieved e.g. by measuring
a calibrated source in various vials and geometries for setting up individual calibration
factors. In these cases the suspension levels in Table 3-1 probably cannot be met. If the
instrument is suspected of malfunctioning a test with a relevant source needs to be carried
out to confirm the suspicion using the values in Table 3-1 (EANM (2008)).
48
NUCLEAR MEDICINE
3.3 Well counters and probes
Multiple or single “well type” gamma counters are used for in-vitro diagnostic procedures
involving the assessment of radioactivity in samples of body fluids. Similarly probes are used
for a variety of in-vivo measurements, such as those used for iodine uptake measurements,
and therefore, the same suspension criteria apply.
The performance of well counters and probes must be assured through a continuous quality
assurance programme conforming to international standards (IEC (2001a)). The suspension
levels are given in Table 3-2 for each critical parameter.
With respect to intra-operative probes, they should have appropriate collimation and be of
appropriate sensitivity (NEMA (2004)).
3.3.2 Suspension levels for well counters and probes
Table 3-2 Suspension Levels for Well Type Gamma Counters and Probes

Count rate >5% IEC (2001a) C
performance
Energy resolution > 10 % IEC (2001a) C
Counting precision Within the 95 % IEC (2001a) C
confidence limits of
a chi square test
3.4 Gamma camera systems
The gamma camera is currently available in a number of configurations capable not only of
performing simple planar imaging (Section 3.4.2) but also whole body imaging (Section
3.4.3) and Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) (Section 3.4.4). Some
dual headed gamma cameras with appropriate coincidence circuits and software are also
capable of performing Positron Emission Tomography (Section 3.4.5). However, PET
systems, dealt with in section 3.5, are rapidly replacing such systems.
The IEC standards (IEC (2004d); IEC (2004b), IEC (1998a), IEC (1998b)) and the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) (NEMA (2007a)) in the USA have published
relevant standards. These are almost identical with respect to many test procedures, test
objects and radioactive sources and have been used extensively. The IEC and NEMA
standards were aimed primarily at manufacturers but are now more orientated towards user
application than previous publications making it easier to test for compliance in the field. The
NEMA Standard also includes directions for the testing of Gamma Cameras with discrete
Pixel Detectors.
In addition to the standards, there are a number of publications on quality control that
provide a wealth of useful background material and detailed accounts of test methods and
phantoms for routine assessment which must be undertaken on a regular basis according to
national and international protocols (IPEM (2003); AAPM (1995); IAEA (2009b)).
49
3.4.2 Suspension levels for planar gamma camera
Gamma cameras are operated with collimators appropriate to the study being performed.
Tests performed with collimators mounted are termed ‘system’ tests. Tests performed
without collimators are ‘intrinsic’ tests. Since there is a large range of different types of
collimator in use and their characteristics vary from type to type and from manufacturer to
manufacturer, the MPE should be closely involved when deciding on system tests for a
particular collimator. It is important to perform system non-uniformity tests on all collimators
in clinical use in order to detect collimator damage at the earliest opportunity (IEC (2004d),
IAEA (2009a)). Suspension levels for key performance parameters are given in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Suspension Levels for Gamma Camera Systems

Parameter Level Observations
Intrinsic Spatial > 6 mm NEMA (2007a), C
Resolution IEC (2005)
Intrinsic energy > 15 % NEMA (2007a), C
resolution IEC (2005)
Multiple window > 1 pixel NEMA (2007a), C Pixel size as
spatial IEC (2005) in clinically
registration (for used
systems used protocols.
for dual isotope Clinically
studies) relevant
isotopes
should be
used.
Differential and >7% NEMA (2007a) C
Integral IEC (2005) for method
System/Intrinsic
Non-uniformity
Detector to Variation > 10 % NEMA (2007a) C
detector
sensitivity
variation
(systems with
opposing
detectors)
System Misalignment > 1 NEMA (2007a) C Pixel size as
alignment pixel in clinically
(systems with used protocols
opposing
detectors)
50
NUCLEAR MEDICINE
3.4.3 Suspension levels for whole body imaging system
The NEMA Standard NU-1 (NEMA (2007a)) contains an additional test for Whole Body
Systems. Before performing this test, it is advisable that the basic tests for the Planar
Gamma Camera are performed for each detector head (Table 3-3).
Table 3-4 Additional Suspension Level for Whole Body Imaging Systems

Whole Body > 10 mm at 10 cm NEMA (2007a) C
Spatial
Resolution
Without Scatter
3.4.4 Suspension levels for SPECT systems
IEC standard (IEC (1998a)) and NEMA Standard (NEMA (2007a)) both contain a section
devoted to SPECT systems. The basic tests for Planar Gamma Camera systems should be
performed on each detector head used for SPECT before commencing with the tests
specific for SPECT.
Table 3-5 Additional Suspension Levels for SPECT Systems
Physical Suspension Level Reference Type Note

Parameter
Centre of Rotation Offset > 1 pixel IEC (2004d), IEC (1998a), C Pixel size
(CoR) and NEMA (2007a) as in
Detector Head Tilt clinically
IAEA (2007b)
used
protocols.
SPECT System FWHM > 15 mm IEC (2004d), IEC (1998a), C Collimation
Spatial Resolution NEMA (2007a) as in
clinically
used
protocols.
3.4.5 Gamma cameras used for coincidence imaging
The tests described in Tables 3-3 and 3-5 for gamma cameras should be performed.
However, the thicker crystals required for these cameras do not perform as well with respect
to intrinsic spatial resolution as the thinner crystals intended mainly for use with Technetium-
99m based radiopharmaceuticals. It should be noted that gamma camera based coincidence
imaging systems are inferior to dedicated PET systems and the latter should be preferred in
all circumstances.
51
3.5 Positron emission tomography
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is a nuclear medicine imaging technique that utilises
positron-emitting radionuclides, normally produced in a cyclotron or radionuclide generator.
The most frequent clinical indication for a PET study today is in the diagnosis, staging, and
monitoring of malignant diseases as well as tissue delineation for radiotherapy treatment
planning. Other indications include assessment of neurological and cardiological disorders.
The PET technology has evolved rapidly in the past decade. Two significant advances have
greatly improved the accuracy of PET imaging:
(i) the introduction of faster scintillation crystals and electronics which permit higher
data acquisition rates, and,
(ii) the combination, in a single unit, of PET and CT or MRI scanners (“multi-
modality” scanners, see section 3.6).
It is expected that the utilisation of PET will increase dramatically in the future.
PET is based on the coincidence detection of two oppositely directed 511 keV photons
emitted from the annihilation of a positron with an atomic electron. The detection of such
events is used for the reconstruction of an image describing the in vivo distribution of a
positron emitting radiopharmaceutical.
Suspension levels are given in Table 3-6 for the key performance parameters of PET
systems (IEC (2008c); NEMA (2007b); IEC (2005), EANM (2010), IAEA (2009a)). The table
is less comprehensive than it should be due to a lack of consensus and peer reviewed
evidence.
Parameters depending on reconstruction settings should be evaluated with the optimized
settings for clinical applications (EANM (2010)). This will guarantee that the parameters
reflect image quality in practice.
3.5.2 Suspension levels for PET systems
Table 3-6 Suspension Levels for PET Systems

Spatial > 7 mm IAEA (2009a) for C
Resolution method
Sensitivity < 1 cps/kBq for 2D IAEA (2009a)for C
imaging and method
< 4 cps/kBq for 3D
imaging
52
NUCLEAR MEDICINE
3.6 Combined modality systems
A combined modality diagnostic system is defined as the combination of two diagnostic

modalities into one system. Examples of such systems are PET-CT, SPECT-CT, PET-MRI,
etc. Usually one modality presents functional (molecular) images and the other anatomic
images. The fusion (combination) of their images gives a higher diagnostic value than the
individual images alone.
The quality control procedures of each individual modality comprising the combined modality
system are well established and if followed as recommended, the combined modality system
will operate optimally. The suspension levels for the individual modalities are valid for the
combined modality systems as well. The main concern with combined modality systems is
the registration of the imaging modalities. Here it is recommended that an independent
image registration test, using a phantom in the place of a patient, be used at regular intervals
to assure the image registration of the modalities comprising the combined modality system
(NEMA (2007b); IAEA (2009a)).
3.6.2 Suspension levels for combined modality systems
Table 3-7 Suspension Level for the Image Registration of Combined Modality
Systems

