AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 5.b: Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-Megavoltage photon and electron beams.

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.

Beam energy metrics for the acceptance and quality assurance of Halcyon linear accelerator.

PURPOSE: Establish and compare two metrics for monitoring beam energy changes in the Halcyon platform and evaluate the accuracy of these metrics across multiple Halcyon linacs. METHOD: The first energy metric is derived from the diagonal normalized flatness (FDN ), which is defined as the ratio of the average measurements at a fixed off-axis equal distance along the open profiles in two diagonals to the measurement at the central axis with an ionization chamber array (ICA). The second energy metric comes from the area ratio (AR) of the quad wedge (QW) profiles measured with the QW on the top of the ICA. Beam energy is changed by adjusting the magnetron current in a non-clinical Halcyon. With D10cm measured in water at each beam energy, the relationships between FDN or AR energy metrics to D10cm in water is established with linear regression across six energy settings. The coefficients from these regressions allow D10cm (FDN ) calculation from FDN using open profiles and D10cm (QW) calculation from AR using QW profiles. RESULTS: Five Halcyon linacs from five institutions were used to evaluate the accuracy of the D10cm (FDN ) and the D10cm (QW) energy metrics by comparing to the D10cm values computed from the treatment planning system (TPS) and D10cm measured in water. For the five linacs, the D10cm (FDN ) reported by the ICA based on FDN from open profiles agreed with that calculated by TPS within -0.29 ± 0.23% and 0.61% maximum discrepancy; the D10cm (QW) reported by the QW profiles agreed with that calculated by TPS within -0.82 ± 1.27% and -2.43% maximum discrepancy. CONCLUSION: The FDN -based energy metric D10cm (FDN ) can be used for acceptance testing of beam energy, and also for the verification of energy in periodic quality assurance (QA) processes.

Dosimetric impact and detectability of multi-leaf collimator positioning errors on Varian Halcyon.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the dosimetric impact of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positioning errors on a Varian Halcyon for both random and systematic errors, and to evaluate the effectiveness of portal dosimetry quality assurance in catching clinically significant changes caused by these errors. Both random and systematic errors were purposely added to 11 physician-approved head and neck volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans, yielding a total of 99 unique plans. Plans were then delivered on a preclinical Varian Halcyon linear accelerator and the fluence was captured by an opposed portal dosimeter. When comparing dose-volume histogram (DVH) values of plans with introduced MLC errors to known good plans, clinically significant changes to target structures quickly emerged for plans with systematic errors, while random errors caused less change. For both error types, the magnitude of clinically significant changes increased as error size increased. Portal dosimetry was able to detect all systematic errors, while random errors of ±5 mm or less were unlikely to be detected. Best detection of clinically significant errors, while minimizing false positives, was achieved by following the recommendations of AAPM TG-218. Furthermore, high- to moderate correlation was found between dose DVH metrics for normal tissues surrounding the target and portal dosimetry pass rates. Therefore, it may be concluded that portal dosimetry on the Halcyon is robust enough to detect errors in MLC positioning before they introduce clinically significant changes to VMAT treatment plans.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations - Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams.

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.

AAPM Task Group Report 261: Comprehensive quality control methodology and management of dental and maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems.

