Authors' recommendations: Summary No comparative evidence was found on patient safety benefits of in vivo dosimetry versus pretreatment verification only. An extremely large sample would be required to demonstrate a clinically significant difference in radiation over- or under-doses between the two quality assurance approaches. Case series evidence highlighted dosing errors found through in vivo dosimetry. Large discrepancies between measured and calculated radiation doses were often explained by detector positioning problems. A UK study estimated capital costs of £6,000 and annual costs of £18,882 for a diode dosimetry system on one linear accelerator. This study did not meet usual level of evidence requirements for scoping reports, but was included as the only UK evidence. The evidence presented on patient safety benefits and resource implications is inadequate to inform decision-making on investment or disinvestment in in vivo dosimetry in its various forms. No evidence was found on the patient safety risks or resource savings from reducing the number of patients receiving in vivo dosimetry. No evidence was found on the patient safety risks or resource savings from reducing the number of treatment plans undergoing pretreatment verification.

Project Status: Completed

Year Published: 2012

URL for published report: http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our_work/technologies_and_medicines/earlier_scoping_reports/technologies_scoping_report_7.aspx

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Not Assigned

Country: Scotland, United Kingdom

Organisation Name: Scottish Health Technologies Group

Contact Address: Scottish Health Technologies Group, Delta House, 50 West Nile Street, Glasgow, G1 2NP Tel: 0141 225 6998

Contact Name: his.shtg@nhs.scot

Contact Email: his.shtg@nhs.scot

Copyright: Healthcare Improvement Scotland