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.

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.

Effect of Facility IAC-Accreditation on CT Dose Awareness and Reduction.

PURPOSE: To assess characteristics of computed tomography (CT) facilities accredited by the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) and evaluate the perceived effect of accreditation on CT radiation dose awareness and reduction. METHODS: IAC-accredited CT facilities were sent a survey in April 2016, which included 20 questions categorized into 5 groups: equipment and facility (7), patient safety/practice (5), protocols (2), dose reduction practice (3), and quality improvement (3). RESULTS: The response rate was 20.7% (N = 607). A majority of facilities (80%) reported that radiation dose was adjusted based on patient size. Before undergoing accreditation, 79% of facilities reported annual review of CT protocols and radiation exposure. Following accreditation, that number increased to 93%. A majority (77%) of respondents indicated that the accreditation process, along with the IAC Standards and Guidelines, increased awareness of radiation exposure; in addition, 36% indicated that radiation doses were lower after undertaking accreditation. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated that most IAC-accredited facilities followed recommended radiation safety practices by adjusting radiation dose based on patient size, reviewing protocols annually, and participating in quality improvement activities that focus on patient radiation exposure. CONCLUSION: IAC-accredited facilities reported that the accreditation process had a positive effect on radiation dose awareness and reduced dose associated with CT examinations.

AAPM/SNMMI Joint Task Force: report on the current state of nuclear medicine physics training.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) recognized the need for a review of the current state of nuclear  medicine physics training and the need to explore pathways for improving nuclear medicine physics training opportunities. For these reasons, the two organizations formed a joint AAPM/SNMMI Ad Hoc Task Force on Nuclear Medicine Physics  Training. The mission of this task force was to assemble a representative group of stakeholders to:• Estimate the demand for board-certified nuclear medicine physicists in the next 5-10 years,• Identify the critical issues related to supplying an adequate number of physicists who have received the appropriate level of training in nuclear medicine physics, and• Identify approaches that may be considered to facilitate the training of nuclear medicine physicists.As a result, a task force was appointed and chaired by an active member of both organizations that included representation from the AAPM, SNMMI, the American Board of Radiology (ABR), the American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (ABSNM), and the Commission for the Accreditation of Medical Physics Educational Programs (CAMPEP). The Task Force first met at the AAPM Annual Meeting in Charlotte in July 2012 and has met regularly face-to-face, online, and by conference calls. This manuscript reports the findings of the Task Force, as well as recommendations to achieve the stated mission.

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.

Essentials and guidelines for clinical medical physics residency training programs: executive summary of AAPM Report Number 249.

There is a clear need for established standards for medical physics residency training. The complexity of techniques in imaging, nuclear medicine, and radiation oncology continues to increase with each passing year. It is therefore imperative that training requirements and competencies are routinely reviewed and updated to reflect the changing environment in hospitals and clinics across the country. In 2010, the AAPM Work Group on Periodic Review of Medical Physics Residency Training was formed and charged with updating AAPM Report Number 90. This work group includes AAPM members with extensive experience in clinical, professional, and educational aspects of medical physics. The resulting report, AAPM Report Number 249, concentrates on the clinical and professional knowledge needed to function independently as a practicing medical physicist in the areas of radiation oncology, imaging, and nuclear medicine, and constitutes a revision to AAPM Report Number 90. This manuscript presents an executive summary of AAPM Report Number 249.

Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact.

Reference values (RVs) are recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine for four radiographic projections, computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and dental radiography. RVs are used to compare radiation doses from individual pieces of radiographic equipment with doses from similar equipment assessed in national surveys. RVs recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine have been developed from the Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends survey performed by the state radiation protection agencies with the cooperation and support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and the American College of Radiology. The RVs selected by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine represent, approximately, the 80th percentile of the survey distributions. Consequently, equipment exceeding the RVs is using higher radiation doses than is 80% of the equipment in the surveys. Radiation doses for specific projections, with standard phantoms, should be measured annually, as recommended by the American College of Radiology. When the RVs are exceeded, the medical physicist should investigate the cause and determine, in cooperation with the responsible radiologist, whether these doses are justified or the imaging system should be optimized to reduce patient radiation doses. RVs are a useful tool for comparing patient radiation doses at institutions throughout the United States and for providing information about radiographic equipment performance.