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems specifically designed and manufactured for dental, maxillofacial imaging (MFI) and otolaryngology (OLR) applications have been commercially available in the United States since 2001 and have been in widespread clinical use since. Until recently, there has been a lack of professional guidance available for medical physicists about how to assess and evaluate the performance of these systems and about the establishment and management of quality control (QC) programs. The owners and users of dental CBCT systems may have only a rudimentary understanding of this technology, including how it differs from conventional multidetector CT (MDCT) in terms of acceptable radiation safety practices. Dental CBCT systems differ from MDCT in several ways and these differences are described. This report provides guidance to medical physicists and serves as a basis for stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding how to manage and develop a QC program for dental CBCT systems. It is important that a medical physicist with experience in dental CBCT serves as a resource on this technology and the associated radiation protection best practices. The medical physicist should be involved at the pre-installation stage to ensure that a CBCT room configuration allows for a safe and efficient workflow and that structural shielding, if needed, is designed into the architectural plans. Acceptance testing of new installations should include assessment of mechanical alignment of patient positioning lasers and x-ray beam collimation and benchmarking of essential image quality performance parameters such as image uniformity, noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), spatial resolution, and artifacts. Several approaches for quantifying radiation output from these systems are described, including simply measuring the incident air-kerma (Kair) at the entrance surface of the image receptor. These measurements are to be repeated at least annually as part of routine QC by the medical physicist. QC programs for dental CBCT, at least in the United States, are often driven by state regulations, accreditation program requirements, or manufacturer recommendations.

Technical note: Sources of systemic error in total body irradiation and total skin electron therapy in vivo measurements using nanoDot optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters within high-efficiency clinics.

PURPOSE: To identify sources of systemic errors and estimate their effects, especially the vendor-provided sensitivity Ss , i ,vendor , on total body irradiation (TBI) and total skin electron therapy (TSET) in vivo OSLD measurements. MATERIALS: Calibration nanoDot OSLDs were irradiated 50-300cGy under reference conditions. Raw OSLD readings Mraw were corrected by Ss , i ,vendor to obtain corrected readings Mcorr . A quadratic calibration curve relating Mcorr to delivered dose Dw was established and commissioned for clinical use. For clinical measurements, directly adjacent pairs of nanoDot OSLDs were placed on TBI and TSET patients with a medical tape with or without 1.5 cm of bolus respectively before treatment. Used OSLDs were bleached between each use until cumulative dose of 15 Gy. Relative difference in corrected counts (∆Mcorr,rel  = pair-difference/mean) was fitted multi-linearly versus possible sources of systemic errors (Ss , i ,vendor , bleaching history, cumulative dose, and age differences). Total of 101 TBI and 110 TSET measurement pairs from calibrated batches were analyzed. RESULTS: Ss , i ,vendor introduced a residual systemic error to corrected readings Mcorr (-0.98% per +0.01, p = 4e-12). Given Ss , i ,vendor distribution is σ = ±0.025, measured dose 1-σ error is ±2.5%, compared to ±2.8% uncertainty reported in the literature which may include this systemic error. Bleaching or cumulative dose did not affect Mcorr significantly after adjusting for Ss , i ,vendor . Adjusting for the systemic error in Ss , i ,vendor decreased two-sample mean Dw median absolute error from ±2.6% to ±1.9% and 95-percentile absolute error from ±7.1% to ±5.5%. Variability between paired clinical OSLDs was larger for TBI versus TSET at σpd  = ±4.7% and ±6.3%, respectively, despite similar predictor distributions. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that Mraw correction via vendor-provided sensitivity results in a small but significant systemic error. Dosimeters with outlier sensitivities should be excluded during batch calibration to minimize error. Bleaching and cumulative dose likely minimally affect measurements if cumulative dose is controlled below 15 Gy. Random errors were higher for TSET than TBI.

Combining natural and artificial intelligence for robust automatic anatomy segmentation: Application in neck and thorax auto-contouring.

