AAPM Medical physics practice guideline 15.A: Peer review in clinical physics.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Resource Allocations for Common Radiation Oncology Procedures.

PURPOSE: Radiation Oncology is a complex, resource-intensive discipline. The complexity of the radiation oncology treatment process has increased significantly in recent years with the introduction of more advanced imaging, planning, and treatment delivery technology and enhanced use of multidisciplinary care paths. We conducted a multi-institutional study to estimate the average time by functional unit for a wide range of modern radiation oncology treatment regimens. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Structured process mapping was performed for 24 treatment categories, and average time estimates for 6 functional groups were obtained for each process step through consultation with the full clinical team at each institution. Six geographically dispersed institutions participated in the study. Significant effort was invested in aggregate data analysis and clarification of assumptions. RESULTS: The findings show significant variability in the resources expended for many treatment categories as well as the distribution of workload between functional units. Major factors in the variability include the rate of adoption of hypofractionation in external beam therapy, adoption of automation tools and standardization, and the transition to multimodality image-based planning in brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The data obtained from this study may be useful in designing institution-specific staffing models appropriate to the scope of radiation therapy services provided at each institution.

Quality management, quality assurance, and quality control in medical physics.

The historic and ongoing evolution of the practice, technology, terminology, and implementation of programs related to quality in the medical radiological professions has given rise to the interchangeable use of the terms Quality Management (QM), Quality Assurance (QA), and Quality Control (QC) in the vernacular. This White Paper aims to provide clarification of QM, QA, and QC in medical physics context and guidance on how to use these terms appropriately in American College of Radiology (ACR) Practice Parameters and Technical Standards, generalizable to other guidance initiatives. The clarification of these nuanced terms in the radiology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine environments will not only boost the comprehensibility and usability of the Medical Physics Technical Standards and Practice Parameters, but also provide clarity and a foundation for ACR's clinical, physician-led Practice Parameters, which also use these important terms for monitoring equipment performance for safety and quality. Further, this will support the ongoing development of the professional practice of clinical medical physics by providing a common framework that distinguishes the various types of responsibilities borne by medical physicists and others in the medical radiological environment. Examples are provided of how QM, QA, and QC may be applied in the context of ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards.

Modeling of kyphoplasty cement for accurate dose calculations.

We have determined the optimal method for modeling kyphoplasty cement to enable accurate dose calculations in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). The cement studied (Medtronic Kyphon HV-R®) consists of 30% Barium, 68% polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and 2% benzoyl peroxide, formulated to be radiopaque with kV imaging systems. Neither Barium nor PMMA have a high physical density, resulting in different interaction characteristics for megavoltage treatment beams compared to kV imaging systems. This can lead to significant calculation errors if density mapping is performed using a standard CT number to density curve. To properly characterize the cement for dose calculation, we 3D printed a hemi-cylindrical container to fit adjacent to a micro-chamber insert for an anthropomorphic phantom, and filled the container with Kyphon cement. We CT scanned the combination, modeled the cement with multiple material assignments in the TPS, designed plans with different field sizes and beam geometry for five photon modes, and measured the doses for all plans. All photon energies show significant error in calculated dose when the cement is modeled based on the CT number. Of the material assignments we evaluated, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) showed the best overall agreement with measurement. Calculated and measured doses agree within 3.5% for a 340-degree arc technique (which averages transmission and scatter effects) with the Acuros XB algorithm and PTFE as the assigned material. To confirm that PTFE is a reasonable substitute for kyphoplasty cement, we performed measurements in a slab phantom using rectangular inserts of cement and PTFE, showing average agreement of all photon modes within 2%. Based on these findings, we conclude that the PTFE material assignment provides acceptable dose calculation accuracy for the AAA and Acuros XB photon algorithms in the Eclipse TPS. We recommend that the cement be delineated as a structure and assigned the PTFE material for accurate dose calculation.

AAPM medical physics practice guideline 7.a.: Supervision of medical physicist assistants.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances. Approved by AAPM's Executive Committee May 28, 2019.

AAPM-RSS Medical Physics Practice Guideline 9.a. for SRS-SBRT.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances. Approved by AAPM Professional Council 3-31-2017 and Executive Committee 4-4-2017.

Varian HDR surface applicators - commissioning and clinical implementation.

