Download Comprehensive TG-142 ImaGInG and machIne Qa

QA Software
•
Comprehensive TG-142
Imaging and Machine QA
Automate the analysis of over
30 TG-142 recommended
QA tasks without film
TG-142 Imager and Machine QA
The continual refinement of RT treatments into more advanced
procedures dictates the need for superior, sustainable precision. However,
imagers and machines degrade over time and recalibrations are required.
TG-142 reconciles these divergent trends by recommending a multitude
of daily, monthly and annual QA procedures. Though aimed at preventing
clinically significant errors, these requirements further strain the busy
schedules of RT professionals.
PIPSpro Software efficiently executes and consolidates QA workload by
incorporating TG-142 procedures into one easy-to-use platform. When
used in conjunction with specialized phantoms, PIPSpro becomes an
indispensable part of your QA process.
•
Assurance is Confidence
Several manufacturers still include basic, qualitative phantoms, like the ‘Las Vegas’
test object, with their imaging systems. However, these phantoms do not provide
quantitative data. In addition, these tests are done manually, without the aid of
software to automate results.
In contrast, Standard Imaging
phantoms provide quantitative,
repeatable results. This data can be
compared to published performance
values or between systems to
ensure your imagers are operating
to specifications. These powerful
trending tools alert you of issues
before loss of quality becomes
clinically significant.
Imager QC, Now TG-142 Recommended
PIPSpro Comprehensive’s Imager QA, Star Shot and Stereotactic, when coupled with the appropriate phantoms, facilitate over 30 tests recommended by TG-142.
(Phantoms appear in parentheses)
Mechanical
Planar MV Imaging [EPID]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Light/radiation field coincidence (FC-2)
Jaw position indicators [symmetric] (FC-2)
Collimator rotation isocenter
Gantry rotation isocenter
Couch rotation isocenter
Coincidence of radiation and mechanical isocenter
Laser Alignment (MIMI)
Multileaf collimation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Setting vs. radiation field for two patterns (MLC Phantom)
Leaf position accuracy (MLC Phantom)
MLC transmission (MLC Phantom)
Leaf position repeatability (MLC Phantom)
Coincidence of light field and x-ray field (FC-2)
Segmental IMRT test (MLC Phantom)
MLC spoke shot
Scaling (FC-2)
Spatial resolution (QC-3)
Contrast (QC-3)
Uniformity and noise (QC-3)
Imaging and treatment coordinate coincidence
[single gantry angle] (MIMI)
• Imaging and treatment coordinate coincidence
[four cardinal angles] (MIMI)
Planar kV Imaging
•
•
•
•
•
Scaling (FC-2)
Spatial resolution (QCkV-1)
Contrast (QCkV-1)
Uniformity and noise (QCkV-1)
Imaging and treatment coordinate coincidence
[single gantry angle] (MIMI)
• Imaging and treatment coordinate coincidence
[four cardinal angles] (MIMI)
Cone-beam CT [kV] (PIPSpro using the Catphan)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geometric distortion
Spatial resolution
Contrast
HU constancy
Uniformity and noise
Imaging and treatment coordinate coincidence (MIMI)
Positioning/repositioning (MIMI)
Refined User-Interface
The QA modules of PIPSpro feature a new, simplified
user-interface. Since the interface is consistent across
modules, it is easy to quickly learn all facets of PIPSpro.
Additionally, this unified layout allows multiple modules
to be open simultaneously - streamlining workflow
during acquisition, reporting and analysis routines.
New! Enhanced Imager QA Module
The Imager QA module consolidates TG-142 testing for MV, kV
and 3D CT (both cone-beam and diagnostic) into a uniform, easyto-use interface. Customizable profiles allow a variety of machine,
imager, phantom and energy combinations to be quickly saved.
Once a profile is selected, the user loads an image for analysis and
PIPSpro does the rest. This “one-click” deployment provides three
different figures of merit for calculating uniformity, including
Phantom on surface of EPID
6 MV
EPID
f50 epi
10 - 25 MV
f30 epi
0.18 ± 0.02
QA. This tool can generate and store custom baselines for
every test calculated within PIPSpro, allowing for a breadth of
metrics to be easily tracked. Once testing is complete, PIPSpro
automatically generates comprehensive reports that can be
0.22 ± 0.02
0.22 ± 0.01
0.23 ± 0.01
0.25 ± 0.02
Varian aS500
• Unified interface allows for multiple modules of PIPSpro to be
f50 iso
0.17
0.19 ± 0.01
PORTpro
yellow or red for an easy overview of passing/failing results.