BACKGROUND: Automatic segmentation of 3D objects in computed tomography (CT) is challenging. Current methods, based mainly on artificial intelligence (AI) and end-to-end deep learning (DL) networks, are weak in garnering high-level anatomic information, which leads to compromised efficiency and robustness. This can be overcome by incorporating natural intelligence (NI) into AI methods via computational models of human anatomic knowledge. PURPOSE: We formulate a hybrid intelligence (HI) approach that integrates the complementary strengths of NI and AI for organ segmentation in CT images and illustrate performance in the application of radiation therapy (RT) planning via multisite clinical evaluation. METHODS: The system employs five modules: (i) body region recognition, which automatically trims a given image to a precisely defined target body region; (ii) NI-based automatic anatomy recognition object recognition (AAR-R), which performs object recognition in the trimmed image without DL and outputs a localized fuzzy model for each object; (iii) DL-based recognition (DL-R), which refines the coarse recognition results of AAR-R and outputs a stack of 2D bounding boxes (BBs) for each object; (iv) model morphing (MM), which deforms the AAR-R fuzzy model of each object guided by the BBs output by DL-R; and (v) DL-based delineation (DL-D), which employs the object containment information provided by MM to delineate each object. NI from (ii), AI from (i), (iii), and (v), and their combination from (iv) facilitate the HI system. RESULTS: The HI system was tested on 26 organs in neck and thorax body regions on CT images obtained prospectively from 464 patients in a study involving four RT centers. Data sets from one separate independent institution involving 125 patients were employed in training/model building for each of the two body regions, whereas 104 and 110 data sets from the 4 RT centers were utilized for testing on neck and thorax, respectively. In the testing data sets, 83% of the images had limitations such as streak artifacts, poor contrast, shape distortion, pathology, or implants. The contours output by the HI system were compared to contours drawn in clinical practice at the four RT centers by utilizing an independently established ground-truth set of contours as reference. Three sets of measures were employed: accuracy via Dice coefficient (DC) and Hausdorff boundary distance (HD), subjective clinical acceptability via a blinded reader study, and efficiency by measuring human time saved in contouring by the HI system. Overall, the HI system achieved a mean DC of 0.78 and 0.87 and a mean HD of 2.22 and 4.53 mm for neck and thorax, respectively. It significantly outperformed clinical contouring in accuracy and saved overall 70% of human time over clinical contouring time, whereas acceptability scores varied significantly from site to site for both auto-contours and clinically drawn contours. CONCLUSIONS: The HI system is observed to behave like an expert human in robustness in the contouring task but vastly more efficiently. It seems to use NI help where image information alone will not suffice to decide, first for the correct localization of the object and then for the precise delineation of the boundary.

A simple manual method to estimate water-equivalent diameter for calculating size-specific dose estimate in chest computed tomography.

OBJECTIVES: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Groups (TG) 204 and 220 introduced a method to estimate patient dose by introducing the Size-Specific Dose Estimate (SSDE). They provided patient size-specific conversion factors that could be applied to volumetric CT Dose Index CTDIvol to estimate patient dose in terms of SSDE based on either effective diameter (Deff) or water equivalent diameter (Dw). Our study presented an alternative method to manually estimate SSDE for the everyday clinical routine chest CT that can be readily used and does not require sophisticated computer programming. METHODS: For 16 adult patients undergoing chest CT, the method employed an average relative electron density (ρelung = 0.3) for the lung tissue and a ρetissue of 1.0 for the other tissues to scale the lateral thickness and compute the effective lateral thickness on the patient's axial image. The proposed method estimated a "corrected" Deff (Deffcorr) to replace Dw and compared results with TG220 and a second method proposed by Huda et al, for the same set of CT studies. RESULTS: The results showed comparable behavior for all methods. There is overall agreement especially between this study and TG220. Largest differences were +13.3% and+15.9% from TG220 and Huda values, respectively. Patient size correlation showed strong correlation with the TG220 and Huda et al methods. CONCLUSIONS: A simple, quick manual method to estimate CT patient radiation dose in terms of SSDE was proposed as an alternative where sophisticated computer programming is not available. It can be readily used during any clinical chest CT scanning. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The paper is novel as it presents simple, quick manual method to estimate CT patient radiation dose in chest imaging. The process can be used as alternative in cases no sophisticated computer programming is available.

Standardization and Validation of Brachytherapy Seeds' Modelling Using GATE and GGEMS Monte Carlo Toolkits.