Image registration > 1 SPECT or PET IAEA (2009b) for C Clinically used
pixel size method pixel size
53
RADIOTHERAPY
4 RADIOTHERAPY
4.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to list performance parameters and their tolerances for
radiotherapy equipment, namely linear accelerators, simulators, CT simulators, Cobalt-60
units, kilovoltage units, brachytherapy, treatment planning systems and dosimetry
equipment. Specific reference is not made to safety requirements, but these need to be
checked at acceptance and after maintenance and upgrades and would result in suspension
of the equipment during operation, if not met.
These functional performance tolerances reflect the need for precision in radiotherapy and
the knowledge of what can be reliably achieved with radiotherapy equipment. The tolerances
presented must be used as suspension levels at which investigation must be initiated,
according to the definition in section 1.4. Where possible, it will be necessary to adjust the
equipment to bring the performance back within tolerance limits. If adjustment is not
possible, e.g. loss of isocentric accuracy, it may still be justified to use the equipment
clinically for less demanding treatments. Such a decision can only be taken after careful
consideration by the clinical team (responsible medical physics expert and radiation
oncologist) and must be documented as part of an agreed hospital policy. Alternatively it
should be suspended from use until performance is restored. Suspension from use is also
required if the safety requirements in the relevant safety standards are not met.
In the following text the performance tolerances are referred to as tolerance values, as this is
the terminology used in the quoted IEC standards. However, in the Tables these levels are
listed as suspension levels as they correspond also with the definition of suspension level in
section 1.4 and used in the other sections of this report.
The tolerance values quoted in this section have been extracted mostly from international
and national standards (category type A), supplemented by guidance from national
professional bodies (category type B) (see section 1.5). Tolerances are expressed in the
same format (e.g. or maximum deviation) as originally given in the quoted standards and
guidance documents. In radiotherapy, all tests form part of acceptance testing.
All test equipment used in measuring functional performance must be well maintained,
regularly calibrated and traceable (where appropriate) to national standard laboratories.
Particle therapy is not considered in this report.
4.2 Linear accelerators
IEC 60601-2-1 (2009b) is the standard which identifies those features of design that are
regarded as essential for the safe operation of the equipment and places limits on the
degradation of the performance beyond which a fault condition exists. These include
protection against electrical and mechanical hazards and unwanted and excessive radiation
hazards (i.e. dose monitoring systems, selection and display of treatment related
parameters, leakage radiation and stray radiation).
IEC 60976 (IEC (2007)), and IEC 60977 (IEC (2008c)) are closely related to this standard.
The former specifies test methods and reporting formats for performance tests of medical
electron accelerators for use in radiotherapy, with the aim of providing uniform methods of
doing so. The latter is not a standard per se but suggests tolerance values, measured by the
methods specified in IEC (2007) that are achievable with present technology.
55
The values given in Table 4-1 are a summary of the tolerance values in IEC (2008c) and are
based on the methodology in IEC (2007). These values are broadly consistent with the
tolerances specified in IPEM (1999), AAPM (1994), AAPM (2009) and CAPCA (2005a). For
a detailed description of test methods, conditions and applicability, please refer to the IEC,
IPEM and AAPM documents. A list of suggested test equipment is included in IEC (2008c).
The Table is intended to include the performance parameters of all treatment devices
incorporating a linear accelerator. Where tests are performed routinely for quality control,
suggested frequencies of testing are given in IEC (2008c), IPEM (1999), AAPM (1994),
AAPM (2009), CAPCA (2005a) and other national QA protocols. AAPM (2009) has detailed
quality assurance recommendations for devices not covered in AAPM (1994).
In Table 4.1, “IEC” refers to IEC (2007) and IEC (2008c) and the numbers in the Reference
column refer to the clauses in these publications. “IPEM (1999)” refers to tables in its section
5.2. Table 4-1 is a limited summary of the tolerance values in these publications and greater
detail is contained in the publications. “See IEC” in the tables indicates that greater detail
concerning the tolerances, e.g. dependence on field size, is contained in the IEC documents.
4.2.2 Suspension levels for linear accelerators
Table 4-1 Suspension Levels for Linear Accelerators
Physical Parameter Suspension Reference Type

Level
(IEC (2007,
2008c)
clause
numbers
unless
stated)
Uniformity of radiation fields 9
X-radiation
Flatness of square X-ray fields > 1.06 See IEC A
(max/min ratio)
Symmetry of square X-ray fields > 1.03 A
(max/min ratio)
Deviation of dose distribution of square See IEC A
X-ray fields with angular positions
Maximum ratio of absorbed dose See IEC A
(beam flatness at dmax )
Wedge fields
Maximum deviation of wedge factor 2% A
with all angular positions of the gantry
and beam limiting system
Maximum deviation of wedge angle 2° A
IMRT See IEC A
Electron radiation
Flatness of electron fields See IEC A
Maximum deviation of dose distribution 3% A
of electron fields with angular position
56
RADIOTHERAPY

Level
(IEC (2007,
2008c)
clause
numbers
unless
stated)
Symmetry of electron fields (max/min >1.05 A
ratio)
Maximum ratio of absorbed dose 1.09 See IEC A
(max/min ratio)
Dose monitoring system 7
Weekly calibration check >2 % A
Reproducibility >0.5 % A
Proportionality >2 % A
Dependence on angular position of gantry and >3 % A
beam limiting device
Dependence on gantry rotation >2 % - electron A
radiation
>3 % - X-radiation
Stability throughout the day >2 % A
Stability in moving beam radiotherapy See IEC A
Depth dose characteristics 8
X-radiation
Penetrative quality >3 % or 3 mm. A
Depth dose and profiles >2 % IPEM (1999) B
Electron radiation
Minimum depth of dose maximum >1 mm A
Ratio of practical range at 80% >1.6 A
absorbed dose.
Deviation of actual value of penetrative >3 % or 2 mm A
quality
Maximum relative surface dose 100 % A
Stability of penetrative quality >1 % or 2 mm A
Indication of radiation fields 10
X-radiation A
Numerical field indication >3 mm or 1.5 % A
See IEC
For MLCs >3 mm or 1.5 % A
See IEC
Light field indication >2 mm or 1 % A
See IEC
Maximum distance between the 2 mm A
centres of radiation and light See IEC
57

Level
(IEC (2007,
2008c)
clause
numbers
unless
stated)
fields
Maximum distance between the 2 mm A

fields for MLCs
Maximum distance between the 0.5 mm A
fields for SRS/SRT
Reproducibility >2 mm A
Alignment of an SRS stereotactic frame >0.5 mm A
See IEC
Electron radiation
Light field indication >2 mm A
Geometry of adjustable BLDs
Maximum angular deviation from 0.5° A
parallelity of opposing edges
Maximum angular deviation from 0.5° A
orthogonality of adjacent edges
Maximum displacement of the radiation 2 mm A
field from symmetry when rotating the
beam limiting system
Illuminance and penumbra of the light field
Illuminance (minimum) 25 lux A
Edge contrast ratio (minimum) 4.0 A
Indication of the radiation beam axis 11
On entry
X-rays >2 mm A
Electrons >4 mm A
SRS >0.5 mm A
On exit
X-rays >3 mm A
SRS >0.5 mm A
Isocentre 12
Maximum displacement of radiation beam axis 2 mm A
from isocentre
Mechanical isocentre >1 mm IPEM (1999) B
Indication of the isocentre >2 mm A
Indication of the isocentre for SRS >0.5 mm IPEM (1999) B
58
RADIOTHERAPY

Level
(IEC (2007,
2008c)
clause
numbers
unless
stated)
Indication of distance along the radiation 13
beam axis
Maximum difference for isocentric equipment 2 mm A
Maximum difference for non-isocentric 5 mm A
equipment
Zero position of rotational scales 14
Gantry rotation >0.5° A
Roll and pitch of radiation head >0.1° A
Rotation of beam limiting system >0.5° A
Isocentric rotation of the patient support >.5° A
Table top rotation, pitch and roll >0.5° A
Accuracy of rotation scales >0.5° IPEM (1999) B
Congruence of opposed radiation fields > mm 15 A
Movements of patient support 16
Vertical movements >2 mm A
Longitudinal and lateral movements >2 mm IPEM (1999) B
Isocentric rotation axis >2 mm A
Parallelism of rotational axes >0.5° A
Longitudinal rigidity >5 mm A
Lateral rigidity >0.5° and 5 mm A
Electronic imaging devices 17
Minimum detector frame time 0.5 s A
Corresponding maximum frame rate 2/s A
Minimum signal-to-noise ratio 50 See IEC A
Maximum imager lag
Second to first frame 5% A
Or fifth to first frame 0.3 % A
Minimum spatial resolution 0.6 lp/mm A
Detachable devices can be attached to either the treatment head or the couch. The former
include shadow trays and micro-MLCs, and the latter include devices such as stereotactic
frames, head shells, bite-blocks, etc. Where reproducible immobilisation and positioning of
the patient is required, the positional tolerance of these devices should be less than 2 mm in
general use and 0.5 mm for SRS.
It is recognised that planar and volumetric imaging using both kilovoltage and megavoltage
radiation is playing an increasing part in radiotherapy through image guided radiotherapy
(IGRT). The tolerances above apply only to planar electronic imaging devices. More
59
information on checking kilovoltage radiographic systems can be found in section 2. There

