Search

My term as the 40th President of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) began in January 1999. She raised the idea of encouraging participation by medical physicists on the CRCPD committees that develop model regulations (the Suggested State Regulations committees) to help their members understand new developments and anticipate future needs for regulatory guidance. I later learned that a large proportion of the letters (30%-40%) came from medical physicists, demonstrating the effectiveness of our campaign to educate our membership as well as the interest exhibited by medical physicists about the issue. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: To assess the image quality, scatter, and leakage radiation of an integrated magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MR‐LINAC or MRL) system. Methods: A large American College of Radiology (ACR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) accreditation phantom was used to evaluate the MRI capabilities of the integrated MRL system compared with those of other diagnostic MRI systems. Multiple sets of T1 and T2/PD images were acquired with the linear accelerator positioned at various angles and with the radiation beam on and off. Images also were acquired on three different occasions over a period of about 12 months. Scatter and leakage radiation were measured with a large (150 cm3) ion chamber recalibrated for MV energy. For scatter measurements, a 25‐cm stack of solid‐water materials was placed at the isocenter on the patient couch to simulate a patient. The head leakage was measured at 1 m from the linear accelerator head in directions determined to produce the maximum leakage. All measurements were repeated with the magnetic field turned off to study the effects of the magnetic field. Results: The geometric distortion, slice thickness accuracy, image uniformity, ghosting ratio, and high‐contrast detectability were comparable to other 1.5 T diagnostic MRI scanners. No observable changes in image quality and no appreciable differences were found between radiation beam‐on and beam‐off images. The measured leakage and scattered radiation changed by less than 5% when the magnetic field was on compared to measurements with the field off. The beam stopper leakage was approximately 0.3 R/1000 MU, and because there was no direct beam imparted on the walls, a vault designed for a modern‐day LINAC should have enough required radiation shielding to house the MRL. Conclusions: The image quality generated by the MRI system of the integrated MRL was similar to that of a diagnostic MRI scanner. Interference from the MV radiation was minimal, and there was no measurable difference in image quality with the beam on and off. Scatter radiation and leakage radiation of the MRL system were within the expected range of a comparable MV‐LINAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston ( IROC-H) (formerly the Radiological Physics Center) has reported varying levels of agreement in their anthropomorphic phantom audits. There is reason to believe one source of error in this observed disagreement is the accuracy of the dose calculation algorithms and heterogeneity corrections used. To audit this component of the radiotherapy treatment process, an independent dose calculation tool is needed. Methods Monte Carlo multiple source models for Elekta 6 MV and 10 MV therapeutic x-ray beams were commissioned based on measurement of central axis depth dose data for a 10 × 10 cm2 field size and dose profiles for a 40 × 40 cm2 field size. The models were validated against open field measurements consisting of depth dose data and dose profiles for field sizes ranging from 3 × 3 cm2 to 30 × 30 cm2. The models were then benchmarked against measurements in IROC-H's anthropomorphic head and neck and lung phantoms. Results Validation results showed 97.9% and 96.8% of depth dose data passed a ±2% Van Dyk criterion for 6 MV and 10 MV models respectively. Dose profile comparisons showed an average agreement using a ±2%/2 mm criterion of 98.0% and 99.0% for 6 MV and 10 MV models respectively. Phantom plan comparisons were evaluated using ±3%/2 mm gamma criterion, and averaged passing rates between Monte Carlo and measurements were 87.4% and 89.9% for 6 MV and 10 MV models respectively. Conclusions Accurate multiple source models for Elekta 6 MV and 10 MV x-ray beams have been developed for inclusion in an independent dose calculation tool for use in clinical trial audits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the publication of the 2004 update to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine ( AAPM) Task Group No. 43 Report ( TG-43U1) and its 2007 supplement ( TG-43U1S1), several new low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources have become available. Many of these sources have satisfied the AAPM prerequisites for routine clinical purposes and are posted on the Brachytherapy Source Registry managed jointly by the AAPM and the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center ( IROC Houston). Given increasingly closer interactions among physicists in North America and Europe, the AAPM and the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology ( GEC- ESTRO) have prepared another supplement containing recommended brachytherapy dosimetry parameters for eleven low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. The current report presents consensus datasets approved by the AAPM and GEC- ESTRO. The following sources are included: 125I sources ( BEBIG model I25.S17, BEBIG model I25.S17plus, BEBIG