This study aims to validate GATE and GGEMS simulation toolkits for brachytherapy applications and to provide accurate models for six commercial brachytherapy seeds, which will be freely available for research purposes. The AAPM TG-43 guidelines were used for the validation of two Low Dose Rate (LDR), three High Dose Rate (HDR), and one Pulsed Dose Rate (PDR) brachytherapy seeds. Each seed was represented as a 3D model and then simulated in GATE to produce one single Phase-Space (PHSP) per seed. To test the validity of the simulations' outcome, referenced data (provided by the TG-43) was compared with GATE results. Next, validation of the GGEMS toolkit was achieved by comparing its outcome with the GATE MC simulations, incorporating clinical data. The simulation outcomes on the radial dose function (RDF), anisotropy function (AF), and dose rate constant (DRC) for the six commercial seeds were compared with TG-43 values. The statistical uncertainty was limited to 1% for RDF, to 6% (maximum) for AF, and to 2.7% (maximum) for the DRC. GGEMS provided a good agreement with GATE when compared in different situations: (a) Homogeneous water sphere, (b) heterogeneous CT phantom, and (c) a realistic clinical case. In addition, GGEMS has the advantage of very fast simulations. For the clinical case, where TG-186 guidelines were considered, GATE required 1 h for the simulation while GGEMS needed 162 s to reach the same statistical uncertainty. This study produced accurate models and simulations of their emitted spectrum of commonly used commercial brachytherapy seeds which are freely available to the scientific community. Furthermore, GGEMS was validated as an MC GPU based tool for brachytherapy. More research is deemed necessary for the expansion of brachytherapy seed modeling.

Clinical commissioning of intensity-modulated proton therapy systems: Report of AAPM Task Group 185.

Proton therapy is an expanding radiotherapy modality in the United States and worldwide. With the number of proton therapy centers treating patients increasing, so does the need for consistent, high-quality clinical commissioning practices. Clinical commissioning encompasses the entire proton therapy system's multiple components, including the treatment delivery system, the patient positioning system, and the image-guided radiotherapy components. Also included in the commissioning process are the x-ray computed tomography scanner calibration for proton stopping power, the radiotherapy treatment planning system, and corresponding portions of the treatment management system. This commissioning report focuses exclusively on intensity-modulated scanning systems, presenting details of how to perform the commissioning of the proton therapy and ancillary systems, including the required proton beam measurements, treatment planning system dose modeling, and the equipment needed.

Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation-based dose/MU verification for IMRT.

Independent verification of the dose per monitor unit (MU) to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance (QA). We discuss the role of secondary dose/MU calculation programs as part of a comprehensive QA program. This report provides guidelines on calculation-based dose/MU verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provided by various modalities. We provide a review of various algorithms for "independent/second check" of monitor unit calculations for IMRT/VMAT. The report makes recommendations on the clinical implementation of secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on commissioning and acceptance of various commercially available secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on benchmark QA and periodic QA; and on clinically reasonable action levels for agreement of secondary dose/MU calculation programs.

On-Treatment Verification Imaging.

The integration of on-board imaging (OBI) with linear accelerators paved the way for Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) as it is practiced today in the clinic. The advent of IGRT is a major milestone in the history of radiotherapy. The main goal of image guidance in radiotherapy is to improve radiation treatment delivery via superior localization and tracking of target cancer cells. IGRT is hence integral to accurate, precise and safe delivery of radiotherapy.

Image Guidance in Radiation Therapy: Techniques, Accuracy, and Limitations.

This book is a part of the proceedings of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine 2018 Summer School. It offers a comprehensive overview of the current technology, application, and development of image guidance in radiation therapy (IGRT). World experts in IGRT contributed chapters that address x-ray, surface, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging applications in guiding radiotherapy, as well as touching on fundamental algorithms, on-going research, and future directions.

Dose, Benefit, and Risk in Medical Imaging, 1st Edition.

When interacting with colleagues, patients, and members of the public, medical physicists are frequently asked questions about radiation doses, clinical benefits, and biological risks of medical imaging. This book collects some of the latest data and understanding on these subjects into a single concise and well-organized volume and makes it accessible to a wide variety of potential readers. The editors and many of the chapter authors are from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Despite the variety of authors, the content is well-organized and fits together seamlessly.