is an IEC standard under development addressing IGRT systems. Where tests of planar
electronic imaging devices are performed routinely for quality control, suggested frequencies
of testing are given in CAPCA (2005c).
4.3 Simulators
IEC 60601-2-29 (IEC (2008b)) is the standard which identifies those features of design that
are regarded as essential for the safe operation of the equipment and places limits on the
hazards. In a similar way to IEC (2007) and IEC (2008c) for linear accelerators, IEC 61168
(IEC (1993a)) and IEC 61170 (IEC (1993b)) specify test methods and functional
performance values for radiotherapy simulators. The functional performance requirements
of radiotherapy simulators are directly related to the radiotherapy equipment being
simulated. The performance tolerances must therefore be at least equal to those considered
appropriate for the radiotherapy equipment and in many instances must be better in order
not to add to the total positioning errors. There are some differences from recommendations
published by national physicists’ associations (IPEM (1999), AAPM (1994) and CAPCA
(2005b)). Where recommendations from these bodies are adopted, they are indicated in
Table 4-2.
The values given in Table 4-2 are a summary of the tolerance values in IEC (1993b) and are
based on the methodology in IEC (1993a). Where additional tolerances (e.g. for MLC
simulation) have been suggested in the more recent linear accelerator standards IEC (2007)
and IEC (2008c) and IPEM (1999), these are indicated in the Table. For a detailed
description of test methods and conditions, please refer to the IEC and IPEM documents.
Where tests are performed routinely for quality control, suggested frequencies of testing are
given in IEC (1993b), IPEM (1999), AAPM (1994), CAPCA (2005b) and other national QA
protocols.
In the table, “IEC” refers to IEC (1993a) and IEC (1993b).
4.3.2 Suspension levels for radiotherapy simulators
Table 4-2 Suspension Levels for Radiotherapy Simulators

Level (IEC (1993a,b)
unless stated)
Indication of radiation fields
Numerical field indication >2 mm or 1.0 A
%
See IEC
Numerical field indication for MLCs >2 mm or 1.0 IEC (2008c,) A
% IEC (2007)
Light field indication >1 mm or 0.5 A
%
60
RADIOTHERAPY

unless stated)
See IEC
Maximum distance between the centres >1 mm or 0.5 A
of radiation and light field %
See IEC
Maximum distance between the centres >1 mm or 0.5 IEC (2008c,) A
of radiation and light field for MLCs % IEC (2007)
Delineator geometry
Angular deviation from parallelity of >0.5° A
opposing edges
Angular deviation from orthogonality of >0.5° A
adjacent edges
Displacement of the radiation field from >2 mm IEC (2008c,) A
symmetry when rotating the beam IEC (2007)
limiting system
Light field
Field size (10x10 cm2) >1 mm A
Minimum illuminance 50 lux A
Minimum edge contrast ratio 4.0 A
Indication of the radiation beam axis
On entry >1 mm IPEM (1999) B
On exit >2 mm A
Isocentre
Displacement of radiation beam axis from >1 mm A
isocentre See IEC
Indication of the isocentre >1 mm IPEM (1999) B
Indication of distance along the radiation
beam axis
From isocentre >1 mm A
From radiation source >2 mm A
Image receptor to isocentre >2 mm A
Zero position of rotational scales
Gantry rotation >0.5° IPEM (1999) B
Roll and pitch of radiation head >0.1° IEC (2008c) A
Rotation of delineator >0.5° IPEM (1999) B
Isocentric rotation of the patient support >0.5° IEC (2008c) A
Table top rotation, pitch and roll >0.5° IEC (2008c) A
Accuracy of rotation scales >0.5° IPEM (1999) B
Congruence of opposed radiation fields >1 mm A
61

unless stated)
Movements of patient support
Isocentric rotation axis >1 mm A
Lateral rigidity >0.5° and 5 A
mm
Electronic imaging devices
Minimum detector frame time 0.5 s IEC (2008c,) A
IEC (2007)
Corresponding maximum frame rate 2/s IEC (2008c,) A
IEC (2007)
Minimum signal-to-noise ratio 50 IEC (2008c,) A
IEC (2007)
Maximum imager lag
Second to first frame 5% IEC (2008c,) A
IEC (2007)
Or fifth to first frame 0.3 % IEC (2008c,) A
IEC (2007)
Minimum spatial resolution 0.6 lp/mm IPEM (1999) B
10.2.6
Radiographic QC
Alignment of broad and fine foci images >0.5 mm IPEM (1999) B
Fluoroscopic QC
Full radiographic and fluoroscopic tests IPEM (1999) B
Alignment of Shadow Trays >1 mm IPEM (1999) B
4.4 CT simulators
CT simulators usually comprise a wide bore CT scanner, together with an external patient
positioning and marking mechanism using projected laser lines to indicate the treatment
isocentre. This is often termed “virtual simulation”. There is an IEC safety standard (IEC
(2009)) under development reflecting this application of CT scanning. Quality assurance of
the scanner and alignment system is essential to ensure that the isocentre is accurately
located in the treatment volume for subsequent treatment planning and treatment, the CT
image is not spatially distorted and the Hounsfield numbers are accurate for attenuation
corrections. The established standards for CT scanners (see section 2.7) for good image
quality and optimum patient radiation dose apply. Quality assurance regimes are therefore
62
RADIOTHERAPY
based upon good clinical practice. The most recent works are “Quality assurance for
computed-tomography simulators and the computed-tomography-simulation process”:
(AAPM (2003)) and “Quality assurance programme for computed tomography: Diagnostic
and therapy applications”: (IAEA (2011)). The tolerance limits in these reports are designed
to satisfy the accuracy requirements for conformal radiotherapy and have been shown to be
achievable in a routine clinical setting. Further guidance is contained in IPEM Report 81
published in 1999 (IPEM (1999)). The guidance in Table 4-3 is based on these three reports.
IPEM Report 81 suggests that the tests are done under the same scanning conditions as
those used clinically. Checks on image quality should also be done after software upgrades
in case they affect the calibration of the Hounsfield Units. Where tests are performed
routinely for quality control, suggested frequencies of testing are given in AAPM (2003),
IPEM (1999), CAPCA (2007b), IAEA (2011) and other national QA protocols. The IEC
standard under development will also give some guidance on tolerance values.
4.4.2 Suspension levels for CT simulators
Table 4-3 Suspension Levels for CT Simulators

Level
(AAPM,2003a)
unless stated)
Alignment of CT Gantry Lasers
With centre of the imaging plane > 2 mm B
Parallel & orthogonal over length of laser > 2 mm B
projection
Alignment of Wall Lasers
Distance to scan plane > 2 mm B
With imaging plane over length of laser >2 mm IPEM (1999) 1° B
projection
Alignment of Ceiling Laser
Orthogonal with imaging plane > 2 mm B
Orientation of Scanner Table Top
Orthogonal to imaging plane > 2 mm B
Scales and Movements
Readout of longitudinal position of table top > 1 mm IAEA (2011) A
Table top indexing under scanner control > 2 mm IAEA (2011) A
Gantry tilt > 1° from IAEA (2011) A
vertical
Scan Position
Scan position from pilot images > 1 mm IPEM (1999) B
1 mm
Image Quality
Left & right registration None IPEM (1999) B
Image scaling >2 mm IPEM (1999) B
CT number/electron density verification > 20 HU (all IAEA (2011) A
materials)
63
4.5 Cobalt-60 units
IEC 60601-2-11 (IEC (2004b)) is the standard which identifies those features of design that
hazards (i.e. controlling timer, selection and display of treatment related parameters, leakage
radiation and stray radiation). IEC (2004b) also includes requirements for multi-source
stereotactic radiotherapy equipment.
The IEC has not published performance tolerances for cobalt-60 units. The functional
performance characteristics and tolerance values in Table 4-4 are based on those for linear
accelerators in IEC (2008c), IEC (2007) with some changes for cobalt-60 units. The Table
does not address multi-source stereotactic radiotherapy equipment. There are some
differences in the recommendations published by national associations (IPEM (1999),
AAPM (1994) and CAPCA (2006a)). Where recommendations from these bodies are
adopted, they are indicated in the Table. For a detailed description of test methods and
conditions, please refer to the documents indicated.
Where tests are performed routinely for quality control, suggested frequencies of testing are
given in IPEM (1999), AAPM (1994), CAPCA (2006a) and other national QA protocols.
4.5.2 Suspension levels for Cobalt-60 units
Table 4-4 Suspension Levels for Cobalt-60 Units