model I25.S18, Elekta model 130.002, Oncura model 9011, and Theragenics model AgX100); 103Pd sources (CivaTech Oncology model CS10, IBt model 1031L, IBt model 1032P, and IsoAid model IAPd-103A); and 131Cs (IsoRay Medical model CS-1 Rev2). Observations are included on the behavior of these dosimetry parameters as a function of radionuclide. Recommendations are presented on the selection of dosimetry parameters, such as from societal reports issuing consensus datasets (e.g., TG-43U1, AAPM Report #229), the joint AAPM/ IROC Houston Registry, the GEC- ESTRO website, the Carleton University website, and those included in software releases from vendors of treatment planning systems. Aspects such as timeliness, maintenance, and rigor of these resources are discussed. Links to reference data are provided for radionuclides (radiation spectra and half-lives) and dose scoring materials (compositions and mass densities). The recent literature is examined on photon energy response corrections for thermoluminescent dosimetry of low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. Depending upon the dosimetry parameters currently used by individual physicists, use of these recommended consensus datasets may result in changes to patient dose calculations. These changes must be carefully evaluated and reviewed with the radiation oncologist prior to their implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston ( IROC-H) Quality Assurance Center (formerly the Radiological Physics Center) has reported varying levels of compliance from their anthropomorphic phantom auditing program. IROC-H studies have suggested that one source of disagreement between institution submitted calculated doses and measurement is the accuracy of the institution's treatment planning system dose calculations and heterogeneity corrections used. In order to audit this step of the radiation therapy treatment process, an independent dose calculation tool is needed. Methods Monte Carlo multiple source models for Varian flattening filter free ( FFF) 6 MV and FFF 10 MV therapeutic x-ray beams were commissioned based on central axis depth dose data from a 10 × 10 cm2 field size and dose profiles for a 40 × 40 cm2 field size. The models were validated against open-field measurements in a water tank for field sizes ranging from 3 × 3 cm2 to 40 × 40 cm2. The models were then benchmarked against IROC-H's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom and lung phantom measurements. Results Validation results, assessed with a ±2%/2 mm gamma criterion, showed average agreement of 99.9% and 99.0% for central axis depth dose data for FFF 6 MV and FFF 10 MV models, respectively. Dose profile agreement using the same evaluation technique averaged 97.8% and 97.9% for the respective models. Phantom benchmarking comparisons were evaluated with a ±3%/2 mm gamma criterion, and agreement averaged 90.1% and 90.8% for the respective models. Conclusions Multiple source models for Varian FFF 6 MV and FFF 10 MV beams have been developed, validated, and benchmarked for inclusion in an independent dose calculation quality assurance tool for use in clinical trial audits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A dose calculation tool, which combines the accuracy of the dose planning method (DPM) Monte Carlo code and the versatility of a practical analytical multisource model, which was previously reported has been improved and validated for the Varian 6 and 10 MV linear accelerators (linacs). The calculation tool can be used to calculate doses in advanced clinical application studies. One shortcoming of current clinical trials that report dose from patient plans is the lack of a standardized dose calculation methodology. Because commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs) have their own dose calculation algorithms and the clinical trial participant who uses these systems is responsible for commissioning the beam model, variation exists in the reported calculated dose distributions. Today's modern linac is manufactured to tight specifications so that variability within a linac model is quite low. The expectation is that a single dose calculation tool for a specific linac model can be used to accurately recalculate dose from patient plans that have been submitted to the clinical trial community from any institution. The calculation tool would provide for a more meaningful outcome analysis. Methods: The analytical source model was described by a primary point source, a secondary extra-focal source, and a contaminant electron source. Off-axis energy softening and fluence effects were also included. The additions of hyperbolic functions have been incorporated into the model to correct for the changes in output and in electron contamination with field size. A multileaf collimator (MLC) model is included to facilitate phantom and patient dose calculations. An offset to the MLC leaf positions was used to correct for the rudimentary assumed primary point source. Results: Dose calculations of the depth dose and profiles for field sizes 4?4 to 40?40 cm agree with measurement within 2% of the maximum dose or 2 mm distance to agreement (DTA) for 95% of the data points tested. The model was capable of predicting the depth of the maximum dose within 1 mm. Anthropomorphic phantom benchmark testing of modulated and patterned MLCs treatment plans showed agreement to measurement within 3% in target regions using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). Using radiochromic film normalized to TLD, a gamma criteria of 3% of maximum dose and 