AAPM TG 191: Clinical use of luminescent dosimeters: TLDs and OSLDs.

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLD) are practical, accurate, and precise tools for point dosimetry in medical physics applications. The charges of Task Group 191 were to detail the methodologies for practical and optimal luminescence dosimetry in a clinical setting. This includes: (a) to review the variety of TLD/OSLD materials available, including features and limitations of each; (b) to outline the optimal steps to achieve accurate and precise dosimetry with luminescent detectors and to evaluate the uncertainty induced when less rigorous procedures are used; (c) to develop consensus guidelines on the optimal use of luminescent dosimeters for clinical practice; and (d) to develop guidelines for special medically relevant uses of TLDs/OSLDs such as mixed photon/neutron field dosimetry, particle beam dosimetry, and skin dosimetry. While this report provides general guidelines for TLD and OSLD processes, the report provides specific details for TLD-100 and nanoDotTM dosimeters because of their prevalence in clinical practice.

IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119.

AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

Recommendations for clinical electron beam dosimetry: supplement to the recommendations of Task Group 25.

The goal of Task Group 25 (TG-25) of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of.Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) was to provide a methodology and set of procedures for a medical physicist performing clinical electron beam dosimetry in the nominal energy range of 5-25 MeV. Specifically, the task group recommended procedures for acquiring basic information required for acceptance testing and treatment planning of new accelerators with therapeutic electron beams. Since the publication of the TG-25 report, significant advances have taken place in the field of electron beam dosimetry, the most significant being that primary standards laboratories around the world have shifted from calibration standards based on exposure or air kerma to standards based on absorbed dose to water. The AAPM has published a new calibration protocol, TG-51, for the calibration of high-energy photon and electron beams. The formalism and dosimetry procedures recommended in this protocol are based on the absorbed dose to water calibration coefficient of an ionization chamber at 60Co energy, N60Co(D,w), together with the theoretical beam quality conversion coefficient k(Q) for the determination of absorbed dose to water in high-energy photon and electron beams. Task Group 70 was charged to reassess and update the recommendations in TG-25 to bring them into alignment with report TG-51 and to recommend new methodologies and procedures that would allow the practicing medical physicist to initiate and continue a high quality program in clinical electron beam dosimetry. This TG-70 report is a supplement to the TG-25 report and enhances the TG-25 report by including new topics and topics that were not covered in depth in the TG-25 report. These topics include procedures for obtaining data to commission a treatment planning computer, determining dose in irregularly shaped electron fields, and commissioning of sophisticated special procedures using high-energy electron beams. The use of radiochromic film for electrons is addressed, and radiographic film that is no longer available has been replaced by film that is available. Realistic stopping-power data are incorporated when appropriate along with enhanced tables of electron fluence data. A larger list of clinical applications of electron beams is included in the full TG-70 report available at http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports. Descriptions of the techniques in the clinical sections are not exhaustive but do describe key elements of the procedures and how to initiate these programs in the clinic. There have been no major changes since the TG-25 report relating to flatness and symmetry, surface dose, use of thermoluminescent dosimeters or diodes, virtual source position designation, air gap corrections, oblique incidence, or corrections for inhomogeneities. Thus these topics are not addressed in the TG-70 report.

Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG-203†.

Managing radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac devices (implantable cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators) has been a great practical and procedural challenge in radiation oncology practice. Since the publication of the AAPM TG-34 in 1994, large bodies of literature and case reports have been published about different kinds of radiation effects on modern technology implantable cardiac devices and patient management before, during, and after radiotherapy. This task group report provides the framework that analyzes the potential failure modes of these devices and lays out the methodology for patient management in a comprehensive and concise way, in every step of the entire radiotherapy process.

AAR-RT - A system for auto-contouring organs at risk on CT images for radiation therapy planning: Principles, design, and large-scale evaluation on head-and-neck and thoracic cancer cases.