Level
(IEC (2008c)
unless stated)
Uniformity of radiation fields
Flatness of square fields (max/min ratio) >1.06 A
Symmetry of square fields (max/min ratio) >1.04 IPEM (1999) B
Deviation of dose distribution of square See IEC A
fields with angular positions. 60976/7
Wedge fields
Maximum deviation of wedge factor 2% IPEM (1999) B
with gantry angle
Maximum deviation of wedge angle 2° A
with all angular positions of the
gantry and beam limiting system
Source position (when applicable) >3 mm AAPM (1994) B
Controlling Timer and Output Checks
Timer check on dual timer difference >1 s IPEM (1999) B
Weekly calibration check >2 % A
Reproducibility >0.5 % A
Proportionality >2 % A
Dependence on gantry rotation >1 % IPEM (1999) B
64
RADIOTHERAPY

Level
(IEC (2008c)
unless stated)
Stability in moving beam radiotherapy See IEC IEC (2008C) A
60976/7 IEC ( 2007)
Timer linearity >1 % AAPM (1994) B
Stability of timer > 0.01 min A
Output vs field size >2 % IPEM (1999) B
AAPM (1994)
Shutter correction >2 % IPEM (1999) B
Depth dose characteristics
Penetrative quality >1 % IPEM (1999) B
Depth dose and profile >2 % IPEM (1999) B
Indication of radiation fields
Numerical field indication >3 mm or 1.5 IPEM (1999) 2 A, B
% mm
Light field indication >2 mm or 1 % A
Maximum distance between the centres of >2 mm or 1 % AAPM (1994) A, B
radiation and light field 3 mm
Collimator geometry
Angular deviation from parallelity of >0.5° A
opposing edges
Angular deviation from >0.5° A
orthogonality of adjacent edges
Displacement of the radiation field >2 mm A
from symmetry when rotating the
beam limiting system
Light field
Field size (10x10 cm2) >2 mm IPEM (1999) B
Minimum illuminance 25 lux A
Minimum edge contrast ratio 4.0 A

Indication of the radiation beam axis
On entry >2 mm A
On exit >3 mm A
Isocentre
Displacement of radiation beam axis from >2 mm IPEM (1999) 3 A, B
isocentre mm
AAPM (1994)
2 mm
Indication of the isocentre >2 mm A
Indication of distance along the
65

Level
(IEC (2008c)
unless stated)
radiation beam axis
Maximum difference for isocentric 2 mm IPEM (1999) 3 A, B
equipment mm
AAPM (1994)
2 mm
Maximum difference for non-isocentric 5 mm A
equipment
Zero position of rotational scales
Gantry rotation >0.5° IPEM (1999) B
Roll and pitch of radiation head >0.1° A
Rotation of beam limiting system >0.5° IPEM (1999) B
Isocentric rotation of the patient support >0.5° A
Table top rotation, pitch and roll >0.5° A
Accuracy of rotation scales >1° IPEM (1999) B
Congruence of opposed radiation fields >2 mm A
Movements of patient support
Isocentric rotation axis <1 mm A
Lateral rigidity >0.5° and 5 A
mm
4.6 Kilovoltage units
IEC 60601-2-8 (IEC (1997b) is the standard which identifies those features of design that are
regarded as essential for the safe operation of the equipment and places limits on the
hazards. Tests are based upon IPEM (1999), which is based on a survey of UK practice in
1991. Where recommendations from other bodies are adopted, they are indicated in Table
4-5. For a detailed description of test methods and conditions, please refer to the IPEM
(1999) and CAPCA (2005d). This section does not cover the use of X-ray tubes with point
source field characteristic and /or for IORT (Intraoperative radiotherapy). Where tests are
performed routinely for quality control, suggested frequencies of testing are given in IPEM
(1999) and CAPCA (2005d).
66
RADIOTHERAPY
4.6.2 Suspension levels for kilovoltage units
Table 4-5 Suspension Levels for Kilovoltage Units

Level
(IPEM, 1999)
unless stated)
Output calibration >3 % B
Monitor chamber linearity (if present) >2 % B
Timer end error >0.01 min B
Timer accuracy >2 % B
Coincidence of light and X-ray beams >5 mm CAPCA (2005d) B
2 mm
Field Uniformity >5 % B
HVL constancy >10 % B
Measurement of HVL >10 % B
Applicator output factors >3 % B
4.7 Brachytherapy
IEC 60601-2-17 (IEC (2004c) is the standard which identifies those features of design that
hazards (i.e. controlling timer, selection and display of treatment related parameters and
leakage radiation). This safety standard requires in the technical description the statement of
tolerances for brachytherapy source positioning, transit time and dwell time.
The values given in Table 4-6 are based on the performance tolerance values in ESTRO
Booklet No. 8 (2004b), AAPM (1994) and CAPCA (2006b) for radioactive sources.
For a detailed description of test methods and conditions, please refer to the documents
above. Where tests are performed routinely for quality control, suggested frequencies of
testing are also given in the documents above.
67
4.7.2 Suspension levels for brachytherapy equipment
Table 4-6 Suspension Levels for Brachytherapy Equipment

Level (ESTRO, 2004b)
Source calibration
Single source when only one source is used >3 % AAPM (1994) B
(e.g. HDR)
Individual source in a batch >5 % B
Mean of batch >3 %
(e.g. LDR or permanent implant)
Linear source uniformity of wire sources >5 % B

Source position >2 mm B
Applicator length >1 mm B
Controlling timer >1 % AAPM (1994) B
Transit dose reproducibility >1 % CAPCA (2006b) B
4.8 Treatment planning systems
IEC 62083 (IEC (2001b)) “Requirements for the safety of radiotherapy treatment planning
systems” (RTPS) is the standard which identifies those features of design that are regarded
as essential for the safe operation of the equipment. It states that “the output of a RTPS is
used by appropriately qualified persons as important information in radiotherapy treatment
planning. Inaccuracies in the input data [note: this includes image information], the
limitations of the algorithms, errors in the treatment planning process, or improper use of
output data, may represent a safety hazard to patients should the resulting data be used for
treatment purposes.” It is principally a software application for medical purposes and is a
device that is used to simulate the application of radiation to a patient for a proposed
radiotherapy treatment. Workstations attached to RTPSs for volume definition shall be of
high quality. The user shall be made aware of any software change which has the potential
to alter the dose calculation or distribution.
The report IAEA (2004a) “Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning
systems for radiation treatment of cancer” is a comprehensive guideline to the procedures to
be used for the quality assurance of modern RTPSs. Two subsequent documents providing
practical guidance for implementation of this report have been published by the IAEA. The
first document, IAEA (2007a), addresses specification and acceptance testing of RTPSs,
using the IEC (2001b) document as a basis. This document gives advice on tests to be
performed by the manufacturer (type tests) and acceptance tests to be performed at the
hospital (site tests). The second document, IAEA (2008a), addresses the commissioning of
RTPSs using a range of test cases described in IAEA (2004a). These two IAEA TECDOCs
are restricted to photon beam planning and issues related to IMRT or other specialized
techniques such as stereotactic radiosurgery are not included. Criteria for the acceptability of
performance tolerances of IMRT plans, e.g. based on gamma calculations, are an area of
development and are not considered.
68
RADIOTHERAPY
The IEC has not published performance tolerances for RTPSs, and the tolerance values for
RTPS for photon beams in Table 4-7 are taken from IAEA (2008a), where descriptions of
test methods and conditions can be found.
4.8.2 Suspension levels for treatment planning systems
Table 4-7 Suspension Levels for External Beam Radiotherapy Treatment Planning
Systems for Photons

Level (IAEA, 2008a)
Output factors at the reference point >2 % A
Homogeneous, simple geometry
Central Axis data of square and rectangular fields >2 % A
Off-axis data >3 % A

Complex geometry
Wedged fields, inhomogeneities, irregular fields, >3 % A
asymmetric collimator setting;
Central and off-axis data
Outside beam edges
In simple geometry >3 % A
In complex geometry >4 % A
Radiological field width 50% - 50% distance >2 mm A
Beam fringe / penumbra (50% - 90%) distance >2 mm A
Quality assurance for treatment planning systems is also described in AAPM (1998), ESTRO
Booklet No 7 (2004a) for photon beams and ESTRO Booklet No 8 (2004b) for
brachytherapy, and the national protocols IPEM (1999) and CAPCA (2007a). Quality
assurance for treatment planning for IMRT is discussed in AAPM (2003b), ESTRO Booklet
No 9 (2008) and AAPM (2011), for stereotactic body radiotherapy in AAPM (2010a) and for
helical tomotherapy in AAPM (2010b).
4.9 Dosimetry equipment
The quality assurance of dosimetry equipment used for quality control and commissioning of
treatment machines is considered by AAPM (1994), IPEM (1999) and CAPCA (2007c). The
CAPCA standard is largely based upon AAPM (1994), but with some local measurements.
IPEM (1999) has the most quantitative measures. The tests from all reports are set out in
Table 4-8. For a detailed description of test methods and conditions, please refer to these
documents. Where tests are performed routinely for quality control, suggested frequencies of
testing are also given in these documents.
69
4.9.2 Suspension levels for dosimetry equipment
Table 4-8 Suspension Levels for Dosimetry Equipment

