AAPM Task Group Report 267: A joint AAPM GEC-ESTRO report on biophysical models and tools for the planning and evaluation of brachytherapy.

Brachytherapy utilizes a multitude of radioactive sources and treatment techniques that often exhibit widely different spatial and temporal dose delivery patterns. Biophysical models, capable of modeling the key interacting effects of dose delivery patterns with the underlying cellular processes of the irradiated tissues, can be a potentially useful tool for elucidating the radiobiological effects of complex brachytherapy dose delivery patterns and for comparing their relative clinical effectiveness. While the biophysical models have been used largely in research settings by experts, it has also been used increasingly by clinical medical physicists over the last two decades. A good understanding of the potentials and limitations of the biophysical models and their intended use is critically important in the widespread use of these models. To facilitate meaningful and consistent use of biophysical models in brachytherapy, Task Group 267 (TG-267) was formed jointly with the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) and The Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) to review the existing biophysical models, model parameters, and their use in selected brachytherapy modalities and to develop practice guidelines for clinical medical physicists regarding the selection, use, and interpretation of biophysical models. The report provides an overview of the clinical background and the rationale for the development of biophysical models in radiation oncology and, particularly, in brachytherapy; a summary of the results of literature review of the existing biophysical models that have been used in brachytherapy; a focused discussion of the applications of relevant biophysical models for five selected brachytherapy modalities; and the task group recommendations on the use, reporting, and implementation of biophysical models for brachytherapy treatment planning and evaluation. The report concludes with discussions on the challenges and opportunities in using biophysical models for brachytherapy and with an outlook for future developments.

Safety practices and opportunities for improvement in brachytherapy: A patient safety practices survey of the American Brachytherapy Society membership.

PURPOSE: Safe delivery of brachytherapy and establishing a safety culture are critical in high-quality brachytherapy. The American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) Quality and Safety Committee surveyed members regarding brachytherapy services offered, safety practices during treatment, quality assurance procedures, and needs to develop safety and training materials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 22-item survey was sent to ABS membership in early 2019 to physicians, physicists, therapists, nurses, and administrators. Participation was voluntary. Responses were summarized with descriptive statistics and relative frequency distributions. RESULTS: There were 103 unique responses. Approximately one in three was attending physicians and one in three attending physicists. Most were in practice >10 years. A total of 94% and 50% performed gynecologic and prostate brachytherapy, respectively. Ninety-one percent performed two-identification patient verification before treatment. Eighty-six percent performed a time-out. Ninety-five percent had an incident reporting or learning system, but only 71% regularly reviewed incidents. Half reviewed safety practices within the last year. Twenty percent reported they were somewhat or not satisfied with department safety culture, but 92% of respondents were interested in improving safety culture. Most reported time, communication, and staffing as barriers to improving safety. Most respondents desired safety-oriented webinars, self-assessment modules, learning modules, or checklists endorsed by the ABS to improve safety practice. CONCLUSIONS: Most but not all practices use standards and quality assurance procedures in line with society recommendations. There is a need to heighten safety culture at many departments and to shift resources (e.g., time or staffing) to improve safety practice. There is a desire for society guidance to improve brachytherapy safety practices. This is the first survey to assess safety practice patterns among a national sample of radiation oncologists with expertise in brachytherapy.

Surface brachytherapy: Joint report of the AAPM and the GEC-ESTRO Task Group No. 253.

The surface brachytherapy Task Group report number 253 discusses the common treatment modalities and applicators typically used to treat lesions on the body surface. Details of commissioning and calibration of the applicators and systems are discussed and examples are given for a risk-based analysis approach to the quality assurance measures that are necessary to consider when establishing a surface brachytherapy program.

Electronic intracavitary brachytherapy quality management based on risk analysis: The report of AAPM TG 182.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to provide guidance on quality management for electronic brachytherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The task group used the risk-assessment approach of Task Group 100 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Because the quality management program for a device is intimately tied to the procedure in which it is used, the task group first designed quality interventions for intracavitary brachytherapy for both commercial electronic brachytherapy units in the setting of accelerated partial-breast irradiation. To demonstrate the methodology to extend an existing risk analysis for a different application, the task group modified the analysis for the case of post-hysterectomy, vaginal cuff irradiation for one of the devices. RESULTS: The analysis illustrated how the TG-100 methodology can lead to interventions to reduce risks and improve quality for each unit and procedure addressed. CONCLUSION: This report provides a model to guide facilities establishing a quality management program for electronic brachytherapy.

The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management.