2 mm DTA was applied with a pass rate of least 85% in the high dose, high gradient, and low dose regions. Finally, recalculations of patient plans using DPM showed good agreement relative to a commercial TPS when comparing dose volume histograms and 2D dose distributions. Conclusions: A unique analytical source model coupled to the dose planning method Monte Carlo dose calculation code has been modified and validated using basic beam data and anthropomorphic phantom measurement. While this tool can be applied in general use for a particular linac model, specifically it was developed to provide a singular methodology to independently assess treatment plan dose distributions from those clinical institutions participating in National Cancer Institute trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: For postimplant dosimetric assessment, computed tomography (CT) is commonly used to identify prostate brachytherapy seeds, at the expense of accurate anatomical contouring. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is superior to CT for anatomical delineation, but identification of the negative-contrast seeds is challenging. Positive-contrast MRI markers were proposed to replace spacers to assist seed localization on MRI images. Visualization of these markers under varying scan parameters was investigated. Methods: To simulate a clinical scenario, a prostate phantom was implanted with 66 markers and 86 seeds, and imaged on a 3.0T MRI scanner using a 3D fast radiofrequency-spoiled gradient recalled echo acquisition with various combinations of scan parameters. Scan parameters, including flip angle, number of excitations, bandwidth, field-of-view, slice thickness, and encoding steps were systematically varied to study their effects on signal, noise, scan time, image resolution, and artifacts. Results: The effects of pulse sequence parameter selection on the marker signal strength and image noise were characterized. The authors also examined the tradeoff between signal-to-noise ratio, scan time, and image artifacts, such as the wraparound artifact, susceptibility artifact, chemical shift artifact, and partial volume averaging artifact. Given reasonable scan time and managable artifacts, the authors recommended scan parameter combinations that can provide robust visualization of the MRI markers. Conclusions: The recommended MRI pulse sequence protocol allows for consistent visualization of the markers to assist seed localization, potentially enabling MRI-only prostate postimplant dosimetry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although a multicenter, Phase III, prospective, randomized trial is the gold standard for evidencebased medicine, it is rarely used in the evaluation of innovative devices because of many practical and ethical reasons. It is usually sufficient to compare the dose distributions and dose rates for determining the equivalence of the innovative treatment modality to an existing one. Thus, quantitative evaluation of the dosimetric characteristics of innovative radiotherapy devices or applications is a critical part in which physicists should be actively involved. The physicist's role, along with physician colleagues, in this process is highlighted for innovative brachytherapy devices and applications and includes evaluation of (1) dosimetric considerations for clinical implementation (including calibrations, dose calculations, and radiobiological aspects) to comply with existing societal dosimetric prerequisites for sources in routine clinical use, (2) risks and benefits from a regulatory and safety perspective, and (3) resource assessment and preparedness. Further, it is suggested that any developed calibration methods be traceable to a primary standards dosimetry laboratory (PSDL) such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the U.S. or to other PSDLs located elsewhere such as in Europe. Clinical users should follow standards as approved by their country's regulatory agencies that approved such a brachytherapy device. Integration of this system into the medical source calibration infrastructure of secondary standard dosimetry laboratories such as the Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratories in the U.S. is encouraged before a source is introduced into widespread routine clinical use. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine and the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) have developed guidelines for the safe and consistent application of brachytherapy using innovative devices and applications. The current report covers regulatory approvals, calibration, dose calculations, radiobiological issues, and overall safety concerns that should be addressed during the commissioning stage preceding clinical use. These guidelines are based on review of requirements of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Transportation, International Electrotechnical Commission Medical Electrical Equipment Standard 60601, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Commission for CE Marking (Conformité Européenne), and institutional review boards and radiation safety committees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) on dose calculations for high-energy (average energy higher than 50 keV) photon-emitting brachytherapy sources are presented, including the physical characteristics of specific 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co source models. Methods: This report has been prepared by the High Energy Brachytherapy Source Dosimetry (HEBD) Working Group. This report includes considerations