Level (IPEM, 1999)
Ionisation Chambers
Leakage current >0.1 % AAPM (1994) B
Linearity >0.5 % AAPM (1994) B
Radionuclide stability check >1% B
Calibration against secondary standard >1 % B
Beam Data Acquisition Systems
Positional accuracy >1 mm CAPCA (2007c) B
Linearity >0.5 % AAPM (1994) B
Ion recombination losses >0.5 % B
Leakage current >0.1 % AAPM (1994) 0.5 % B
Effect of RF fields >0.1 % B
Stability of compensated signal >0.2 % B
Standard percentage depth dose plot >0.5 % B
Constancy of standard percentage depth >0.5 % B
dose plot
Standard profile plot: flatness >3 % B
Standard profile plot: field size >2 mm B
Accessories
Thermometer Calibration >0.5 °C AAPM (1994) 0.1 °C B
Barometer calibration >1 mbar B
Linear rule calibration >0.3 % AAPM (1994) B
Performance characteristics of radiation detector matrices are not considered.
70
REFERENCES AND SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
5 REFERENCES AND SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AAPM (1994) American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Comprehensive QA for

Radiation Oncology. Report No 46. Med. Phys. 21 (4), 581-618.
AAPM (1995) American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Quantitation of SPECT
Performance. Report No 52. Med. Phys. 22 (4) April.
AAPM (1998) American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Quality assurance for clinical
radiotherapy treatment planning. Report No 62. Med. Phys. 25 (10), 1773-1829.
AAPM (2002) American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Quality control in diagnostic
radiology. Report No 74. July. College Park,MD: American Association of Physicist in
Medicine.
AAPM (2003) American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Quality assurance of
computed-tomography simulators and the computed-tomography-simulation process. Report
No 83. Med. Phys. 30 (10), 2762-2792.
AAPM (2003b) Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical
implementation of IMRT: Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy
committee, AAPM Report 82. Med. Phys. 30 (8) 2003, 2089-2115.
AAPM (2005) American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Assessment of display
performance for medical imaging systems. Report OR-03. [Online] Available at
http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/OR_03.pdf (Accessed: 30 September 2009).
AAPM (2006a) American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Acceptance testing and
quality control of Photostimulable Phosphor Imaging Systems. Report No 93. October.
College Park, MD: American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
AAPM (2006b) American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Validating Automatic Film
Processor Performance. Report No 94. November. College Park, MD: American Association
of Physicists in Medicine.
AAPM (2009) American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Quality Assurance of Medical
Accelerators. Task Group 142 Report. Med. Phys. 36(9), 4197-4212.
AAPM (2010a) Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101.
Med. Phys. 37 (8) 2010, 4078-4101.
AAPM (2010b) QA for helical tomotherapy: Report of the AAPM Task Group 148. Med.
Phys. 37 (9) 2010, 4817-4853.
AAPM (2011) Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Report of the AAPM Task Group
120. Med. Phys. 38 (3) 2011, 1313-1338.
ACR (2008) American College of Radiology. CT accreditation program requirement.
Available at http://www.acr.org/accreditation/computed/ct_reqs.aspx.
FANC besluit (2008) Federal Agency for Nuclear Control decision. [Online] Available at
http://www.jurion.fanc.fgov.be/jurdb-consult/.
BHPA (2008) Belgian hospital physicist association. Belgisch Protocol voor Jaarlijkse
Kwaliteitscontrole Van X-stralenapparatuur. Available at http://www.bhpa.eu/publications.
BIR (2001) British Institute of Radiology. Assurance of Quality in the Diagnostic Imaging
Department. 2nd edn. London: British Institute of Radiology.
Bowden L, Faulkner R, Clancy C, Gallagher A, Devine M, Gorman D, O'Reilly G, Dowling A.
(2011) “Doses under automatic exposure control (AEC) for direct digital radiographic (DDR)
X-ray” Radiat Prot Dosimetry.;147(1-2):210-4.
71
Bundesärztekammer (2007) Leitlinien der Bundesärztekammer zur Qualitätssicherung in der

Röntgendiagnostik - Qualitätskriterien röntgendiagnostischer Untersuchungen - vom
23.11.2007. Available at http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/LeitCT2007Korr-
1.pdf.
Bundesregierung BRD (2004). Richtlinie zur Durchführung der Qualitätssicherung bei
Röntgeneinrichtungen zur Untersuchung oder Behandlung von Menschen -
Qualitätssicherungs-Richtlinie (QS-RL) -. Gemeinsames Ministerialblatt. Nr. 37-38, 2004.
CAPCA (2005a) Canadian Association of Provincial Cancer Agencies. Standards for Quality
Control at Canadian Radiation Treatment Centres, Medical Linear Accelerators. Canada.
CAPCA (2005b) Canadian Association of Provincial Cancer Agencies. Standards for Quality
Control at Canadian Radiation Treatment Centres, Conventional Radiotherapy Simulators.
Canada.
CAPCA (2005c) Canadian Association of Provincial Cancer Agencies. Standards for Quality
Control at Canadian Radiation Treatment Centres, Electronic Portal Imaging Devices.
Canada.
CAPCA (2005d) Canadian Association of Provincial Cancer Agencies. Standards for Quality
Control at Canadian Radiation Treatment Centres, Kilovoltage X-ray Radiotherapy
Machines. Canada.
Control at Canadian Radiation Treatment Centres, Cobalt-60 Teletherapy Units. Canada.
Control at Canadian Radiation Treatment Centres, Brachytherapy Remote Afterloaders.
Canada.
Control at Canadian Radiation Treatment Centres, Treatment Planning Systems. Canada.
Control at Canadian Radiation Treatment Centres, CT-Simulators. Canada.
CAPCA (2007c) Canadian Association of Provincial Cancer Agencies. Standards for Quality
Control at Canadian Radiation Treatment Centres, Major Dosimetry Equipment. Canada.
CFR (Code of Federal regulations) (2010) Title 21, Volume 8 – Food and Drugs Chapter 1 –
Food and Drug administration department of health and Human services – Subchapter J:
Radiological health, PART 1020 Performance Standards for Ionizing radiation emitting
products: Sec. 1020.32 Fluoroscopic equipment.
Council Directive 84/466/EURATOM of 3 September 1984 laying down basic measures for
the radiation protection of persons undergoing medical examination or treatment. OJ L 265,
5.10.1984, p. 1–3.
Council Directive 93/42/EC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. OJ L 169,
12.7.1993, p. 1.
Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for
the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising
from ionizing radiation. OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1–114.
Council Directive 97/43/EURATOM of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals
against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing
Directive 84/466/EURATOM. OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 22–27.
Council Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September
2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
72
Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/ECC
concerning medical devices and Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal
products on the market, OJ L247, 21.9.2007, p.21-55.
DIN (2001) DIN V 6868-58 Image quality assurance in diagnostic X-ray departments - Part
58: Acceptance testing of projection radiography systems with digital image receptors.
Berlin: Deutches Institut fur Normung.
Directive R-08-05 (2005), Contrôle de qualité des installations de radiographie dentaire
numérique.May 19, 2005. Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Switzerland: Office Fédéral de la
santé publique.
Dowling, A., Gallagher, A., O’Connor, U., Larkin, A., Gorman, D., Gray, L. and Malone, J.F.
(2008) ‘Acceptance testing of fluoroscopy systems’. Radiat Prot Dosimetry: 129 (1-3) p. 291-
294.
EANM (2008), “EANM Dosimetry Committee series on standard operational procedures for
pre-therapeutic dosimetry. I: Blood and bone marrow dosimetry in differentiated thyroid
cancer therapy”, Eur J Nucl Mol Imaging (2008) 35: 1405-1412.
EANM (2010), “Acceptance testing for nuclear medicine instrumentation”, Eur J Nucl Mol
Imaging (2010) 37: 672-681.
EANM (2011), “EANM Dosimetry Committee guidance document: good practice of clinical
dosimetry reporting”, Eur J Nucl Mol Imaging (2011) 38: 192-200.
EC (1996) - European Commission (1996) European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for
Diagnostic radiographic Images in Paediatrics. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities.
EC (1997) - European Commission (1997) Radiation Protection 91: Criteria of acceptability
of Radiological (including Radiotherapy) and Nuclear Medicine installations. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
EC (1998) - European Commission (1998) European Guidelines on quality criteria for
computed tomography. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
EC (1999) - European Commission (1999) Background paper on the Medical Exposures
Directive (MED) (97/43/EURATOM), as guidance for the transposition into national
regulations, Luxembourg, 30 June 1997.
EC (2004) - European Commission (2004) Radiation Protection 136: European Guidelines
on Radiation Protection In Dental Radiology, The Safe Use Of Radiographs In Dental
Practice. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
EC (2006) European Commission (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in
mammography screening and diagnosis. 4th Edn. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.
ESTRO Booklet No. 7 (2004a) European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.
Quality Assurance of Treatment Planning Systems Practical Examples for Non-IMRT Photon
Beams. Brussels: ESTRO.
ESTRO Booklet No. 8 (2004b) European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.
European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy. A Practical Guide to Quality
Control of Brachytherapy Equipment. Brussels: ESTRO.
ESTRO Booklet No 9 (2008) European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.
Guidelines for the verification of IMRT. Brussels: ESTRO.
73
Gallagher, A., Dowling, A., Devine, M., Bosmans, H., Kaplanis, P., Zdesar, U., Vassileva, J.,
& Malone, J. F. (2008). ‘European Survey of Dental X-Ray Equipment’. Radiat Prot
Dosimetry: 129 p. 284-287.
Hanson J. (1997) Standardization of proximal femur BMD measurements. International
Committee for Standards in Bone measurements, Osteoporos. Int. &(5):500-1.
Hart D, Hillier MC, et al. (1996) Doses to patients from medical exposures in the UK.(review
1995). NRPB, Vol R 289.
HPA-CRCE-010 (2010) Guidance on the Safe Use of Dental Cone Beam CT. Oxfordshire:
Health Protection Agency.
IAEA (2004a) International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Report TRS-430: Commissioning
and Quality Assurance of Computerized Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of
Cancer. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
IAEA (2007a) International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA-TECDOC-1540: Specification and
Acceptance testing of Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Systems. Vienna: International
Atomic Energy Agency.
IAEA (2007b) International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA-TECDOC: Quality Control of
SPECT Systems.2007 edn. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
IAEA (2008a) International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA-TECDOC-1583: Commissioning of
Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Systems: Testing for Typical External Beam Treatment
Techniques. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
IAEA (2009a) International Atomic Energy Agency. Human Health Series No. 1: Quality
Assurance for PET and PET/CT Systems. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
IAEA (2009b) International Atomic Energy Agency. Human Health Series No. 6; Quality
assurance for SPECT systems. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
IAEA (2010), IAEA Human Health Series No. 15, “Dual Energy Absorptiometry for Bone
Mineral Density and Body Composition Assessment”, IAEA, Vienna.
IAEA (2011), Quality Assurance Programme for Computed Tomography: Diagnostic and
Therapy Applications. Vienna, IAEA (in press).
ICRU (2005) Patient Dosimetry of X rays used in Medical Imaging, International Commission
of Radiation Units and measurements, Bethesda USA.
IEC (1993a) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61168 Ed.1.0: Radiotherapy
simulators – Functional performance characteristics. Geneva: IEC.
EN(1994) 61168 Radiotheraphy Radiotherapy simulators – Functional performance
characteristics.
IEC (1993b) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61170 Ed 1.0: Radiotherapy
simulators – Guidelines for functional performance characteristics. Geneva: IEC.
IEC (1993c) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC/TS 61223-2-2: Evaluation and
routing testing in medical imaging departments - Part 2-2: Constancy tests -Radiographic
Cassettes and Film changers, Film Screen Contact and relative sensitivity of the screen
cassette assembly. Geneva: IEC.
IEC (1994) International Elechtrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-1-3: Medical electrical
equipment. Part 1: General requirements for safety - 3: Collateral standard: General
requirements for radiation protection in diagnostic X-ray equipment. Geneva: IEC.
EN (1994) 60601-1-3 Medical electrical equipment – Part 1: General requirements for safety
– 3. Collateral standards: general requirements for radiation protection in diagnostic X-ray
equipment.
74
IEC (1997b) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-2-8 Ed 1.0: Medical