Additional New Features
15-18 MV
f30 iso
0.30 ± 0.02
0.23
0.18
Siemens
0.21 ± 0.03
Beamview
0.21 ± 0.02
Theraview 0.23 ± 0.01
0.26 ± 0.03
images of each result. All data is automatically tagged as green,
page detailing which values pass or are out of range, along with
f50 iso
0.18 ± 0.02
SRI-100
0.24
Elekta iView
Beamview TI 0.24 ± 0.01
Varian 0.26 ± 0.01
Portalvision
MkII
quickly exported to a PDF file. These reports contain a summary
6 MV
f50 epi
Measurements of spatial resolution in lp/mm
PIU (ACR percent integral uniformity).
A comprehensive baseline manager lets users customize imager
Phantom at isocenter
Varian aS1000
Elekta iViewGT
0.29 ± 0.01
0.25 ± 0.01
0.285
0.33 ± 0.04
0.39
0.27
0.28 ± 0.01
0.34
0.60
0.45
0.46
.379
0.77
0.77
Published reference performance values
for spatial resolution
open simultaneously.
• Supports the Catphan 600 and Leeds phantoms, as well as the
independently calibrated QC-3 and QCkV-1 phantoms.
• Phantom imaging does not require jaw or blade positioning.
Compare results to published values
0.49 - 0.58
QC-3 Phantom
QCkV-1 Phantom
Validated Performance,
Documented Results
With performance supported by over 55 publications, PIPSpro
Software, the QC-3 phantom (MV) and the QCkV-1 (kV) phantom
are integral to meeting TG-142 standards. 11 regions of interest
contain line pair patterns and materials of differing densities,
Track and Trend
and noise. Compare these results to published data for further
Imager Performance
confidence in your QA.
Published image resolution data for PIPSpro’s QC-3 phantom
allowing for the planar determination of resolution, contrast
provide a known quantity for each imager, making it easy to
evaluate the quality of baseline values and compare values
between systems. Using these baselines, the built-in database
and trending software shows how your imagers are performing
over time. User-determined warning and rejection levels on all
graphs let you easily detect declining image quality.
Quantify the quality of your imagers
MIMI Phantom
Intuitive IGRT
When using on-board imaging systems for patient positioning,
it is imperative to verify that the imaging coordinate system is
aligned with the treatment beam. TG-142 recommends testing
this on a daily basis. This test is performed using the Standard
Imaging MIMI (Multi-Image Modality Isocentricity) Phantom,
providing results in either three dimensions (X, Y, Z) or in six
dimensions adding pitch, yaw and roll.
The new IGRT Module in PIPSpro is designed to collect this daily
data and then automatically track and trend these values over time.
The MIMI Phantom partners ideally with the IGRT module when
performing daily checks of imaging and treatment coordinate
coincidence. Bone rods running throughout the phantom make
it easy to automatically register and quickly match and analyze
2D/2D and 3D/3D images.
Simple IGRT Trending
Precise Winston-Lutz/
Stereotactic Radiosurgery QA
In linear accelerator based Stereotactic Radiosurgery, it is
common to perform the Winston-Lutz test to verify machine
isocentricity. For the Winston-Lutz test, a spherical marker is
aligned to the laser described isocenter and a series of images are
acquired at different gantry and couch rotation combinations.
PIPSpro Comprehensive simplifies this testing, using your portal
imaging system to acquire the images of the spherical marker
instead of film. These images are automatically loaded and
Winston-Lutz Phantom
analyzed to determine the isocentricity. 3D offsets from isocenter
are reported with 0.1mm accuracy allowing you to have more
confidence in your setup and treatment. Testing can be done for
each gantry and couch angle for MLC or cone-based systems.
