Code of ethics for the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (Revised): Report of Task Group 109.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) has established a comprehensive Code of Ethics for its members. The Code is a formal part of AAPM governance, maintained as Professional Policy 24, and includes both principles of ethical practice and the rules by which a complaint will be adjudicated. The structure and content of the Code have been crafted to also serve the much broader purpose of giving practical ethical guidance to AAPM members for making sound decisions in their professional lives. The Code is structured in four major parts: a Preamble, a set of ten guiding Principles, Guidelines that elucidate the application of the Principles in various practice settings, and the formal Complaint process. Guidelines have been included to address evolving social and cultural norms, such as the use of social media and the broadening scope of considerations important in an evolving workplace. The document presented here is the first major revision of the AAPM Code of Ethics since 2008. This revision was approved by the Board of Directors to become effective 1 January 2019.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.a.: Linear accelerator performance tests.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a list of critical performance tests in order to assist the Qualified Medical Physicist (QMP) in establishing and maintaining a safe and effective quality assurance (QA) program. The performance tests on a linear accelerator (linac) should be selected to fit the clinical patterns of use of the accelerator and care should be given to perform tests which are relevant to detecting errors related to the specific use of the accelerator. METHODS: A risk assessment was performed on tests from current task group reports on linac QA to highlight those tests that are most effective at maintaining safety and quality for the patient. Recommendations are made on the acquisition of reference or baseline data, the establishment of machine isocenter on a routine basis, basing performance tests on clinical use of the linac, working with vendors to establish QA tests and performing tests after maintenance. RESULTS: The recommended tests proposed in this guideline were chosen based on the results from the risk analysis and the consensus of the guideline's committee. The tests are grouped together by class of test (e.g., dosimetry, mechanical, etc.) and clinical parameter tested. Implementation notes are included for each test so that the QMP can understand the overall goal of each test. CONCLUSION: This guideline will assist the QMP in developing a comprehensive QA program for linacs in the external beam radiation therapy setting. The committee sought to prioritize tests by their implication on quality and patient safety. The QMP is ultimately responsible for implementing appropriate tests. In the spirit of the report from American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100, individual institutions are encouraged to analyze the risks involved in their own clinical practice and determine which performance tests are relevant in their own radiotherapy clinics.

Ethics and professionalism in medical physics: a survey of AAPM members.

PURPOSE: To assess current education, practices, attitudes, and perceptions pertaining to ethics and professionalism in medical physics. METHODS: A link to a web-based survey was distributed to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) e-mail membership list, with a follow-up e-mail sent two weeks later. The survey included questions about ethics/professionalism education, direct personal knowledge of ethically questionable practices in clinical care, research, education (teaching and mentoring), and professionalism, respondents' assessment of their ability to address ethical/professional dilemmas, and demographics. For analysis, reports of unethical or ethically questionable practices or behaviors by approximately 40% or more of respondents were classified as "frequent." RESULTS: Partial or complete responses were received from 18% (1394/7708) of AAPM members. Overall, 60% (827/1377) of the respondents stated that they had not received ethics/professionalism education during their medical physics training. Respondents currently in training were more likely to state that they received instruction in ethics/professionalism (80%, 127/159) versus respondents who were post-training (35%, 401/1159). Respondents' preferred method of instruction in ethics/professionalism was structured periodic discussions involving both faculty and students/trainees. More than 90% (1271/1384) supported continuing education in ethics/professionalism and 75% (1043/1386) stated they would attend ethics/professionalism sessions at professional/scientific meetings. In the research setting, reports about ethically questionable authorship assignment were frequent (approximately 40%) whereas incidents of ethically questionable practices about human subjects protections were quite infrequent (5%). In the clinical setting, there was frequent recollection of incidents regarding lack of training, resources and skills, and error/incident reporting. In the educational setting, incidents of unethical or ethically questionable practices were only frequently recollected with respect to mentorship/guidance. With respect to professional conduct, favoritism, hostile work/learning environment, and maltreatment of subordinates and colleagues were frequently reported. A significantly larger proportion of women reported experiences with hostile work/learning environments, favoritism, poor mentorship, unfairness in educational settings, and concerns about student privacy and confidentiality. CONCLUSIONS: The survey found broad interest in ethics/professionalism topics and revealed that these topics were being integrated into the curriculum at many institutions. The incorporation of ethics and professionalism instruction into both graduate education and postgraduate training of medical physicists, and into their subsequent lifelong continuing education is important given the nontrivial number of medical physicists who had direct personal knowledge of unethical or ethically questionable incidents in clinical practice, research, education, and professionalism.

Recommended ethics curriculum for medical physics graduate and residency programs: report of Task Group 159.

