Order From Chaos: The Benefits of Standardized Nomenclature in Radiation Oncology.

Although standardization has been shown to improve patient safety and improve the efficiency of workflows, implementation of standards can take considerable effort and requires the engagement of all clinical stakeholders. Engaging team members includes increasing awareness of the proposed benefit of the standard, a clear implementation plan, monitoring for improvements, and open communication to support successful implementation. The benefits of standardization often focus on large institutions to improve research endeavors, yet all clinics can benefit from standardization to increase quality and implement more efficient or automated workflow. The benefits of nomenclature standardization for all team members and institution sizes, including success stories, are discussed with practical implementation guides to facilitate the adoption of standardized nomenclature in radiation oncology.

AAPM medical physics practice guideline 13.a: HDR brachytherapy, part A.

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 (MPPGs) 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: (1) Must and must not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. (2) 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 April 28, 2022.

AAPM BTSC Report 377: Physicist Brachytherapy Training in 2021-A survey of therapeutic medical physics residency program directors.

BACKGROUND: Brachytherapy (BT) was the first radiotherapeutic technique used to treat human disease and remains an essential modality in radiation oncology. A decline in the utilization of BT as a treatment modality has been observed and reported, which may impact training opportunities for medical physics residents. A survey of therapeutic medical physics residency program directors was performed as part of an assessment of the current state of BT training during residency. METHODS: In March 2021, a survey consisting of 23 questions was designed by a working unit of the Brachytherapy Subcommittee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and approved for distribution by the Executive Committee of the AAPM. The survey was distributed to the directors of the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP)-accredited therapeutic medical physics residency programs by the AAPM. The participant response was recorded anonymously in an online platform and then analyzed using MATLAB and Microsoft Excel software. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to the program directors of 110 residency programs. Over the course of 6 weeks, 72 directors accessed the survey online, and 55 fully completed the survey. Individual responses from the directors (including partial submissions) were evaluated and analyzed. Nearly all participating programs (98%) utilize high dose rate BT treatments with 74% using low dose rate BT techniques. All programs treated gynecological sites using BT, and the next most common treatment sites were prostate (80%) and breast (53%). Overall, the residency program directors had a positive outlook toward BT as a radiotherapeutic treatment modality. Caseload and time limitations were identified as primary barriers to BT training by some programs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the responses of the program directors, it was identified that the residency programs might benefit from additional resources such as virtual BT training, interinstitutional collaborations as well as resident fellowships. Programs might also benefit from additional guidance related to BT-specific training requirements to help program directors attest Authorized Medical Physicist eligibility for graduating residents.

Electronic charting of radiation therapy planning and treatment: Report of Task Group 262.

While most Radiation Oncology clinics have adopted electronic charting in one form or another, no consensus document exists that provides guidelines for safe and effective use of the Radiation Oncology electronic medical records (RO-EMR). Task Group 262 was formed to provide these guidelines as well as to provide recommendations to vendors for improving electronic charting functionality in future. Guidelines are provided in the following areas: Implementation and training for the RO-EMR, acceptance testing and quality assurance (QA) of the RO-EMR, use of the RO-EMR as an information repository, use of the RO-EMR as a workflow manager, electronic charting for brachytherapy and nonstandard treatments, and information technology (IT) considerations associated with the RO-EMR. The report was based on a literature search by the task group, an extensive survey of task group members on their respective RO-EMR practices, an AAPM membership survey on electronic charting, as well as group consensus.

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 263: Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology.

A substantial barrier to the single- and multi-institutional aggregation of data to supporting clinical trials, practice quality improvement efforts, and development of big data analytics resource systems is the lack of standardized nomenclatures for expressing dosimetric data. To address this issue, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 was charged with providing nomenclature guidelines and values in radiation oncology for use in clinical trials, data-pooling initiatives, population-based studies, and routine clinical care by standardizing: (1) structure names across image processing and treatment planning system platforms; (2) nomenclature for dosimetric data (eg, dose-volume histogram [DVH]-based metrics); (3) templates for clinical trial groups and users of an initial subset of software platforms to facilitate adoption of the standards; (4) formalism for nomenclature schema, which can accommodate the addition of other structures defined in the future. A multisociety, multidisciplinary, multinational group of 57 members representing stake holders ranging from large academic centers to community clinics and vendors was assembled, including physicists, physicians, dosimetrists, and vendors. The stakeholder groups represented in the membership included the AAPM, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), NRG Oncology, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children's Oncology Group (COG), Integrating Healthcare Enterprise in Radiation Oncology (IHE-RO), and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine working group (DICOM WG); A nomenclature system for target and organ at risk volumes and DVH nomenclature was developed and piloted to demonstrate viability across a range of clinics and within the framework of clinical trials. The final report was approved by AAPM in October 2017. The approval process included review by 8 AAPM committees, with additional review by ASTRO, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD). This Executive Summary of the report highlights the key recommendations for clinical practice, research, and trials.

Dosimetric effects of an air cavity for the SAVI partial breast irradiation applicator.

PURPOSE: To investigate the dosimetric effect of the air inside the SAVI partial breast irradiation device. METHODS: The authors have investigated how the air inside the SAVI partial breast irradiation device changes the delivered dose from the homogeneously calculated dose. Measurements were made with the device filled with air and water to allow comparison to a homogenous dose calculation done by the treatment planning system. Measurements were made with an ion chamber, TLDs, and film. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the experiment were done using the EGSnrc suite. The MC model was validated by comparing the water-filled calculations to those from a commercial treatment planning system. RESULTS: The magnitude of the dosimetric effect depends on the size of the cavity, the arrangement of sources, and the relative dwell times. For a simple case using only the central catheter of the largest device, MC results indicate that the dose at the prescription point 1 cm away from the air-water boundary is about 9% higher than the homogeneous calculation. Independent measurements in a water phantom with a similar air cavity gave comparable results. MC simulation of a realistic multidwell position plan showed discrepancies of about 5% on average at the prescription point for the largest device. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric effect of the air cavity is in the range of 3%-9%. Unless a heterogeneous dose calculation algorithm is used, users should be aware of the possibility of small treatment planning dose errors for this device and make modifications to the treatment delivery, if necessary.

IMRT delivery verification using a spiral phantom.

In this paper we report on the testing and verification of a system for IMRT delivery quality assurance that uses a cylindrical solid water phantom with a spiral trajectory for radiographic film placement. This spiral film technique provides more complete dosimetric verification of the entire IMRT treatment than perpendicular film methods, since it samples a three-dimensional dose subspace rather than using measurements at only one or two depths. As an example, the complete analysis of the predicted and measured spiral films is described for an intracranial IMRT treatment case. The results of this analysis are compared to those of a single field perpendicular film technique that is typically used for IMRT QA. The comparison demonstrates that both methods result in a dosimetric error within a clinical tolerance of 5%, however the spiral phantom QA technique provides a more complete dosimetric verification while being less time consuming. To independently verify the dosimetry obtained with the spiral film, the same IMRT treatment was delivered to a similar phantom in which LiF thermoluminescent dosimeters were arranged along the spiral trajectory. The maximum difference between the predicted and measured TLD data for the 1.8 Gy fraction was 0.06 Gy for a TLD located in a high dose gradient region. This further validates the ability of the spiral phantom QA process to accurately verify delivery of an IMRT plan.