Specialized Phantoms, Superior QA
MLC Phantom
Complete MLC QA
The MLC QA module analyzes a single, specialized phantom;
In addition, the module lets users measure inter-leaf and inter-
producing quantitative data to determine if your collimator can
bank leakage and leaf-width, making PIPSpro the only software
accurately position leaves.
necessary for comprehensive MLC QA. The MLC QA Module
This module also follows TG-142 guidelines for reviewing
meets TG-142 guidelines for the following tests:
multiport or ‘picket-fence’ images. These test a MLC’s ability
• Qualitative test [i.e., matched segments, aka ‘picket fence’]
to position individual leaves at multiple positions during single
• Setting vs radiation field for two patterns [non-IMRT]
treatments such as step-and-shoot and sliding window IMRT.
• Leaf position accuracy [IMRT]
• MLC transmission [average of leaf and interleaf transmission,
all energies]
• Leaf position repeatability
• Coincidence of light field and x-ray field [all-energies]
• Segmental IMRT [step and shoot] test
Filmless MLC QA in a single platform
Advanced Radiation Field/
Light Field
The FC-2 and Center-Marker phantoms expedite analysis of several
TG-142 recommended machine QA procedures, including:
• Light/radiation field coincidence: Meets TG-142 specifications
of measuring tolerances of 2 mm or 1% on a side.
Center Marker
and FC-2 Phantom
• Jaw position indicators (symmetric): Meets TG-142
specifications of measuring tolerances of 2 mm.
• MLC Coincidence of light field and x-ray field (all energies):
Meets TG-142 specifications of measuring tolerances of ±2 mm.
Over 30 TG-142 procedures
Powerful Star Shot Analysis
PIPSpro’s Star Shot Module uses an EPID or film to measure the
stability of rotation of the linac gantry, couch and collimator.
Centralized Database
Management
Analysis of these images provides quantitative results for
PIPSpro can store data on a central network for quick
mechanical procedures, including:
documentation and access for TG-142 test results and trending
• Collimator rotation isocenter – Meets TG-142 specification
of measuring tolerances of ±1 mm from baseline.
• Gantry rotation isocenter – Meets TG-142 specification
of measuring tolerances of ±1 mm from baseline.
• Couch rotation isocenter – Meets TG-142 specification
reports. QA results are shown in easy-to-read reports, charts, and
graphs, which can be exported to PDF and ASCII files without
additional software tools. An equipment manager stores an
unlimited number of linear accelerators and phantoms,
eliminating continual re-entering of clinical device data.
of measuring tolerances of ±1 mm from baseline.
The TG-58 Report encourages users to demand the use of a tool
such as PIPSpro QC Software at acceptance to help ensure that
the EPID is indeed operating at or above specifications.*
* Michael G. Herman, et al, “Clinical Use of Electronic Portal Imaging:
Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 58,”
Med. Phys. 28 (5), May 2001
Over 55 publications validate the performance of PIPSpro.
Visit www.standardimaging.com or call 800-261-4446 for more details.
P I P S p r o S o f t w a r e specificatio n s
operating system
Windows® 7
Windows Vista®
Microsoft® Windows® XP
Processor Intel ® or AMD®, 350 MHz or greater
Memory
64 MB (256 MB recommended)
Hard Drive
50 MB or greater
Screen resolution
800 x 600 (1024 x 768 recommended)
CD–ROM Drive
2X speed or greater
screen color depth
256-bit or greater
product standards
Designed to meet IEC 60601-1-4
Recommended Software
Microsoft Excel
Catphan® is a registered trademark of The Phantom Laboratory. Windows® is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
Specifications subject to change without notice.
Thorough service, knowledgeable support
Publications
1.Implementation of electronic portal imaging in a busy
radiation therapy treatment center. M. Davis, R. Sabey,
R. Rajapakshe. Proc. Workshop on Electronic Portal Imaging, Amsterdam, 1996. pp 10-11.
2. Picture archival and communication system (PACS) for
electronic portal imaging. R. Rajapakshe, R. Sabey, R.
Lewis, D. Henkelman. Proc. Workshop on Electronic Portal
Imaging, Amsterdam, 1996. p. 10.
3. Conformal treatment of the prostate utilizing intensity
modulation and organ immobilization. W. Grant III, J.
McGary, D. Bellezza, P. Nizin. Med. Phys. 24(6):1023
(1997).
4. Setup reproducibility in radiation therapy for lung cancer:
A comparison between T-bar and expanded foam
immobilization devices. R. Halperin, W. Roa, M. Field, J.