The AAPM Professional Council approved the formation of a task group in 2007, whose purpose is to develop recommendations for an ethics curriculum for medical physics graduate and residency programs. Existing program's ethics curricula range in scope and content considerably. It is desirable to have a more uniform baseline curriculum for all programs. Recommended subjects areas, suggested ethics references, and a sample curriculum are included. This report recommends a reasonable ethics course time to be 15-30 h while allowing each program the flexibility to design their course.

An organ and effective dose study of XVI and OBI cone-beam CT systems.

The main purpose of this work was to quantify patient organ doses from the two kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems currently available on medical linear accelerators, namely the X-ray Volumetric Imager (XVI, Elekta Oncology Systems) and the On-Board Imager (OBI, Varian Medical Systems). Organ dose measurements were performed using a fiber-optic coupled (FOC) dosimetry system along with an adult male anthropomorphic phantom for three different clinically relevant scan sites: head, chest, and pelvis. The FOC dosimeter was previously characterized at diagnostic energies by Hyer et al. [Med Phys 2009;36(5):1711-16] and a total uncertainty of approximately 4% was found for in-phantom dose measurements. All scans were performed using current manufacturer-installed clinical protocols and appropriate bow-tie filters. A comparison of image quality between these manufacturer-installed protocols was also performed using a Catphan 440 image quality phantom. Results indicated that for the XVI, the dose to the lens of the eye (1.07 mGy) was highest in a head scan, thyroid dose (19.24 mGy) was highest in a chest scan, and gonad dose (29 mGy) was highest in a pelvis scan. For the OBI, brain dose (3.01 mGy) was highest in a head scan, breast dose (5.34 mGy) was highest in a chest scan, and gonad dose (34.61 mGy) was highest in a pelvis scan. Image quality measurements demonstrated that the OBI provided superior image quality for all protocols, with both better spatial resolution and low-contrast detectability. The measured organ doses were also used to calculate a reference male effective dose to allow further comparison of the two machines and imaging protocols. The head, chest, and pelvis scans yielded effective doses of 0.04, 7.15, and 3.73 mSv for the XVI, and 0.12, 1.82, and 4.34mSv for the OBI, respectively.

Cardiac dose evaluation for 3-dimensional conformal partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast irradiation.

To compare the radiation dose to normal cardiac tissue for 3Dimensional (3D) conformal external beam partial breast irradiation (PBI) and standard whole breast irradiation (WBI), and examine the effect of tumor bed location. For 14 patients with left breast tumors randomized on the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-39 protocol, computer-generated radiotherapy treatment plans were devised for WBI and PBI. Tumor bed location was designated according to whether more than 50% of the excision cavity was medial or lateral to the nipple line. The volume of heart receiving doses of 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 Gy was calculated for all PBI and WBI plans. Dose to 5% of the heart volume (D5) and mean heart dose were also calculated. The biologically-equivalent dose (BED) was calculated to account for the different fractionation used in PBI and WBI. Of the 14 patients, 8 had lateral tumor beds, and 6 had medial tumor beds. The volumes of heart receiving 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 Gy were significantly lower for lateral PBI compared with WBI. For medial PBI, significant cardiac sparing was only seen at a dose of 20 Gy. The difference of D5 values was significant for lateral PBI compared with WBI (p=0.008), but not for medial PBI compared with WBI (p=0.84). The mean dose was also significantly lower for lateral PBI compared with WBI (p=0.008), but not for medial PBI (p=0.16). The results from BED calculations did not change this outcome. Both 3D conformal PBI and standard WBI can deliver relatively low doses to the heart. For patients with lateralized tumor beds, PBI offers significant cardiac sparing compared with WBI. Patients with medial lesions have relatively similar heart dosimetry with PBI and WBI. 3D conformal PBI is an emerging treatment modality and continued participation on clinical trials is encouraged. Patients with left-sided lesions and lateralized tumor beds warrant special consideration for PBI, given the significant cardiac dose sparing.

Code of Ethics for the American Association of Physicists in Medicine: report of Task Group 109.

A comprehensive Code of Ethics for the members of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is presented as the report of Task Group 109 which consolidates previous AAPM ethics policies into a unified document. The membership of the AAPM is increasingly diverse. Prior existing AAPM ethics polices were applicable specifically to medical physicists, and did not encompass other types of members such as health physicists, regulators, corporate affiliates, physicians, scientists, engineers, those in training, or other health care professionals. Prior AAPM ethics policies did not specifically address research, education, or business ethics. The Ethics Guidelines of this new Code of Ethics have four major sections: professional conduct, research ethics, education ethics, and business ethics. Some elements of each major section may be duplicated in other sections, so that readers interested in a particular aspect of the code do not need to read the entire document for all relevant information. The prior Complaint Procedure has also been incorporated into this Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics (PP 24-A) replaces the following AAPM policies: Ethical Guidelines for Vacating a Position (PP 4-B); Ethical Guidelines for Reviewing the Work of Another Physicist (PP 5-C); Guidelines for Ethical Practice for Medical Physicists (PP 8-D); and Ethics Complaint Procedure (PP 21-A). The AAPM Board of Directors approved this Code or Ethics on July 31, 2008.