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery challenges traditional prescriptive quality management (QM) methods, such as many of those included in guidelines published by organizations such as the AAPM, ASTRO, ACR, ESTRO, and IAEA. These prescriptive guidelines have traditionally focused on monitoring all aspects of the functional performance of radiotherapy (RT) equipment by comparing parameters against tolerances set at strict but achievable values. Many errors that occur in radiation oncology are not due to failures in devices and software; rather they are failures in workflow and process. A systematic understanding of the likelihood and clinical impact of possible failures throughout a course of radiotherapy is needed to direct limit QM resources efficiently to produce maximum safety and quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and has developed a framework for designing QM activities, based on estimates of the probability of identified failures and their clinical outcome through the RT planning and delivery process. The Task Group has chosen a specific radiotherapy process required for "intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)" as a case study. The goal of this work is to apply modern risk-based analysis techniques to this complex RT process in order to demonstrate to the RT community that such techniques may help identify more effective and efficient ways to enhance the safety and quality of our treatment processes. The task group generated by consensus an example quality management program strategy for the IMRT process performed at the institution of one of the authors. This report describes the methodology and nomenclature developed, presents the process maps, FMEAs, fault trees, and QM programs developed, and makes suggestions on how this information could be used in the clinic. The development and implementation of risk-assessment techniques will make radiation therapy safer and more efficient.

Medical Physics Practice Guideline 4.a: Development, implementation, use and maintenance of safety checklists.

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.

On effective dose for radiotherapy based on doses to nontarget organs and tissues.

PURPOSE: The National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) published estimates for the collective population dose and the mean effective dose to the population of the United States from medical imaging procedures for 1980/1982 and for 2006. The earlier report ignored the effective dose from radiotherapy and the latter gave a cursory discussion of the topic but again did not include it in the population exposure for various reasons. This paper explains the methodology used to calculate the effective dose in due to radiotherapy procedures in the latter NCRP report and revises the values based on more detailed modeling. METHODS: This study calculated the dose to nontarget organs from radiotherapy for reference populations using CT images and published peripheral dose data. RESULTS: Using International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 60 weighting factors, the total effective dose to nontarget organs in radiotherapy patients is estimated as 298 ± 194 mSv per patient, while the U.S. population effective dose is 0.939 ± 0.610 mSv per person, with a collective dose of 283,000 ± 184,000 person Sv per year. Using ICRP 103 weighting factors, the effective dose is 281 ± 183 mSv per patient, 0.887 ± 0.577 mSv per person in the U.S., and 268,000 ± 174,000 person Sv per year. The uncertainty in the calculations is largely governed by variations in patient size, which was accounted for by considering a range of patient sizes and taking the average treatment site to nontarget organ distance. CONCLUSIONS: The methods used to estimate the effective doses from radiotherapy used in NCRP Report No. 160 have been explained and the values updated.

AAPM and GEC-ESTRO guidelines for image-guided robotic brachytherapy: report of Task Group 192.

In the last decade, there have been significant developments into integration of robots and automation tools with brachytherapy delivery systems. These systems aim to improve the current paradigm by executing higher precision and accuracy in seed placement, improving calculation of optimal seed locations, minimizing surgical trauma, and reducing radiation exposure to medical staff. Most of the applications of this technology have been in the implantation of seeds in patients with early-stage prostate cancer. Nevertheless, the techniques apply to any clinical site where interstitial brachytherapy is appropriate. In consideration of the rapid developments in this area, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) commissioned Task Group 192 to review the state-of-the-art in the field of robotic interstitial brachytherapy. This is a joint Task Group with the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (GEC-ESTRO). All developed and reported robotic brachytherapy systems were reviewed. Commissioning and quality assurance procedures for the safe and consistent use of these systems are also provided. Manual seed placement techniques with a rigid template have an estimated in vivo accuracy of 3-6 mm. In addition to the placement accuracy, factors such as tissue deformation, needle deviation, and edema may result in a delivered dose distribution that differs from the preimplant or intraoperative plan. However, real-time needle tracking and seed identification for dynamic updating of dosimetry may improve the quality of seed implantation. The AAPM and GEC-ESTRO recommend that robotic systems should demonstrate a spatial accuracy of seed placement ≤1.0 mm in a phantom. This recommendation is based on the current performance of existing robotic brachytherapy systems and propagation of uncertainties. During clinical commissioning, tests should be conducted to ensure that this level of accuracy is achieved. These tests should mimic the real operating procedure as closely as possible. Additional recommendations on robotic brachytherapy systems include display of the operational state; capability of manual override; documented policies for independent check and data verification; intuitive interface displaying the implantation plan and visualization of needle positions and seed locations relative to the target anatomy; needle insertion in a sequential order; robot-clinician and robot-patient interactions robustness, reliability, and safety while delivering the correct dose at the correct site for the correct patient; avoidance of excessive force on radioactive sources; delivery confirmation of the required number or position of seeds; incorporation of a collision avoidance system; system cleaning, decontamination, and sterilization procedures. These recommendations are applicable to end users and manufacturers of robotic brachytherapy systems.