Hanson, B. Murray. Int. J. Rad. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 43(1):
211-216 (1998).
5. A comparison of clinical experience and quality assurance
with a gantrymounted (Philips SRI 100) and a mobile EPIsystem (ELIAV PORTpro). B. Bannach, T. Doll, D. Lansing,
G. Schmitt. Proc. Workshop on Electronic Portal Imaging,
Phoenix, Oct 1998. pp 39-40.
6.Image quality assurance for a Varian PortalVision EPID.
H.J. Kim, R.S. Sloboda. Proc. Workshop on Electronic
Portal Imaging, Phoenix, October 1998. pp 95-96.
7. Quality control in digital portal imagers (Abstract in
English, text in Dutch). P.H. Vos, G.A.N. Coenen, S.A.J.M.
Versmissen. Clinical Physics (Journal of the Dutch
Society of Clinical Physics) 98/1: 27-31 (1998).
8.Erfahrungen mit dem Hochenergie-Bildsystem Siemens
Beamview Plus im klinischen Routine-Einsatz. O.
Schramm, B. Gagel, G. Sroka-Perez, M. Eble, M. Wannenmacher. Strahlenther. Onkol. 174: 92 (1998).
9.Vergleich des Hochenergie-Bildsystem Siemens
Beamview Plus mit konventionellen Verifikationsfilmen.
B. Gagel, O. Schramm, W. Harms, M. Eble, M. Wannenmacher. Strahlenther. Onkol. 174: 92 (1998).
10. Reproducibility in Radiation Treatment. I. Kristensen, T.
Knoos. Winning best poster at ESTRO Conf. Edinburgh
1998 .
11. Use of CT Simulation in Radiotherapy Treatment Planning
for Carcinoma of the Prostate. M.A. Coe, D.J. Husband,
C.H.M. Lee, J.A.H. Littler, H.M.O. Mayles, W.P.M.
Mayles, V. Nock, I. Syndikus, J. Taylor. Radiotherapy &
Oncology 48: S149 (1998).
12.Image quality parameters for the production standard
Eliav PORTpro portal imaging device. A. J. Poynter. Brit.
J. Radiol. 72: 802-804 (1999).
13. Verification of electron field positioning. H. Lemnitzer, U.
Wolf, G. Hildebrandt, F. Kamprad. Radiotherapy & Oncology 52: 61-64 (1999).
14.Preprocessing of control portal images for patient setup
verification during the treatments in external radiotherapy.
G. Hilt, D. Wolf, P. Aletti. Med. Phys. 26: 2539-2549
(1999).
15. Clinical Implementation of a new Electronic Portal
Imaging System. L. Aubin, A. Conrad, C. Thompson, R.
Rajapakshe. Proc. WESCAN Conf., Kelowna, March 1999.
16. Quality Assurance in Stereotactic Radiosurgery. K.
Luchka, J. Wolters. Proc. WESCAN Conf., Kelowna,
March 1999.
17. Evaluation of the use of ORFIT based on head and neck
immobilisation in radiotherapy. M.C. Kirby, N.C. Bulmer,
A. Davis, R. Foster, L. Hall, J.L. Stief, C. Watson. Physica
Medica XV No.3: 204 (1999).
18.A portal imaging test object for accurately assessing
image registration algorithms. M.C. Kirby, A.R. Dowling,
N.C. Bulmer. Physica Medica XV No.3: 204 (1999).
19. Initial clinical experience with a video-based patient positioning system. L.S. Johnson, B.D. Milliken, S. Hadley,
C. Pelizzari, D. Haraf, G.T.Y. Chen. Int. J. Rad. Oncol. Biol.
Phys. 45:205-213 (1999).
20.Electronic portal imaging with an avalanche-multiplication-based video camera. G. Pang and J.A. Rowlands.
Med. Phys. 27: 676-684 (2000).
21.Radiation therapy for breast cancer at the millenium.
H. Jane Dobbs. Radiotherapy & Oncology 54: 191-200
(2000).
22.A clinical evaluation of setup errors for a prostate immobilization system. J.E. McGary, W. Grant. Journal of
Applied Clinical Medical Physics 1: 138-147 (2000).
