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.

Patient Radiation Doses in IR Procedures: The American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy Pilot.

PURPOSE: To update normative data on fluoroscopy dose indices in the United States for the first time since the Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology study in the late 1990s. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy pilot study collected data from March 2018 through December 2019, with 50 fluoroscopes from 10 sites submitting data. Primary radiation dose indices including fluoroscopy time (FT), cumulative air kerma (Ka,r), and kerma area product (PKA) were collected for interventional radiology fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures. Clinical facility procedure names were mapped to the American College of Radiology (ACR) common procedure lexicon. Distribution parameters including the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 95th, and 99th percentiles were computed. RESULTS: Dose indices were collected for 70,377 FGI procedures, with 50,501 ultimately eligible for analysis. Distribution parameters are reported for 100 ACR Common IDs. FT in minutes, Ka,r in mGy, and PKA in Gy-cm2 are reported in this study as (n; median) for select ACR Common IDs: inferior vena cava filter insertion (1,726; FT: 2.9; Ka,r: 55.8; PKA: 14.19); inferior vena cava filter removal (464; FT: 5.7; Ka,r: 178.6; PKA: 34.73); nephrostomy placement (2,037; FT: 4.1; Ka,r: 39.2; PKA: 6.61); percutaneous biliary drainage (952; FT: 12.4; Ka,r: 160.5; PKA: 21.32); gastrostomy placement (1,643; FT: 3.2; Ka,r: 29.1; PKA: 7.29); and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement (327; FT: 34.8; Ka,r: 813.0; PKA: 181.47). CONCLUSIONS: The ACR DIR-Fluoro pilot has provided state-of-the-practice statistics for radiation dose indices from IR FGI procedures. These data can be used to prioritize procedures for radiation optimization, as demonstrated in this work.

Patient Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology Procedures: Comparison of Fluoroscopy Dose Indices between the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry-Fluoroscopy Pilot and the Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology Study.

PURPOSE: To compare radiation dose index distributions for fluoroscopically guided interventions in interventional radiology from the American College of Radiology (ACR) Fluoroscopy Dose Index Registry (DIR-Fluoro) pilot to those from the Radiation Doses in Interventional Radiology (RAD-IR) study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual and grouped ACR Common identification numbers (procedure types) from the DIR-Fluoro pilot were matched to procedure types in the RAD-IR study. Fifteen comparisons were made. Distribution parameters, including the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles, were compared for fluoroscopy time (FT), cumulative air kerma (Ka,r), and kerma area product (PKA). Two derived indices were computed using median dose indices. The procedure-averaged reference air kerma rate (Ka,r¯) was computed as Ka,r / FT. The procedure-averaged x-ray field size at the reference point (Ar) was computed as PKA / (Ka,r × 1,000). RESULTS: The median FT was equally likely to be higher or lower in the DIR-Fluoro pilot as it was in the RAD-IR study, whereas the maximum FT was almost twice as likely to be higher in the DIR-Fluoro pilot than it was in the RAD-IR study. The median Ka,r was lower in the DIR-Fluoro pilot for all procedures, as was median PKA. The maximum Ka,r and PKA were more often higher in the DIR-Fluoro pilot than in the RAD-IR study. Ka,r¯ followed the same pattern as Ka,r, whereas Ar was often greater in DIR-Fluoro. CONCLUSIONS: The median dose indices have decreased since the RAD-IR study. The typical Ka,r rates are lower, a result of the use of lower default dose rates. However, opportunities for quality improvement exist, including renewed focus on tight collimation of the imaging field of view.