A review of safety, quality management, and practice guidelines for high-dose-rate brachytherapy: executive summary.

This white paper was commissioned by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Board of Directors to evaluate the status of safety and practice guidance for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. Given the maturity of HDR brachytherapy technology, this white paper considers, from a safety point of view, the adequacy of general physics and quality assurance guidance, as well as clinical guidance documents available for the most common treatment sites. The rate of medical events in HDR brachytherapy procedures in the United States in 2009 and 2010 was 0.02%, corresponding to 5-sigma performance. The events were not due to lack of guidance documents but failures to follow those recommendations or human failures in the performance of tasks. The white paper summarized by this Executive Summary reviews current guidance documents and offers recommendations regarding their application to delivery of HDR brachytherapy. It also suggests topics where additional research and guidance is needed.

Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine on dosimetry, imaging, and quality assurance procedures for 90Y microsphere brachytherapy in the treatment of hepatic malignancies.

Yttrium-90 microsphere brachytherapy of the liver exploits the distinctive features of the liver anatomy to treat liver malignancies with beta radiation and is gaining more wide spread clinical use. This report provides a general overview of microsphere liver brachytherapy and assists the treatment team in creating local treatment practices to provide safe and efficient patient treatment. Suggestions for future improvements are incorporated with the basic rationale for the therapy and currently used procedures. Imaging modalities utilized and their respective quality assurance are discussed. General as well as vendor specific delivery procedures are reviewed. The current dosimetry models are reviewed and suggestions for dosimetry advancement are made. Beta activity standards are reviewed and vendor implementation strategies are discussed. Radioactive material licensing and radiation safety are discussed given the unique requirements of microsphere brachytherapy. A general, team-based quality assurance program is reviewed to provide guidance for the creation of the local procedures. Finally, recommendations are given on how to deliver the current state of the art treatments and directions for future improvements in the therapy.

A dosimetric uncertainty analysis for photon-emitting brachytherapy sources: report of AAPM Task Group No. 138 and GEC-ESTRO.

This report addresses uncertainties pertaining to brachytherapy single-source dosimetry preceding clinical use. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Technical Note 1297 are taken as reference standards for uncertainty formalism. Uncertainties in using detectors to measure or utilizing Monte Carlo methods to estimate brachytherapy dose distributions are provided with discussion of the components intrinsic to the overall dosimetric assessment. Uncertainties provided are based on published observations and cited when available. The uncertainty propagation from the primary calibration standard through transfer to the clinic for air-kerma strength is covered first. Uncertainties in each of the brachytherapy dosimetry parameters of the TG-43 formalism are then explored, ending with transfer to the clinic and recommended approaches. Dosimetric uncertainties during treatment delivery are considered briefly but are not included in the detailed analysis. For low- and high-energy brachytherapy sources of low dose rate and high dose rate, a combined dosimetric uncertainty <5% (k=1) is estimated, which is consistent with prior literature estimates. Recommendations are provided for clinical medical physicists, dosimetry investigators, and source and treatment planning system manufacturers. These recommendations include the use of the GUM and NIST reports, a requirement of constancy of manufacturer source design, dosimetry investigator guidelines, provision of the lowest uncertainty for patient treatment dosimetry, and the establishment of an action level based on dosimetric uncertainty. These recommendations reflect the guidance of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) for their members and may also be used as guidance to manufacturers and regulatory agencies in developing good manufacturing practices for sources used in routine clinical treatments.