electrical equipment – Part 2-8: Particular requirements for the safety of therapeutic X-ray
equipment operating in the range 10kV to 1MV. Geneva: IEC.
EN (1997) 60601-2-8 Medical electrical equipment – Part 2: Particular requirements for the
safety of therapeutic X-ray equipment operating in the range 10kV to 1MV.
IEC (1998a) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61675-2 Ed 1.0: Radionuclide
Imaging Devices – Characteristics and Test Conditions – Part 2: Single Photon emission
computed tomographs. Geneva: IEC.
EN (1998a) 61675-2 Radionuclide Imaging Devices – Characteristics and Test Conditions –
Part 2: Single Photon emission computed tomographs.
IEC (1998b) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61675-3 Ed 1.0: Radionuclide
Imaging Devices – Characteristics and test Conditions – Part 3: Gamma Camera based
whole body imaging systems. Geneva: IEC.
EN (1998b) 61675-3 Radionuclide Imaging Devices – Characteristics and test Conditions –
Part 3: Gamma Camera based whole body imaging systems.
IEC (2000) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60580 Ed 2.0: Medical electrical
equipment - Dose area product meters. Geneva: IEC.
IEC (2000a) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61223-3-4 Ed 2.0: Evaluation
and routine testing in medical imaging departments – Part 3.4: Acceptance tests – Imaging
performance of dental X-ray equipment. Geneva: IEC.
EN (2000a) 61223-3-4: Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments – Part
3.4: Acceptance tests – Imaging performance of dental X-ray equipment.
IEC (2001a) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC TR 61948-1 Ed 1.0: Nuclear
medicine instrumentation – Routine tests – Part 1: Radiation counting systems. Geneva:
IEC.
IEC (2001b) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 62083: Medical electrical
equipment – Requirements for the safety of radiotherapy treatment planning systems.
Geneva: IEC.
IEC (2004a) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61223-3-5 Ed 1.0: Evaluation
and Routine Testing in Medical Imaging Departments - Part 3-5: Acceptance Tests - Imaging
Performance of Computed Tomography X-ray Equipment. Geneva: IEC.
EN (2004) Evaluation and Routine Testing in Medical Imaging Departments - Part 3-5:
Acceptance Tests - Imaging Performance of Computed Tomography X-ray Equipment.
IEC (2004b) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-2-11-am1 Ed 2.0:
Amendment 1 - Medical electrical equipment – Part 2-11: Particular requirements for the
safety of gamma beam therapy equipment. Geneva: IEC.
IEC (2004c) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-2-17 Ed 2.0: Medical
electrical equipment – Part 2-17: Particular requirements for the safety of automatically-
controlled brachytherapy afterloading equipment. Geneva: IEC.
EN (2004c) 60601-2-17 Medical electrical equipment – Part 2-17: Particular requirements for
the safety of automatically-controlled brachytherapy afterloading equipment.
IEC (2004d) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61675-2-am1 Ed 1.0:
Radionuclide Imaging Devices – Characteristics and Test Conditions – Part 2: Single Photon
emission computed tomographs. Geneva: IEC.
IEC (2005) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC TR 61948-3 Ed 1.0: Nuclear
medicine instrumentation – Routine tests – Part 3: Positron emission tomographs. Geneva:
IEC.
75
IEC (2007) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60976 Ed 2.0: Medical electrical
equipment – Medical electron accelerators - Functional performance characteristics.
Geneva: IEC.
IEC (2008a) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-1-3: Medical electrical
equipment – Part 1-3: General requirements for basic safety and essential performance –
collateral standard: Radiation protection in diagnostic X-ray equipment. Geneva: IEC.
EN (2008a) 60601-1-3 Medical electrical equipment - Part 1-3: General requirements for
basic safety and essential performance - Collateral Standard: Radiation protection in
diagnostic X-ray equipment.
electrical equipment – Part 2-29: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential
performance of radiotherapy simulators. Geneva: IEC.
EN (2008b) 60601-2-29 Medical electrical equipment – Part 2-29: Particular requirements for
the basic safety and essential performance of radiotherapy simulators.
IEC (2008c) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60977 Ed 2.0: Medical electrical
equipment – Medical electron accelerators - Guidelines for functional performance
characteristics. Geneva: IEC.
IEC (2009) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-2-54: Medical electrical
equipment – Part 2-54: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential
performance of X-ray equipment for radiography and radioscopy. Geneva: IEC.
EN (2009) 60601-2-54: Medical electrical equipment – Part 2-54: Particular requirements for
the basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for radiography and
radioscopy.
IEC (2009a) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-2-44 Ed.3: Medical
electrical equipment - Part 2-44: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential
performance of X-ray equipment for computed tomography. Geneva (IEC).
EN (2009a) 60601-2-44 Ed.3: Medical electrical equipment - Part 2-44: Particular
requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for
computed tomography.
electrical equipment – Part 2-1: Particular requirements for the safety of electron
accelerators in the range 1 MeV to 50 MeV. Geneva: IEC.
IEC (2010) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-2-43 Ed 2.0: Medical
Electrical Equipment. Part 2-43: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential
performance of X-ray equipment for interventional procedures. Geneva: IEC.
EN (2010) 60601-2-43 Ed 2.0: Medical Electrical Equipment. Part 2-43: Particular
requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for
interventional procedures.
IEC (2011) International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-2-45 Ed 3.0 : Medical
electrical equipment - Part 2-45: Particular requirements for basic safety and essential
performance of mammographic X-ray equipment and mammomagraphic stereotactic
devices. Geneva: IEC.
EN (2011) 60601-2-45 Medical electrical equipment - Part 2-45: Particular requirements for
basic safety and essential performance of mammographic X-ray equipment and
mammomagraphic stereotactic devices.
IEC (2011b) International Electrotechnical Commission IEC 60601-2-65 Ed.1: Medical
performance of dental intra-oral X-ray equipment. Geneva: IEC.
76
IEC (2011c) International Electrotechnical Commission IEC 60601-2-63 Ed.1: Medical