23. Characterization of a high-elbow, fluoroscopic electronic
portal imaging device for portal dosimetry. J.C.J. de Boer,
B.J.M. Heijmen, K.L. Pasma, A.G. Visser. Phys. Med. Biol.
45: 197-216 (2000).
24.A multidisciplinary approach to implementing effective
portal imaging and review protocols. J. Stief and M.C.
Kirby. Proc. 6th. Int. Workshop on Electronic Portal Imaging, Brussels, June 2000. Paper 5.
25. Quality Assurance of EPI Systems. R. Rajapakshe, S.
Shalev, K. Luchka. Proc. 6th. Int. Workshop on Electronic
Portal Imaging, Brussels, June 2000.
26.Refresher Course Paper 24. Accepting and commisssioning an upgraded fluoroscopic electronic portal imaging
device (EPID). M.C. Kirby, N.C. Bulmer. Proc. 6th. Int.
Workshop on Electronic Portal Imaging, Brussels, June
2000. Paper 28.
27. Clinical integration of an iView electronic portal imaging
device. K. Luchka. Proc. 6th. Int. Workshop on Electronic
Portal Imaging, Brussels, June 2000. Paper 29.
28. A quantitative assessment of a flat panel portal imaging
device. K. Luchka. Proc. 6th. Int. Workshop on Electronic
Portal Imaging, Brussels, June 2000. Paper 31.
29. The electronic portal imaging system Siemens Beamview
Plus and the conventional verification films CEA-TVS and
Du Pont CQL-7, a comparison of subjective image quality.
B. Gagel et. al. Proc. 6th. Int. Workshop on Electronic
Portal Imaging, Brussels, June 2000. Paper 38.
30.Dependence of image quality on user-given parameters
for the Philips SRI-100 EPID. D. Taylor, S. Hussein. Proc.
6th. Int. Workshop on Electronic Portal Imaging, Brussels,
June 2000. Paper 39.
31.Prospective analysis of patient motion in prostate
conformal radiotherapy. H. Lau, L. Aubin, A. Conrad, C.
Thompson, K. Hutchison, R. Rajapakshe. Proc. 6th. Int.
Workshop on Electronic Portal Imaging, Brussels, June
2000. Paper 71.
32. Letter to the Editor. K. Luchka. Interactions - Canadian
Medical Physics Newsletter. 46(3) July 2000. p. 118.
33. Comparison of setup accuracy of three different thermoplastic masks for the treatment of brain and head and
neck tumors. L. Gilbeau, M. Octave-Prignot, T. Loncol, L.
Renard, P. Scalliet, V. Gregoire. Rad. & Oncol. 58: 155162 (2001).
34. Experiences in evaluating geometrical uncertainties
in bladder radiotherapy. C. Hall, A. Gee, S. Hilton, H.
Appleby, A. McKenzie, J. Graham. Abstract 3.5 in 1st
UK Radiation Oncol. Conf. (UKRO), April 2001. Clinical
Oncology 13(Sup. 2) p. S6 (2001).
35.Double-blind randomized trial comparing virtual and
conventional simulation in palliative radiotherapy for
non-small-cell lung cancer. M. McJury, S.D. Pledge, P.M.
Fisher, G. Brown, C. Anthony, M.Q. Hatton, J. Conway,
M.H. Robinson. Abstract 5.4 in 1st UK Radiation Oncol.
Conf. (UKRO), April 2001. Clinical Oncology 13(Sup. 2) p.
S9 (2001).
36. Radiotherapy technique: Accuracy and reproducibility for
head and neck, bladder and prostate, thorax and abdomen. S. Stanley. Abstract 5.5 in 1st UK Radiation Oncol.
Conf. (UKRO), April 2001. Clinical Oncology 13(Sup. 2) p.
S9 (2001).
37. Quality control of treatment verification imaging software.
N.C. Bulmer, M.C. Kirby. Presented at the BIR meeting on
Treatment Verification. London 11 June 2001.
38.Image acquisition properties of an amorphous silicon
electronic portal imaging device. P. Greer. Abstract in
COMP Annual Meeting, Kelowna, July 2002. Medical
Physics 28, 1974 (2001).
39. Initial experience with the Lumisys ACR-2000 Computed
Radiography system for digital simulation imaging,
portal imaging, and verification of IMRT treatments. E.