The purpose of this study was to validate the dosimetric performance of Varian surface applicators with the source vertically positioned and develop procedures for clinical implementation. The Varian surface applicators with the source vertically positioned provide a wide range of apertures making them clinically advantageous, though the steep dose gradient in the region of 3-4 mm prescription depth presents multiple challenges. The following commissioning tests were performed: 1) verification of functional integrity and physical dimensions; and 2) dosimetric measurements to validate data provided by Varian as well as data obtained using the Acuros algorithm for heterogeneity corrected dose calculation. A solid water (SW) phantom was scanned and the Acuros algorithm was used to compute the dose at 5 mm depth and at surface for all applicators. Two sets of reference dose measurements were performed, with the source positioned at (i) -10 mm and (ii) -15 mm from the center of the first nominal dwell position. Measurements were taken at 5 mm depth in a SW phantom and in air at the applicator surface. The results were then compared to the vendor's data and to the Acuros calculated dose. Relative dose measurements using Gafchromic films were taken at a depth of 4 mm in SW. Percent depth ionization (PDI) measurements using ion chamber were performed in SW. The profiles generated from film measurements and the PDI plots were compared with those computed using the Acuros algorithm and vendor's data, when available. Preliminary leakage tests were performed using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) and the results were compared with Acuros predictions. All applicators were found to be functional with physical dimensions within 1 mm of specifications. For scenario (ii) measurements taken in SW at 5 mm depth and in air at the surface of each applicator were within 10% and 4% agreement with vendor's data, respectively. Compared with Acuros predictions, these measurements were within 6% and 5%, respectively. Measurements taken for scenario (i) showed reduced agreement with both the vendor's data as well as the Acuros calculations, especially when using the 10 mm applicator. The full widths of the measured dose profiles were within 2 mm of those predicted by Acuros at the 90% dose level. The PDI plots and measured leakage dose were in good agreement with vendor's data and Acuros predictions. Based on the dosimetric results, a quality assurance program and procedures for clinical implementation were developed. Treatment planning will be performed using scenario (ii). The 10mm applicator will not be released for clinical use. A prescription depth of 4mm is recommended, to ensure full coverage at 3 mm and a minimum dose of 90% of prescribed dose at 4 mm depth.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 3.a: Levels of supervision for medical physicists in clinical training.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States.The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner.Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized.The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline.Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Medical Physics Practice Guidelines - the AAPM's minimum practice recommendations for medical physicists.

The AAPM has long advocated a consistent level of medical physics practice, and has published many recommendations and position statements toward that goal, such as Science Council Task Group reports related to calibration and quality assurance, Education Council and Professional Council Task Group reports related to education, training, and peer review, and Board-approved Position Statements related to the Scope of Practice, physicist qualifications, and other aspects of medical physics practice. Despite these concerted and enduring efforts, the profession does not have clear and concise statements of the acceptable practice guidelines for routine clinical medical physics. As accreditation of clinical practices becomes more common, Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPGs) will be crucial to ensuring a consistent benchmark for accreditation programs. To this end, the AAPM has recently endorsed the development of MPPGs, which may be generated in collaboration with other professional societies. The MPPGs are intended to be freely available to the general public. Accrediting organizations, regulatory agencies, and legislators will be encouraged to reference these MPPGs when defining their respective requirements. MPPGs are intended to provide the medical community with a clear description of the minimum level of medical physics support that the AAPM would consider prudent in clinical practice settings. Support includes, but is not limited to, staffing, equipment, machine access, and training. These MPPGs are not designed to replace extensive Task Group reports or review articles, but rather to describe the recommended minimum level of medical physics support for specific clinical services. This article has described the purpose, scope, and process for the development of MPPGs.

Dosimetric evaluation of a new design MOSFET in vivo dosimeter.

A single-use dosimeter, designed for in vivo patient dosimetry, has been evaluated. Key dosimetric characteristics of the dosimetry system have been measured for high-energy photon and electron beams commonly used in external beam therapy. Under the measurement conditions utilized, dose accuracy was within 5% for all data points, and inter-batch uniformity was acceptable, with a standard deviation of 1.7%. Dose linearity was confirmed for doses ranging from 2 to 400 cGy. The dosimeter readings were independent of dose rate for rates ranging from 80 to 480 cGy/min. When used as instructed, the dosimeter readings were accurate across the tested range of energy and modality. These measurements show that the dosimetry system's performance may be acceptable for in vivo dosimetry of entrance d(max) doses.

AAPM Task Group 103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics.

This report provides guidelines for a peer review process between two clinical radiation oncology physicists. While the Task Group's work was primarily focused on ensuring timely and productive independent reviews for physicists in solo practice, these guidelines may also be appropriate for physicists in a group setting, particularly when dispersed over multiple separate clinic locations. To ensure that such reviews enable a collegial exchange of professional ideas and productive critique of the entire clinical physics program, the reviews should not be used as an employee evaluation instrument by the employer. Such use is neither intended nor supported by this Task Group. Detailed guidelines are presented on the minimum content of such reviews, as well as a recommended format for reporting the findings of a review. In consideration of the full schedules faced by most clinical physicists, the process outlined herein was designed to be completed in one working day.

Dose optimization via index-dose gradient minimization.

This paper presents an iterative optimization algorithm based on gradient minimization of index dose, defined as the product of physical dose and a numerical index. Acting as a template the index distribution is designed to represent the dosimetry that meets the dose volume histogram-based optimization objectives. The treatment dosimetry is optimized when the uniformity of the index-dose distribution is maximized. Prior to optimization the user can select all or only some of the beams to be intensity modulated. The remaining unmodulated beams can be either open or wedged photon beams, electron beams, or beams of previous treatments. The optimization result and treatment delivery efficiency can often be enhanced by including not only the IM photon beams but also all suitable fixed-beams available on the linac in the treatment plan. In addition, the doses from previous treatments can also be considered in the optimization of current treatment. Five clinical examples with different complexities in optimization objective are presented. The effects of two nonoptimization variables, beam setup and initial beam weights, on the quality of the dose optimization are also presented. The results are analyzed in terms of isodose distribution, dose volume histograms, and a dose optimization quality factor. The optimization algorithm, implemented in our in-house TPS PLanUNC, has been used in clinical application since 1996. The primary advantages of our optimization algorithm include computational efficiency, intensity modulation selection choice, and performance reliability for a wide range of clinical beam setups and optimization objectives.