performance of dental extra-oral X-ray equipment Geneva: IEC.
IEC (2011d) International Electrotechnical Commission IEC 61223-3-5: Evaluation and
routine testing in medical imaging departments – Part 3-5: Acceptance tests –Imaging
performance of computed tomography X-ray equipment.
IPEM(1995)Institution of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Measurementof the
performance characteristics of diagnostic X-ray systems used in medicine, Report 32,
2ndedn, Part I: X-ray Tubes and Generators. York, UK:Institute of Physicists and Engineers
in Medicine.
IPEM(1996)Institution of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Measurementof the
performance characteristics of diagnostic X-ray systems used in medicine, Report 32,
2ndedn, Part II: X-ray Image Intensifier Television Systems. York, UK:Institute of Physicists
and Engineers in Medicine.
IPEM (1997a)Institute of Physicists and Engineers in Medicine. Measurement of the
Performance Characteristics of Diagnostic X-raySystems, Report 32, 2ndedn, Part IV: X-ray
Intensifying Screens, Films, Processors and AutomaticExposure Control Systems.
York:Institute of Physicists and Engineers in Medicine.
IPEM (1997b) Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Measurement of the
performance characteristics of Diagnostic X-Ray Systems, Report 32, 2nd edn, Part V:
Conventional Tomography Equipment. York: Institute of Physics and Engineering in
Medicine.
IPEM (1997c) Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Recommended Standards
for the Routine Performance Testing of Diagnostic X-ray Imaging Systems, Report 77. York:
Institute of Physicists and Engineers in Medicine.
IPEM (1999) Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Physical Aspects of Quality
Control in Radiotherapy, Report 81. York: Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine.
IPEM (2003) Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine Quality Assurance in Gamma
Camera Systems, Report 86. York: Institute of Physicists and Engineers in Medicine.
IPEM (2005a) Institute of Physicists and Engineers in Medicine. Recommended Standards
for the Routine Performance Testing of Diagnostic X-Ray Imaging Systems, Report 91. York:
Institute of Physicists and Engineers in Medicine.
IPEM (2005b) Institute of Physicists and Engineers in Medicine. Commissioning and Routing
Testing Of Mammographic X-Ray Systems, Report 89. York: Institute of Physicists and
Engineers in Medicine.
IPEM (2008) Institute of Physicists and Engineers in Medicine. Quality Assurance in Dental
Radiology, Report 67. York: Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine.
IPEM (2010) Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Measurement of the
Performance Characteristics of Diagnostic X-ray Systems: Digital Imaging Systems, Report
32 (VII). York: Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine.
IPEM (2011) Institute of Physicists and Engineers in Medicine. Dosimetry for radionuclide
therapy, Report 104, IPEM, 2011, York, UK.
JORF (2007) Journal Officiel de la République Française: Décision du 24 septembre 2007
fixant les modalités du contrôle de qualité de certaines installations de radiodiagnostic Texte
33 sur 123. October 25.
Kalender, W.A. (2011) Computed Tomography: Fundamentals, System Technology, Image
Quality, Application,3rd ed Munich: Publicis MCD Verlag.
77
Kalender, W. A., Felsenberg, D., Genant, H. K., Fischer, M., Dequeker, J. and Reeve, J.
(1995) ‘The European Spine Phantom--a tool for standardization and quality control in spinal
bone mineral measurements by DXA and QCT’. Eur J Radiol: 20 (2) p. 83-92.
Kelly, T.L., Slovik, D.M., and Neer, R.M., (1989) ‘Calibration and standardization of bone
mineral densitometers’. J Bone Miner Res: 4 (5) p. 663-9.
Larkin, A., Sheahan, N., O'Connor, U., Gray, L., Dowling, A., Vano, E., Torbica, P., Salat, D.,
Schreiner, A., Neofotistou, V., and Malone, J.F. (2008) ‘QA/Acceptance Testing of DEXA X-
Ray Systems Used in Bone Mineral Densitometry’. Radiat Prot Dosimetry: 129 (1-3) p. 279 –
283.
Martin, C.J., Sutton, D.G., Workman, A., Shaw, A.J. and Temperton, D. (1998) ‘Protocol for
measurement of surface dose rates for fluoroscopic X-ray equipment’. Brit J Radiol: 71 (852)
p. 1283-1287.
Mutic, S., Palta, J. R., Butker, E.K., Das Indra, J., Huq,M.S., Dick Loo L., Salter B.J.,
McCollough C.H., and Van Dyk J. (2003) ‘Quality assurance for computed-tomography
simulators and the computed-tomography-simulation process: report of the AAPM Radiation
Therapy Committee, Report 83’. Medical Physics 30 (10) p. 2762-92.
Nagel, H.D, Galanski M, Hidajat N, Maier W, Schmidt T (2002) Radiation Exposure in
Computed Tomography: Fundamentals, Influencing Parameters, Dose Assessment,
Optimisation, Scanner Data, Terminology. 4th edn. Hamburg: CTB Publications.
Napier, I. 1999. Reference doses for dental radiography. British Dental Journal 186:392-6.
NCRP (2009) Report No. 160 on Increased Average Radiation Exposure of the U.S.
Population Requires Perspective and Caution. College Park, Md: American Association of
Physicists in Medicine.
NEMA (2004) National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NU3-2004: Performance
Measurements and Quality Control Guidelines for Non-Imaging Intra-operative Gamma
Probes. Washington: National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
NEMA (2007a) National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NU 1-2007: Performance
Measurements of Gamma Cameras. Washington: National Electrical Manufacturers
Association.
NEMA (2007b) National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NU 2-2007: Performance
Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. Washington: National Electrical
Manufacturers Association.
NHS (2007) Commissioning and routine testing of small field digital mammography systems.
NHSBSP report number 0705, May 2007.
Njeh, C.F., Fuerst, T., Hans, D., Blake, G.M., and Genant, H.K. (1999) ‘Radiation exposure
in bone mineral density assessment’. Appl Radiat Isot: 50 (1) p. 215-36.
NPL (2006) National Physical Laboratory Good Practice Guide No. 93 “Protocol for
establishing and maintaining the calibration of medicine radionuclide calibrators and their
quality control”, 2006, NPL.
NRPB (2005) - W67 Doses from Computed Tomography (CT) Examinations in the UK -
2003 Review.
Ozdemir A, Ucar M. (2007) Standardization of spine and hip BMD measurements in different
DXA devices, Eur. J. Radiol 62:423-6.
Papp, J. (1998) Quality Management in the Imaging Sciences. St Louis: Mosby Inc.
78
SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel. Radiation Protection: Cone Beam CT for

Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Evidence based guidelines. A report prepared by the
SEDENTEXCT project, (2011). Available on www.sedentexct.eu.
SEFM-SEPR (2002) Sociedad Española de Física Médica and Sociedad Española de
Protección Radiológica. Protocolo Español De Control De Calidad En Radiodiagnóstico
(Aspectos técnicos) Revision 1. Madrid: EdiComplet.
Seibert, J. A. (1999) Film Digitizers and Laser Printers. in Practical Digital Imaging and
PACS. AAPM Medical Physics Monograph No. 25. Medical Physics Publishing; Madison,
WI; p.107-133.
Sheahan, N.F., Dowling, A., O’Reilly, G. and Malone, J.F. (2005) Commissioning And
Quality Assurance Protocols For Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) Systems.
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 117 (1-3) p. 288-290.
Siegel, J. A., Zimmerman, B.E., Kodimer, K., Dell, M.A., and Simon, W.E. (2004) ‘Accurate
Dose Calibrator Activity Measurement of 90Y- Ibritumomab Tiuxetan’. The Journal of
Nuclear Medicine 45 (3) March, p. 450-454.
Toroi, P., Komppa, T. and Kosunen, A. (2009) ‘A tandem calibration method for kerma–area
product meters’. Phys. Med. Biol., 53, p. 4941-4958. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/18/006
(Accessed 30 September 2009).
Walsh, C., Gorman, D., Byrne, P., Larkin, A, Dowling, A. and Malone, J.F. (2008) ‘Quality
Assurance of computed and digital radiography systems’. Radiat Prot Dosimetry: 129 (1-3)
p.271-275.
Young, K. C., et al (2008) Evaluation of software for reading images of the CDMAM test
object to assess digital mammography systems, Medical Imaging 2008: Physics of Medical
Imaging, edited by Jiang Hsieh, Ehsan Samei,Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6913, 69131C, (2008).
79
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Coordinator: Dr Keith Faulkner
Diagnostic Radiology Lead: Professor Jim Malone
Nuclear Medicine Lead: Dr Stelios Christofides
Radiotherapy Lead: Professor Stephen Lillicrap
Project Management: Dr. Paola Baldelli, Mrs Ruth Guest, Ms Una O’Connor
Contributors
Diagnostic Radiology
Dr. Paola Baldelli
Dr Steve Balter
Dr Norbert Bischof
Prof. Hilde Bosmans
Anita Dowling
Sue Edyvean
Aoife Gallagher
Remy Klausz
Dr Lesley Malone
Dr Ian (Donald) Mclean
Una O’Connor
Dr Alexandra Schreiner
Prof. Jenia Vassileva
Dr Eliseo Vano
Colin Walsh
Dr Hans Zoetelief
Nuclear Medicine
Dr. Paola Baldelli
Prof. Patrick Horton
Dr Markus Nowak Lonsdale
Dr Lesley Malone
Prof. Soren Mattsson
81
Radiotherapy
Prof. Patrick Horton
Dr Inger-Lena Lamm
Dr Wolfgang Lehmann
Reviewers
Prof. Dr. G. Adam, DRG, Germany
Agfa Healthcare NV, Belgium
AIFM, Italian Association of Physicists in Medicine, Italy
AITRO, Italian Association of Radiation Therapist Technologist, Italy
Enza Barbieri, AIRO, Italy
Manuel Bardies, EANM, Germany
Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Gesundheit, Rosenkavalierplatz 2, D - 81925
München, Germany
Anna B³aszczyk, Poland
Ronald Boellaard, EANM,Denmark
Dr. Cari Borros, EFOMP, Spain
The British Chiropractic Association, UK
Karine Chevrie, EOS Imaging, France
COCIR, Belgium
Jonathan Cole, KCARE, UK
Dr John Colvin, Scotland
Pascale Cousin, Germany
Nicole Denjoy, COCIR, Belgium
Dr. Roswitha Eisbach, Ministry of environment, Germany
Donald Emerton, KCARE, UK
Didier Saint Felix, EOS Imaging,France
Lennart Flygare, Sweden
Aoife Gallagher, St. James’s Hosp. Ireland
Dr Koos Geleijns
Ms. Gisella Gennaro, Italy
David Grainger, UK
Peter Hiles, Wales, UK
Prof. Soren Holm, DSMF, Denmark
Prof. Keith Horner, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, UK.
IAPM, - Irish Association of Physicists in Medicine, Ireland
Tetsuya Iwata, Japan
82
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
IEC SC 62B working group and maintenance team members

Dr, Reinhilde Jacobs, EADMFR,Belgium
Melanie Jones, UK
Ben Johnson, IPEM Science Board, UK
Dr. Patrick Kenny, Ireland
Kalle Kepler, Estonia
Timo Kleinwächter, Carl Zeiss Surgical GmbH,Germany
Pasi Korkola, Finland
Agnieszka Kuchcińska, Testing Laboratory Shedar, Poland
Michael Lassmann, EANM, Germany
Chris Lawinski, KCARE, UK
Dr. Wolfram Leitz, BSF, Germany
Dr Reinhard Loose, ESR,Austria
Giovanni Lucignani, AIMN, Italy
Prof. Stefano M Magrini, Italy
MITA, Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance, US
Ole Møller-Larsen, DSMF, Denmark
Giles D Morrison, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK
Dr. Klaus Neuder, DKE, Germany
Dr Hartwig Newiger,Siemens
Ciara Norton, HSE, Ireland
Leos Novak, NRPI, Czech Republic
Dr. Markus Nowak Lonsdale, EANM Physics Committee
NRIRR-The ‘Frederic Joliot-Curie’ National Research Institute for Radiobiology and
Radiohygiene, Hungary
Dutch Society of Medical Physics (NVKF), Netherlands
Ordine Degli Ingegneri della provincial di Salerno, Italy
Dr Geraldine O’Reilly, WPMED,Ireland
Graciano Paulo, ESRF, The Netherlands
Prof. Guido Pedroli, AIFM, Italy
Anna Plachcinska, EANM, Denmark
Dr. Tamas Porubszky
Prof. W.J. van der Putten, Ireland
Dr. E Raaijmakers, Netherlands
Radiation Protection Committee, British Institute Of Radiology & Royal College Of
Radiologists, UK
Prof. Antonio Rotondo, Italy
Dr. Bejoy Saha, BMU, Germany
83
Dr. Christian Scheifele, DGZMK, Germany

Ralf Schulze, EADMFR, Germany
Dr Bernd Seidel, NAR, Germany
Stefan Sikora, Germany
Ellinor Busemann Sokole, EANM, Denmark
Gregor Stock, FIDE, Germany
Christof Suess, Siemens, Germany
S. Szekeres
Dr Markku Tapiovaara, STUK, Finland
Dr Simon Thomas PhD FIPEM
Anders Tinberg, Swedish Society for Radiation Physics
Ricardo Torres,Spain
Dr. Alberto Torresin, EFOMP, Italy
Hisao Tsuji, Japan
John Upton, Waterford Regional Hospital, Ireland
Dr. Richard Veit, BSF, Germany
Ivan Vogelius, DSMF, Denmark
Colin Walsh, Ireland
Dr Stefan Zöepfel, GmbH, Germany
84

Radiation Protection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radiation Protection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radiation Protection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

RADIATION PROTECTION N° 162

Criteria for Acceptability of Medical

Directorate-General for Energy

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

Freephone number (*):

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012

© European Union, 2012

Luxembourg, October 2012

1.1 Background and purpose

1. Update existing criteria for acceptability.

RP 91 considered diagnostic radiological installations including conventional and computed

Table 1-1 Two Categories of Criteria for Acceptability

1.2 Basis for criteria for acceptability in the European directives

1.2.1 Requirements of the Medical Exposure Directive (MED)

 acceptance testing of new equipment,

 identification of criteria of acceptability for equipment safety and performance

 establishment of quality assurance programmes.

Practical Consequences of the MED Directive

1.2.2 Requirements of the Medical Devices Directives (MDD) and

1.3 To whom this document is addressed

Advice on good practice with respect to equipment performance is frequently addressed to

1.4 Clarification of terminology and equipment lifecycle

Table 1-2 Definitions and Actions associated with Satisfactory Performance,

State Definition and / or Action

Term How and when Applied

1.5 Criteria for acceptability

1.5.1 Approaches to criteria

both of which are from the MED.

performance of equipment at installation will provide an adequate means of detecting unsafe

1.6 Identifying and selecting suspension levels

With the exception of RP 91 there is no formal consolidated literature on criteria for

Table 1-4 Types of Suspension Level

Suspension Level Definition

1.7 Special considerations, exceptions and exclusions

1.7.1 Special considerations

1.7.2 Old equipment

1.7.3 Rapidly evolving technologies

example, tube leakage, which is essentially a safety standards issue, continues to be

1.8 Establishing conformity with criteria for acceptability

2.2 X-ray generators and equipment for general radiography

2.2.1 Introductory remarks and qualitative criteria

Unacceptable X-Ray generators and equipment for general radiology

 Equipment without the ability to collimate the beam,

 Equipment without a device (where practicable) to show the quantity of radiation,

 Equipment without AEC devices (where practicable).

2.2.2 Suspension levels for X-ray generators and general radiography

Table 2-1 Suspension Levels for General Radiography Systems

Physical Suspension Level Reference Type Notes and Observations

Physical Suspension Level Reference Type Notes and Observations

Light beam/bucky Alignment of crosswire EC (1997) A

Focal Spot (FS)

Physical Suspension Level Reference Type Notes and Observations

Table 2-2 Suspension levels for minimum first HVL

Parameter Suspension level Reference Type Notes and

Parameter Suspension level Reference Type Notes and

Table 2-4 AEC Suspension Levels for Film/ Screen systems

Physical Suspension Level Reference Type Notes and Observations