Contouring (segmentation) of Organs at Risk (OARs) in medical images is required for accurate radiation therapy (RT) planning. In current clinical practice, OAR contouring is performed with low levels of automation. Although several approaches have been proposed in the literature for improving automation, it is difficult to gain an understanding of how well these methods would perform in a realistic clinical setting. This is chiefly due to three key factors - small number of patient studies used for evaluation, lack of performance evaluation as a function of input image quality, and lack of precise anatomic definitions of OARs. In this paper, extending our previous body-wide Automatic Anatomy Recognition (AAR) framework to RT planning of OARs in the head and neck (H&N) and thoracic body regions, we present a methodology called AAR-RT to overcome some of these hurdles. AAR-RT follows AAR's 3-stage paradigm of model-building, object-recognition, and object-delineation. Model-building: Three key advances were made over AAR. (i) AAR-RT (like AAR) starts off with a computationally precise definition of the two body regions and all of their OARs. Ground truth delineations of OARs are then generated following these definitions strictly. We retrospectively gathered patient data sets and the associated contour data sets that have been created previously in routine clinical RT planning from our Radiation Oncology department and mended the contours to conform to these definitions. We then derived an Object Quality Score (OQS) for each OAR sample and an Image Quality Score (IQS) for each study, both on a 1-to-10 scale, based on quality grades assigned to each OAR sample following 9 key quality criteria. Only studies with high IQS and high OQS for all of their OARs were selected for model building. IQS and OQS were employed for evaluating AAR-RT's performance as a function of image/object quality. (ii) In place of the previous hand-crafted hierarchy for organizing OARs in AAR, we devised a method to find an optimal hierarchy for each body region. Optimality was based on minimizing object recognition error. (iii) In addition to the parent-to-child relationship encoded in the hierarchy in previous AAR, we developed a directed probability graph technique to further improve recognition accuracy by learning and encoding in the model "steady" relationships that may exist among OAR boundaries in the three orthogonal planes. Object-recognition: The two key improvements over the previous approach are (i) use of the optimal hierarchy for actual recognition of OARs in a given image, and (ii) refined recognition by making use of the trained probability graph. Object-delineation: We use a kNN classifier confined to the fuzzy object mask localized by the recognition step and then fit optimally the fuzzy mask to the kNN-derived voxel cluster to bring back shape constraint on the object. We evaluated AAR-RT on 205 thoracic and 298 H&N (total 503) studies, involving both planning and re-planning scans and a total of 21 organs (9 - thorax, 12 - H&N). The studies were gathered from two patient age groups for each gender - 40-59 years and 60-79 years. The number of 3D OAR samples analyzed from the two body regions was 4301. IQS and OQS tended to cluster at the two ends of the score scale. Accordingly, we considered two quality groups for each gender - good and poor. Good quality data sets typically had OQS ≥ 6 and had distortions, artifacts, pathology etc. in not more than 3 slices through the object. The number of model-worthy data sets used for training were 38 for thorax and 36 for H&N, and the remaining 479 studies were used for testing AAR-RT. Accordingly, we created 4 anatomy models, one each for: Thorax male (20 model-worthy data sets), Thorax female (18 model-worthy data sets), H&N male (20 model-worthy data sets), and H&N female (16 model-worthy data sets). On "good" cases, AAR-RT's recognition accuracy was within 2 voxels and delineation boundary distance was within ∼1 voxel. This was similar to the variability observed between two dosimetrists in manually contouring 5-6 OARs in each of 169 studies. On "poor" cases, AAR-RT's errors hovered around 5 voxels for recognition and 2 voxels for boundary distance. The performance was similar on planning and replanning cases, and there was no gender difference in performance. AAR-RT's recognition operation is much more robust than delineation. Understanding object and image quality and how they influence performance is crucial for devising effective object recognition and delineation algorithms. OQS seems to be more important than IQS in determining accuracy. Streak artifacts arising from dental implants and fillings and beam hardening from bone pose the greatest challenge to auto-contouring methods.