Definition of medical event is to be based on the total source strength for evaluation of permanent prostate brachytherapy: A report from the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission deems it to be a medical event (ME) if the total dose delivered differs from the prescribed dose by 20% or more. A dose-based definition of ME is not appropriate for permanent prostate brachytherapy as it generates too many spurious MEs and thereby creates unnecessary apprehension in patients, and ties up regulatory bodies and the licensees in unnecessary and burdensome investigations. A more suitable definition of ME is required for permanent prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) formed a working group of experienced clinicians to review the literature, assess the validity of current regulations, and make specific recommendations about the definition of an ME in permanent prostate brachytherapy. RESULTS: The working group found that the current definition of ME in §35.3045 as "the total dose delivered differs from the prescribed dose by 20 percent or more" was not suitable for permanent prostate brachytherapy since the prostate volume (and hence the resultant calculated prostate dose) is dependent on the timing of the imaging, the imaging modality used, the observer variability in prostate contouring, the planning margins used, inadequacies of brachytherapy treatment planning systems to calculate tissue doses, and seed migration within and outside the prostate. If a dose-based definition for permanent implants is applied strictly, many properly executed implants would be improperly classified as an ME leading to a detrimental effect on brachytherapy. The working group found that a source strength-based criterion, of >20% of source strength prescribed in the post-procedure written directive being implanted outside the planning target volume is more appropriate for defining ME in permanent prostate brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: ASTRO recommends that the definition of ME for permanent prostate brachytherapy should not be dose based but should be based upon the source strength (air-kerma strength) administered.

Off-label use of medical products in radiation therapy: summary of the report of AAPM Task Group No. 121.

Medical products (devices, drugs, or biologics) contain information in their labeling regarding the manner in which the manufacturer has determined that the products can be used in a safe and effective manner. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves medical products for use for these specific indications which are part of the medical product's labeling. When medical products are used in a manner not specified in the labeling, it is commonly referred to as off-label use. The practice of medicine allows for this off-label use to treat individual patients, but the ethical and legal implications for such unapproved use can be confusing. Although the responsibility and, ultimately, the liability for off-label use often rests with the prescribing physician, medical physicists and others are also responsible for the safe and proper use of the medical products. When these products are used for purposes other than which they were approved, it is important for medical physicists to understand their responsibilities. In the United States, medical products can only be marketed if officially cleared, approved, or licensed by the FDA; they can be used if they are not subject to or specifically exempt from FDA regulations, or if they are being used in research with the appropriate regulatory safeguards. Medical devices are either cleared or approved by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Drugs are approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and biological products such as vaccines or blood are licensed under a biologics license agreement by FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. For the purpose of this report, the process by which the FDA eventually clears, approves, or licenses such products for marketing in the United States will be referred to as approval. This report summarizes the various ways medical products, primarily medical devices, can legally be brought to market in the United States, and includes a discussion of the approval process, along with manufacturers' responsibilities, labeling, marketing and promotion, and off-label use. This is an educational and descriptive report and does not contain prescriptive recommendations. This report addresses the role of the medical physicist in clinical situations involving off-label use. Case studies in radiation therapy are presented. Any mention of commercial products is for identification only; it does not imply recommendations or endorsements of any of the authors or the AAPM. The full report, containing extensive background on off-label use with several appendices, is available on the AAPM website (http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/).

A comprehensive dosimetric comparison between (131)Cs and (125)I brachytherapy sources for COMS eye plaque implant.

PURPOSE: To verify the dosimetric characteristics of (131)Cs source in the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) eye plaque brachytherapy, to compare (131)Cs with (125)I in a sample implant, and to examine the accuracy of treatment planning system in dose calculation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Monte Carlo (MC) technique was used to generate three-dimensional dose distributions of a 16-mm COMS eye plaque loaded with (131)Cs and (125)I brachytherapy sources separately. A spherical eyeball, 24.6mm in diameter, and an ellipsoidal tumor, 6mm in height and 12mm in diameter, were used to evaluate the doses delivered. The simulations were carried out both with and without the gold and gold alloy plaque. A water-equivalent seed carrier was used instead of the silastic insert designed for the traditional COMS eye plaque. The 13 sources involved were also individually simulated to evaluate the intersource effect. In addition, a treatment planning system was used to calculate the doses at the central axis for comparison with MC data. RESULTS: The gold plaque had significantly reduced the dose in the tumor volume; at the prescription point of this study, that is, 6mm from the edge of inner sclera, the gold plaque reduced the dose by about 7% for both types of (131)Cs and (125)I sources, but the gold alloy plaque reduced the dose only by 4% for both types of sources. The intersource effect reduced the dose by 2% for both types of sources. At the same prescription dose, the treatment with the gold plaque applicator tended to create more hot regions for either type of sources than were seen with the homogeneous water phantom. The doses of TPS agree with the MC. CONCLUSION: The (131)Cs source is comparable to the (125)I source in the eye plaque brachytherapy. The TPS can provide accurate dose calculations for eye plaque implants with either type of sources.

Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources--1950-2007.

