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

The purpose of this guideline is to provide a list of critical performance tests 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. Current recommendations for linac QA were reviewed to determine any changes required to those tests highlighted by the original report as well as considering new components of the treatment process that have become common since its publication. Recommendations are made on the acquisition of reference data, routine establishment of machine isocenter, basing performance tests on clinical use of the linac, working with vendors to establish QA tests and performing tests after maintenance and upgrades. The recommended tests proposed in this guideline were chosen based on consensus of the guideline's committee after assessing necessary changes from the previous report. 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. 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.

AAPM Task Group 264: The safe clinical implementation of MLC tracking in radiotherapy.

The era of real-time radiotherapy is upon us. Robotic and gimbaled linac tracking are clinically established technologies with the clinical realization of couch tracking in development. Multileaf collimators (MLCs) are a standard equipment for most cancer radiotherapy systems, and therefore MLC tracking is a potentially widely available technology. MLC tracking has been the subject of theoretical and experimental research for decades and was first implemented for patient treatments in 2013. The AAPM Task Group 264 Safe Clinical Implementation of MLC Tracking in Radiotherapy Report was charged to proactively provide the broader radiation oncology community with (a) clinical implementation guidelines including hardware, software, and clinical indications for use, (b) commissioning and quality assurance recommendations based on early user experience, as well as guidelines on Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, and (c) a discussion of potential future developments. The deliverables from this report include: an explanation of MLC tracking and its historical development; terms and definitions relevant to MLC tracking; the clinical benefit of, clinical experience with and clinical implementation guidelines for MLC tracking; quality assurance guidelines, including example quality assurance worksheets; a clinical decision pathway, future outlook and overall recommendations.

AAPM-RSS Medical Physics Practice Guideline 9.a. for SRS-SBRT.

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 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 Professional Council 3-31-2017 and Executive Committee 4-4-2017.

Treatment planning methodology for the Miami Multichannel Applicator following the American Brachytherapy Society recently published guidelines: the Lahey Clinic experience.

The objective of this study was to develop a standardized procedure from simulation to treatment delivery for the multichannel Miami applicator, in order to increase planning consistency and reduce errors. A plan is generated prior to the 1st treatment using the CT images acquired with the applicator in place, and used for all 3 fractions. To confirm the application placement before each treatment fraction, an AP image is acquired and compared with the AP baseline image taken at simulation. A preplanning table is generated using the EBRT doses and is used to compute the maximum allowable D2cc for bladder, rectum, and sigmoid, and the mean allowable dose for the upper vaginal wall per HDR brachytherapy fraction. These data are used to establish the criteria for treatment planning dose optimization. A step-by-step treatment planning approach was developed to ensure appropriate coverage for the tumor (D90 > 100% prescribed dose of 700 cGy/fraction) and the uninvolved vaginal surface (dose for the entire treatment length > 600 cGy/fraction), while keeping the organs at risk below the tolerance doses. The equivalent dose 2 Gy (EQD2) tolerances for the critical structures are based on the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recently published guidelines. An independent second check is performed before the 1st treatment using an in-house Excel spreadsheet. This methodology was successfully applied for our first few cases. For these patients: the cumulative tumor dose was 74-79 EQD2 Gy10 (ABS recommended range 70-85); tumor D90 was >100% of prescribed dose (range 101%-105%); cumulative D2cc for bladder, rectum, and sigmoid were lower than the tolerances of 90, 75, and 75 EQD2 Gy3, respectively; cumulative upper vaginal wall mean dose was below the tolerance of 120 EQD2 Gy3; the second check agreement was within 5%. By using a standardized procedure the planning consistency was increased and all dosimetric criteria were met.

Retrospective review of Contura HDR breast cases to improve our standardized procedure.

To retrospectively review our first 20 Contura high dose rate breast cases to improve and refine our standardized procedure and checklists. We prepared in advance checklists for all steps, developed an in-house Excel spreadsheet for second checking the plan, and generated a procedure for efficient contouring and a set of optimization constraints to meet the dose volume histogram criteria. Templates were created in our treatment planning system for structures, isodose levels, optimization constraints, and plan report. This study reviews our first 20 high dose rate Contura breast treatment plans. We followed our standardized procedure for contouring, planning, and second checking. The established dose volume histogram criteria were successfully met for all plans. For the cases studied here, the balloon-skin and balloon-ribs distances ranged between 5 and 43 mm and 1 and 33 mm, respectively; air_seroma volume/PTV_Eval volume≤5.5% (allowed≤10%); asymmetry<1.2mm (goal≤2 mm); PTV_Eval V90%≥97.6%; PTV_Eval V95%≥94.9%; skin max dose≤98%Rx; ribs max dose≤137%Rx; V150%≤29.8 cc; V200%≤7.8 cc; the total dwell time range was 225.4 to 401.9 seconds; and the second check agreement was within 3%. Based on this analysis, more appropriate ranges for the total dwell time and balloon diameter tolerance were found. Three major problems were encountered: balloon migration toward the skin for small balloon-to-skin distances, lumen obstruction, and length change for the flexible balloon. Solutions were found for these issues and our standardized procedure and checklists were updated accordingly. Based on our review of these cases, the use of checklists resulted in consistent results, indicating good coverage for the target without sacrificing the critical structures. This review helped us to refine our standardized procedure and update our checklists.

Quality assurance methodology for Varian RapidArc treatment plans.

With the commercial introduction of the Varian RapidArc, a new modality for treatment planning and delivery, the need has arisen for consistent and efficient techniques for performing patient-specific quality assurance (QA) tests. In this paper we present our methodology for a RapidArc treatment plan QA procedure. For our measurements we used a 2D diode array (MapCHECK) embedded at 5 cm water equivalent depth in MapPHAN 5 phantom and an Exradin A16 ion chamber placed in six different positions in a cylindrical homogeneous phantom (QUASAR). We also checked the MUs for the RapidArc plans by using independent software (RadCalc). The agreement between Eclipse calculations and MapCHECK/MapPHAN5 measurements was evaluated using both absolute distance-to-agreement (DTA) and gamma index with 10% dose threshold (TH), 3% dose difference (DD), and 3 mm DTA. The average agreement was 94.4% for the DTA approach and 96.3% for the gamma index approach. In high-dose areas, the discrepancy between calculations and ion chamber measurements using the QUASAR phantom was within 4.5% for prostate cases. For the RadCalc calculations, we used the average SSD along the arc; however, for some patients the agreement for the MUs obtained with RadCalc versus Eclipse was inadequate (discrepancy > 5%). In these cases, the plan was divided into partial arc plans so that RadCalc could perform a better estimation of the MUs. The discrepancy was further reduced to within ~4% using this approach. Regardless of the variation in prescribed dose and location of the treated areas, we obtained very good results for all patients studied in this paper.