in the application of the TG-43U1 formalism to high-energy photon-emitting sources with particular attention to phantom size effects, interpolation accuracy dependence on dose calculation grid size, and dosimetry parameter dependence on source active length. Results: Consensus datasets for commercially available high-energy photon sources are provided, along with recommended methods for evaluating these datasets. Recommendations on dosimetry characterization methods, mainly using experimental procedures and Monte Carlo, are established and discussed. Also included are methodological recommendations on detector choice, detector energy response characterization and phantom materials, and measurement specification methodology. Uncertainty analyses are discussed and recommendations for high-energy sources without consensus datasets are given. Conclusions: Recommended consensus datasets for high-energy sources have been derived for sources that were commercially available as of January 2010. Data are presented according to the AAPM TG-43U1 formalism, with modified interpolation and extrapolation techniques of the AAPM TG-43U1S1 report for the 2D anisotropy function and radial dose function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report on intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is part of a series of white papers addressing patient safety commissioned by the American Society for Radiation Oncology's (ASTRO) Target Safely Campaign. The document has been approved by the ASTRO Board of Directors, endorsed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD), and reviewed and accepted by the American College of Radiology's Commission on Radiation Oncology. This report is related to other reports of the ASTRO white paper series on patient safety which are still in preparation, and when appropriate it defers to guidance that will be published by those groups in future white papers. This document takes advantage of the large body of work on quality assurance and quality control principles within radiation oncology whenever possible. IMRT provides increased capability to conform isodose distributions to the shape of the target(s), thereby reducing dose to some adjacent critical structures. This promise of IMRT is one of the reasons for its widespread use. However, the promise of IMRT is counterbalanced by the complexity of the IMRT planning and delivery processes, and the associated risks, some of which have been demonstrated by the New York Times reports on serious accidents involving both IMRT and other radiation treatment modalities. This report provides an opportunity to broadly address safe delivery of IMRT, with a primary focus on recommendations for human error prevention and methods to reduce the occurrence of errors or machine malfunctions that can lead to catastrophic failures or errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Optically stimulated luminescent detectors (OSLDs) are quickly gaining popularity as passive dosimeters, with applications in medicine for linac output calibration verification, brachytherapy source verification, treatment plan quality assurance, and clinical dose measurements. With such wide applications, these dosimeters must be characterized for numerous factors affecting their response. The most abundant commercial OSLD is the InLight/OSL system from Landauer, Inc. The purpose of this study was to examine the angular dependence of the nanoDot dosimeter, which is part of the InLight system.Methods: Relative dosimeter response data were taken at several angles in 6 and 18 MV photon beams, as well as a clinical proton beam. These measurements were done within a phantom at a depth beyond the build-up region. To verify the observed angular dependence, additional measurements were conducted as well as Monte Carlo simulations in MCNPX.Results: When irradiated with the incident photon beams parallel to the plane of the dosimeter, the nanoDot response was 4% lower at 6 MV and 3% lower at 18 MV than the response when irradiated with the incident beam normal to the plane of the dosimeter. Monte Carlo simulations at 6 MV showed similar results to the experimental values. Examination of the results in Monte Carlo suggests the cause as partial volume irradiation. In a clinical proton beam, no angular dependence was found.Conclusions: A nontrivial angular response of this OSLD was observed in photon beams. This factor may need to be accounted for when evaluating doses from photon beams incident from a variety of directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of five commonly used intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning systems (TPSs), 3 using convolution superposition algorithms or the analytical anisotropic algorithm (CSA/AAAs) and 2 using pencil beam algorithms (PBAs), in calculating the absorbed dose within a low-density, heterogeneous region when compared with measurements made in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom. The dose predicted in the target center met the test criteria (5% of the dose normalization point or 3 mm distance to agreement) for all TPSs tested; however, at the tumor-lung interface and at the peripheral lung in the vicinity of the tumor, the CSA/AAAs performed better than the PBAs (85% and 50%, respectively, of pixels meeting the 5%/3-mm test criteria), and thus should be used to determine dose in heterogeneous regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiation therapy dose measurements are customarily performed in liquid water. The characterization of brachytherapy