The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation each conducted respective assessments of all radiation sources in the United States and worldwide. The goal of this article is to summarize and combine the results of these two publicly available surveys and to compare the results with historical information. In the United States in 2006, about 377 million diagnostic and interventional radiologic examinations and 18 million nuclear medicine examinations were performed. The United States accounts for about 12% of radiologic procedures and about one-half of nuclear medicine procedures performed worldwide. In the United States, the frequency of diagnostic radiologic examinations has increased almost 10-fold (1950-2006). The U.S. per-capita annual effective dose from medical procedures has increased about sixfold (0.5 mSv [1980] to 3.0 mSv [2006]). Worldwide estimates for 2000-2007 indicate that 3.6 billion medical procedures with ionizing radiation (3.1 billion diagnostic radiologic, 0.5 billion dental, and 37 million nuclear medicine examinations) are performed annually. Worldwide, the average annual per-capita effective dose from medicine (about 0.6 mSv of the total 3.0 mSv received from all sources) has approximately doubled in the past 10-15 years.

Anniversary paper: past and current issues, and trends in brachytherapy physics.

Brachytherapy began at the turn of the 20th century, contemporary with external-beam radiotherapy. Physicists and physicians together developed the field. There has not been a period since the beginning that has not witnessed innovations and progress in brachytherapy. At the time of this article, the pace of change in the field has never been more rapid, particularly in image-guided brachytherapy and the development of unconventional sources and treatment techniques.

Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. in 2006: preliminary results.

Medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population has not been systematically evaluated for almost 25 y. In 1982, the per capita dose was estimated to be 0.54 mSv and the collective dose 124,000 person-Sv. The preliminary estimates of the NCRP Scientific Committee 6-2 medical subgroup are that, in 2006, the per capita dose from medical exposure (not including dental or radiotherapy) had increased almost 600% to about 3.0 mSv and the collective dose had increased over 700% to about 900,000 person-Sv. The largest contributions and increases have come primarily from CT scanning and nuclear medicine. The 62 million CT procedures accounted for 15% of the total number procedures (excluding dental) and over half of the collective dose. Nuclear medicine accounted for about 4% of all procedures but 26% of the total collective dose. Medical radiation exposure is now approximately equal to natural background radiation.

Third-party brachytherapy source calibrations and physicist responsibilities: report of the AAPM Low Energy Brachytherapy Source Calibration Working Group.

The AAPM Low Energy Brachytherapy Source Calibration Working Group was formed to investigate and recommend quality control and quality assurance procedures for brachytherapy sources prior to clinical use. Compiling and clarifying recommendations established by previous AAPM Task Groups 40, 56, and 64 were among the working group's charges, which also included the role of third-party handlers to perform loading and assay of sources. This document presents the findings of the working group on the responsibilities of the institutional medical physicist and a clarification of the existing AAPM recommendations in the assay of brachytherapy sources. Responsibility for the performance and attestation of source assays rests with the institutional medical physicist, who must use calibration equipment appropriate for each source type used at the institution. Such equipment and calibration procedures shall ensure secondary traceability to a national standard. For each multi-source implant, 10% of the sources or ten sources, whichever is greater, are to be assayed. Procedures for presterilized source packaging are outlined. The mean source strength of the assayed sources must agree with the manufacturer's stated strength to within 3%, or action must be taken to resolve the difference. Third party assays do not absolve the institutional physicist from the responsibility to perform the institutional measurement and attest to the strength of the implanted sources. The AAPM leaves it to the discretion of the institutional medical physicist whether the manufacturer's or institutional physicist's measured value should be used in performing dosimetry calculations.

Nuclear medicine exposure in the United States, 2005-2007: preliminary results.

Medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population has not been systematically evaluated for almost 25 years. In 1982, the per-capita dose was estimated to be 0.54 mSv and the collective dose 124,000 person-Sv. The preliminary estimates of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Scientific Committee 6-2 medical subgroup are that, in 2006, the per-capita dose from all medical exposure (not including radiotherapy) had increased almost 600% to 3.0 mSv and the collective dose had increased more than 700% to approximately 900,000 person-Sv. >Nuclear medicine accounted for only about 2% of all procedures but 26% of the total collective dose from diagnostic studies in medicine. In 1982, the estimated number of nuclear medicine procedures was about 7.5 million. The per-capita effective dose from nuclear medicine was 0.14 mSv and the collective dose was 32,000 person Sv. By 2005, the estimated number of procedures had increased to about 19.6 million. The per-caput effective dose increased to about 0.75 mSv and the collective dose to about 220,000 person Sv. There also has been a marked shift in the type of procedures being performed with cardiac scanning accounting for about 70% of procedures.