Comparison of daily megavoltage electronic portal imaging or kilovoltage imaging with marker seeds to ultrasound imaging or skin marks for prostate localization and treatment positioning in patients with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of imaging modalities, immobilization, localization, and positioning techniques in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-five patients with prostate cancer had gold marker seeds implanted transrectally and were treated with fractionated radiotherapy. Twenty of the 35 patients had limited immobilization; the remaining had a vacuum-based immobilization. Patient positioning consisted of alignment with lasers to skin marks, ultrasound or kilovoltage X-ray imaging, optical guidance using infrared reflectors, and megavoltage electronic portal imaging (EPI). The variance of each positioning technique was compared to the patient position determined from the pretreatment EPI. RESULTS: With limited immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 9.1 +/- 5.3 mm, the average difference between the skin marks' infrared position and EPI pretreatment position is 11.8 +/- 7.2 mm, the average difference between the ultrasound position and EPI pretreatment position is 7.0 +/- 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 3.5 +/- 3.1 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 3.4 +/- 2.7 mm. For the patients with the vacuum-style immobilization, the average difference between the skin marks' laser position and EPI pretreatment position is 10.7 +/- 4.6 mm, the average difference between kV imaging and EPI pretreatment position is 1.9 +/- 1.5 mm, and the average intrafraction movement during treatment is 2.1 +/- 1.5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with use of skin marks, ultrasound imaging for positioning provides an increased degree of agreement to EPI-based positioning, though not as favorable as kV imaging fiducial seeds. Intrafraction movement during treatment decreases with improved immobilization.

Initial experience with ultrasound localization for positioning prostate cancer patients for external beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Transabdominal ultrasound localization of the prostate gland and its immediate surrounding anatomy has been used to guide the positioning of patients for the treatment of prostate cancer. This process was evaluated in terms of (1) the reproducibility of the ultrasound measurement; (2) a comparison of patient position between ultrasound localization and skin marks determined from a CT treatment planning scan; (3) the predictive indicators of patient anatomy not well suited for ultrasound localization; (4) the measurement of prostate organ displacement resulting from ultrasound probe pressure; and (5) quality assurance measures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The reproducibility of the ultrasound positioning process was evaluated for same-day repeat positioning by the same ultrasound operator (22 patients) and for measurements made by 2 different operators (38 patients). Differences between conventional patient positioning (CT localization with skin markings) and ultrasound-based positioning were determined for 38 patients. The pelvic anatomy was evaluated for 34 patients with pretreatment CT scans to identify predictors of poor ultrasound image quality. The displacement of the prostate resulting from pressure of the ultrasound probe was measured for 16 patients with duplicate CT scans with and without a simulated probe. Finally, daily, monthly, and semiannual quality assurance tests were evaluated. RESULTS: Self-verification tests of ultrasound positioning indicated a shift of <3 mm in approximately 95% of cases. Interoperator tests indicated shifts of <3 mm in approximately 80-90% of cases. The mean difference in patient positioning between conventional and ultrasound localization for lateral shifts was 0.3 mm (SD 2.5): vertical, 1.3 mm (SD 4.7 mm) and longitudinal, 1.0 mm (SD 5.1). However, on a single day, the differences were >10 mm in 1.5% of lateral shifts, 7% of longitudinal shifts, and 7% of vertical shifts. The depth to the isocenter, thickness of tissue overlying the bladder, and position of the prostate relative to the pubic symphysis, but not the bladder volume, were significant predictive indicators of poor ultrasound imaging. The pressure of the ultrasound probe displaced the prostate in 7 of the 16 patients by an average distance of 3.1 mm; 9 patients (56%) showed no displacement. Finally, the quality assurance tests detected ultrasound equipment defects. CONCLUSION: The ultrasound positioning system is reproducible and may indicate the need for significant positioning moves. Factors that predict poor image quality are the depth to the isocenter, thickness of tissue overlying the bladder, and position of the prostate relative to the pubic symphysis. The prostate gland may be displaced a small amount by the pressure of the ultrasound probe. A quality assurance program is necessary to detect ultrasound equipment defects that could result in patient alignment errors.