sources is, however, generally based on measurements made with thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs), for which contact with water may lead to erroneous readings. Consequently, most dosimetry parameters reported in the literature have been based on measurements in water-equivalent plastics, such as Solid Water™. These previous reports employed a correction factor to transfer the dose measurements from a plastic phantom to liquid water. The correction factor most often was based on Monte Carlo calculations. The process of measuring in a water-equivalent plastic phantom whose exact composition may be different from published specifications, then correcting the results to a water medium leads to increased uncertainty in the results. A system has been designed to enable measurements with TLDs in liquid water. This system, which includes jigs to support water-tight capsules of lithium fluoride in configurations suitable for measuring several dosimetric parameters, was used to determine the correction factor from water-equivalent plastic to water. Measurements of several 125I and 131Cs prostate brachytherapy sources in liquid water and in a Solid Water™ phantom demonstrated a correction factor of 1.039±0.005 at 1 cm distance. These measurements are in good agreement with a published value of this correction factor for an 125I source. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An accurate delivery of prescribed dose is essential to ensure the most successful outcome from advanced radiation treatments such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). An anthropomorphic phantom was designed and constructed to conduct a remote-audit program for IMRT treatments. The accuracy of the dosimetry in the phantom was assessed by comparing the results obtained from different detectors with those from Monte Carlo calculations. The developed phantom has a shape of a cylinder with one target and three organs at risk (OARs) inside the unit. The target and OARs were shaped similar to those of nasopharyngeal cancer patients, and manufactured for their identification during computed tomography imaging. The phantom was designed with thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) holders that were inserted inside the target and the OARs for the measurements of absolute dose. In addition, the phantom allowed measurements with ionization chambers placed at the TLD locations. As a result, an inter-comparison between the two types of dosimeters was possible. For the measurement of the relative dose distribution across the target and OARs, two film slots were orthogonally placed near the center of the phantom, which also enabled the insertion of inhomogeneities near the target. Measurements with TLDs, provided by Korea Food and Drug Administration and Radiological Physics Center, and measurements with an ionization chamber (IC) were performed in four cases. The first case was one anterior field of 6 MV x rays delivered to the phantom; the second case used the same anterior field, but with inhomogeneities inserted into the phantom. The third case was three fields of 6 MV beams at an equi-gantry angle for the homogeneous phantom, and the fourth case was IMRT delivery to the phantom without inhomogeneities. For each case, measurements with both TLDs and IC were performed. For cases 1–3, theoretical predictions were obtained by using the Monte Carlo (MC) codes (BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc6.0). The TLD measurements were larger than the IC readings by 2.2% (1.3–2.5%), 2.2% (1.2–2.9%), and 2.1% (0–3.3%) on average for case 1, case 2 and case 3, respectively. The average deviation between TLDs and MC results was 0.97% (-0.13–2.07%) for the first case, 1.27% (0.34–2.18%) for the second case, and 1.13% (0.31–1.94%) for the third case. The IC reading was less than the MC results; the average deviations were -1.2% (-2.44–-0.43%), -0.96% (-1.74–-0.54%) and -0.94% (-1.53–0.27%) for the first, second, and third cases, respectively. For the IMRT case, the average deviation between IC readings and TLD measurements was 0.5% (-7.0–3.9%). In conclusion, the TLD measurements in the developed phantom agreed with IC and MC results with less than 3% of an average difference. The developed phantom with TLD dosimeters should be useful for remote monitoring of IMRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent initiatives of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) in the area of maintenance of certification (MOC) have been reflective of the response of the medical community to address public concerns regarding quality of care, medical error reduction, and patient safety. In March 2000, the 24 member boards of the ABMS representing all medical subspecialties in the USA agreed to initiate specialty-specific maintenance of certification (MOC) programs. The American Board of Radiology (ABR) MOC program for diagnostic radiology, radiation oncology, and radiologic physics has been developed, approved by the ABMS, and initiated with full implementation for all three disciplines beginning in 2007. The overriding objective of MOC is to improve the quality of health care through diplomate-initiated learning and quality improvement. The four component parts to the MOC process are: Part I: Professional standing, Part II: Evidence of life long learning and periodic self-assessment, Part III: Cognitive expertise, and Part IV: Evaluation of performance in practice (with the latter being the focus of this paper). The key components of Part IV require a physicist-based response to demonstrate