Henderson, H. Alasti. Abstract in AAPM Annual Meeting,
Salt Lake City, 2001. Medical Physics 28, 1216 (2001).
40. Clinical use of electronic portal imaging: Report of AAPM
Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 58. M. Herman, J. Balter, D. Jaffray, K. McGee, P. Munro, S. Shalev,
M. Van Herk, J. Wong. Med Phys 28 (5); 712-727
(2001).
41. The impact of virtual simulation in palliative radiotherapy
for non-small-cell lung cancer. M. McJury, P.M. Fisher, S.
Pledge, G. Brown, C. Anthony, M.Q. Hatton, J. Conway,
M.H. Robinson. Radiotherapy and Oncology 59: 311-318
(2001).
42. Treatment planning aids in prostate cancer: friend or foe?
S. Malone, R. Donker, S. Dahrouge, L. Eapen, I. Aref, G.
Perry, J. Szanto. Int. J. Rad. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 51(1):
49-55 (2001).
43. The application of computed radiography imaging system
for portal imaging; a comparison of two commercial
portal imaging systems. J. Vanhanen, M. Pitkänen, S.
Peltola, S. Hyödynmaa. Radiotherapy and Oncology 61
Suppl. 1, S81 (2001).
44. Quality Asurance of EPI Systems. K. Luchka, R. Rajapakshe, S. Shalev. Proc. 7th. Int. Workshop on Electronic
Portal Imaging, Vancouver, June 2002: 8-11.
45.Image quality performance of amorphous silicon
electronic portal imaging devices. J. Figueredo, P. Greer.
Proc. 7th. Int. Workshop on Electronic Portal Imaging,
Vancouver, June 2002: 106-107.
46.Initial comparison of three am-Si EPIDs using the QC-3
phantom. R. Clements, K. Luchka, J. Pouliot, J. Sage,
S. Shalev. Proc. 7th. Int. Workshop on Electronic Portal
Imaging, Vancouver, June 2002: 108-109.
47.Incorporating EPI into a comprehensive radiation therapy
QA program. J. Wolters, R. Rajapakshe, G. Hovde, J.
Moffat. Proc. 7th. Int. Workshop on Electronic Portal Imaging, Vancouver, June 2002: 168-169.
48. Evaluation of iView and iViewGT using the QC-3 phantom:
A multicentre study. N. Bulmer, G. Budgell, R. Clements,
A. Glendinning, M. Kirby, J. Sage, S. Weston. PIPSpro
User’s Meeting, Manchester April 2003: 7-8.
49. Clinical Case Studies: Head and Neck: A. Banbury. Lung:
H. Dalton. Pelvis: A. Banbury PIPSpro User’s Meeting,
Manchester April 2003: 9-10.
50. The use of image registration methods in the optimisation of treatment accuracy. M. McJury, J. Conway, C.
Anthony, G. Brown, K. Wilcock, M. Cooper, M. Robinson.
PIPSpro User’s Meeting, Manchester April 2003: 11-12.
51. Portal Image Verification of Siemens HD270 - a software
option for improving MLC resolution. D. Routsis, B.
Gibson. PIPSpro User’s Meeting, Manchester April 2003:
15.
52. Web-based integration of PIPSpro into a radiotherapy
department. R. Wyatt, K. Natarajan. PIPSpro User’s
Meeting, Manchester April 2003: 17-18.
53. Integrating PIPSpro and iView. J. Sage. PIPSpro User’s
Meeting, Manchester April 2003: 19-20.
54. Accuracy of prostate radiation therapy using fiducial
point-pair registration technique based on the computerassisted portal image quality assurance program PIPSpro.
W. Mermerstain, Y. Cohen, Y. Krutman. Australasian
Radiology 47, 168-171 (2003).
55. Quality assurance measurements of a-si epid performance. Menon GV, Sloboda RS. Medical Dosimetry
- Spring 2004 (Vol. 29, Issue 1, Pages 11-17).
To learn more call (800) 261-4446 or (608) 831-0025
www.standardimaging.com
800-261-4446 .
ph
608-831-0025 .
fax
608-831-2202
3120 Deming Way Middleton WI 53562-1461 USA
© 2013 Standard Imaging, Inc.
1251-27 (12.13)