commitment to practice quality improvement (PQI) and progress in continuing individual competence in practice. Diplomates of radiologic physics must select a project to be completed over the ten-year cycle that potentially can improve the quality of the diplomate’s individual or systems practice and enhance the quality of care. Five categories have been created from which an individual radiologic physics diplomate can select one required PQI project: (1) Safety for patients, employees, and the public, (2) accuracy of analyses and calculations, (3) report turnaround time and communication issues, (4) practice guidelines and technical standards, and (5) surveys (including peer review of self-assessment reports). Each diplomate may select a project appropriate for an individual, participate in a project within a clinical department, participate in a peer review of a self-assessment report, or choose a qualified national project sponsored by a society. Once a project has been selected, the steps are: (1) Collect baseline data relevant to the chosen project, (2) review and analyze the data, (3) create and implement an improvement plan, (4) remeasure and track, and (5) report participation to the ABR, using the template provided by the ABR. These steps begin in Year 2, following training in Year 1. Specific examples of individual PQI projects for each of the three disciplines of radiologic physics are provided. Now, through the MOC programs, the relationship between the radiologic physicist and the ABR will be continuous through the diplomate’s professional career. The ABR is committed to providing an effective infrastructure that will promote and assist the process of continuing professional development including the enhancement of practice quality improvement for radiologic physicists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) developed two heterogeneous anthropomorphic quality assurance phantoms for use in verifying the accuracy of radiation delivery: one for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to the pelvis and the other for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to the thorax. The purpose of this study was to describe the design and development of these two phantoms and to demonstrate the reproducibility of measurements generated with them. The phantoms were built to simulate actual patient anatomy. They are lightweight and water-fillable, and they contain imageable targets and organs at risk of radiation exposure that are of similar densities to their human counterparts. Dosimetry inserts accommodate radiochromic film for relative dosimetry and thermoluminesent dosimetry capsules for absolute dosimetry. As a part of the commissioning process, each phantom was imaged, treatment plans were developed, and radiation was delivered at least three times. Under these controlled irradiation conditions, the reproducibility of dose delivery to the target TLD in the pelvis and thorax phantoms was 3% and 0.5%, respectively. The reproducibility of radiation-field localization was less than 2.5 mm for both phantoms. Using these anthropomorphic phantoms, pelvic IMRT and thoracic SBRT radiation treatments can be verified with a high level of precision. These phantoms can be used to effectively credential institutions for participation in specific NCI-sponsored clinical trials [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since publication of the 2004 update to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 Report (TG-43U1), several new low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources have become available. Many of these sources have satisfied the AAPM prerequisites for routine clinical use as of January 10, 2005, and are posted on the Joint AAPM/RPC Brachytherapy Seed Registry. Consequently, the AAPM has prepared this supplement to the 2004 AAPM TG-43 update. This paper presents the AAPM-approved consensus datasets for these sources, and includes the following 125I sources: Amersham model 6733, Draximage model LS-1, Implant Sciences model 3500, IBt model 1251L, IsoAid model IAI-125A, Mentor model SL-125/SH-125, and SourceTech Medical model STM1251. The Best Medical model 2335 103Pd source is also included. While the methodology used to determine these data sets is identical to that published in the AAPM TG-43U1 report, additional information and discussion are presented here on some questions that arose since the publication of the TG-43U1 report. Specifically, details of interpolation and extrapolation methods are described further, new methodologies are recommended, and example calculations are provided. Despite these changes, additions, and clarifications, the overall methodology, the procedures for developing consensus data sets, and the dose calculation formalism largely remain the same as in the TG-43U1 report. Thus, the AAPM recommends that the consensus data sets and resultant source-specific dose-rate distributions included in this supplement be adopted by all end users for clinical treatment planning of low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. Adoption of these recommendations may result in changes to patient dose calculations, and these changes should be carefully evaluated and reviewed with the radiation oncologist prior to implementation of the current protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the advent of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the inclusion of heterogeneity corrections is further complicated by the conformal delivery of many small beams forming steep dose gradients. Radiation treatment planning has evolved to take into account even small changes in tissue density so that the dose to tumor can be further optimized. However, different treatment planning systems incorporate different heterogeneity correction algorithms, and it is unclear whether any of these algorithms are superior to others in terms of accurately predicting delivered radiation doses relative to measurement in a clinical setting. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of heterogeneity dose calculations from two widely used IMRT treatment planning systems (Pinnacle and Corvus) against measurement. These two systems handle heterogeneity dose corrections by means of a collapsed-cone convolution superposition algorithm and a finite-size pencil-beam algorithm with one-dimensional depth scaling correction, respectively. Treatment plans were generated by each system using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom, routine clinical lung tumor constraints, and a common prescribed dose. Dose measurements made by thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs) and radiochromic film positioned within the phantom’s lung and offset tumor insert were then compared with the calculated values. The collapsed cone convolution superposition dose calculation algorithm provided clinically acceptable results (±5% of the normalization dose or 3 mm distance to agreement) in the designed treatment plan and delivery. The pencil-beam algorithm with an effective pathlength correction showed reasonable agreement within the gross tumor volume, overestimated dose within a majority of the planning target volume, and underestimated the extent of the penumbral broadening, yielding only about 60% accuracy when judged by the above criterion. Even judged by a more generous criterion (±7%/7 mm), the results were clinically unfavorable (at only about 80% accuracy). To ascertain the dose in heterogeneous regions such as the tumor-lung interface and the peripheral lung dose near the tumor, the superposition convolution algorithm that accounts for lateral scatter and electron transport should be used. The use of the pencil-beam algorithm with only an effective pathlength correction may result in the dose to the target being overestimated. As a result, a full understanding of any treatment planning system’s heterogeneity algorithm is required prior to clinical implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO) on the dosimetric parameters to be characterized, and dosimetric studies to be performed to obtain them, for brachytherapy sources with average energy higher than 50 keV that are intended for routine clinical use. In addition, this document makes recommendations on procedures to be used to maintain vendor source strength calibration accuracy. These recommendations reflect the guidance of the AAPM and the ESTRO for its members, and may also be used as guidance to vendors and regulatory agencies in developing good manufacturing practices for sources used in routine clinical treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To measure the diffusion coefficient of albumin through rabbit mesentery using the steady-state flux of radioactive tracer [SUP125]I-albumin. The effect of albumin concentration and testicular hyaluronidase were also studied. Methods: Mesenteric tissue was bonded between two plates, exposing a 7 mm diameter surface, with two chambers on either side. One chamber was filled with a test solution of albumin containing the radioactive tracer and the other with lactated Ringer solution. The solutions in both chambers were stirred with small magnetic cylinders. The chamber filled with lactated Ringer solution was placed in a well-type NaI(Tl) detector, and the radiation emitted from the tracer that diffused across the mesentery was monitored continuously for 9 hours. The diffusion coefficient (D) was calculated using Fick's law of diffusion. The diffusion coefficient was measured at albumin concentration differences (ΔC) between ∼0 and 10 g/dL. The diffusion coefficient was also measured with testicular hyaluronidase at three different albumin-concentration differences. Results: The diffusion coefficient increased significantly (P < 0.0001) ∼ threefold from a mean value of 2.2 × 10[SUP-8] ± 1.2 × 10[SUP-8] (SD) cm[SUP2]/s at 0-0.5 g/dL ΔC to 5.9 × 10[SUP-8] ± 1.1 × 10[SUP-8] (SD) cm[SUP2]/s at 10 g/dL ΔC. The values are much less than the free diffusion coefficient of albumin (6 × 10[SUP-7] cm[SUP2]/s). Testicular hyaluronidase added to the albumin solution decreased D by ∼ 60%, but did not eliminate the increase in D with ΔC. Conclusions: The increase in D with ΔC and the reduced D with hyaluronidase were attributed to a reduced albumin-excluded volume caused by an interaction between albumin and hyaluronan. Further studies are required to define this interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by Ali S. Meigooni, Larry A. DeWerd, and Mark J. Rivard to a letter to the editor about their article "The need for a dose calibration protocol for brachytherapy sources" in the 2006 issue is presented.

A correction to the article "Supplement to the 2004 Update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report," by Wayne M. Butler and colleagues that was published in the April 30, 2010 issue is presented.

A correction to the article "Technical note: Heterogeneity dose calculation accuracy in IMRT: Study of five commercial treatment planning systems using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom," that was published in a previous issue of the journal is presented.