D Mihailidis

AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

PURPOSE: Patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are important components of processes designed to identify discrepancies between calculated and delivered radiation doses. Discrepancy tolerance limits are neither well defined nor consistently applied across centers. The AAPM TG-218 report provides a comprehensive review aimed at improving the understanding and consistency of these processes as well as recommendations for methodologies and tolerance limits in patient-specific IMRT QA. METHODS: The performance of the dose difference/distance-to-agreement (DTA) and γ dose distribution comparison metrics are investigated. Measurement methods are reviewed and followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each. Methodologies for absolute dose verification are discussed and new IMRT QA verification tools are presented. Literature on the expected or achievable agreement between measurements and calculations for different types of planning and delivery systems are reviewed and analyzed. Tests of vendor implementations of the γ verification algorithm employing benchmark cases are presented. RESULTS: Operational shortcomings that can reduce the γ tool accuracy and subsequent effectiveness for IMRT QA are described. Practical considerations including spatial resolution, normalization, dose threshold, and data interpretation are discussed. Published data on IMRT QA and the clinical experience of the group members are used to develop guidelines and recommendations on tolerance and action limits for IMRT QA. Steps to check failed IMRT QA plans are outlined. CONCLUSION: Recommendations on delivery methods, data interpretation, dose normalization, the use of γ analysis routines and choice of tolerance limits for IMRT QA are made with focus on detecting differences between calculated and measured doses via the use of robust analysis methods and an in-depth understanding of IMRT verification metrics. The recommendations are intended to improve the IMRT QA process and establish consistent, and comparable IMRT QA criteria among institutions.

Computed Tomography From Photon Statistics to Modern Cone-Beam CT Buzug Thorsten M. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany, 2008. 522 pp. (hardcover). Price: $109.00. ISBN: 9783540394075.

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.

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLD) are practical, accurate, and precise tools for point dosimetry in medical physics applications. The charges of Task Group 191 were to detail the methodologies for practical and optimal luminescence dosimetry in a clinical setting. This includes: (a) to review the variety of TLD/OSLD materials available, including features and limitations of each; (b) to outline the optimal steps to achieve accurate and precise dosimetry with luminescent detectors and to evaluate the uncertainty induced when less rigorous procedures are used; (c) to develop consensus guidelines on the optimal use of luminescent dosimeters for clinical practice; and (d) to develop guidelines for special medically relevant uses of TLDs/OSLDs such as mixed photon/neutron field dosimetry, particle beam dosimetry, and skin dosimetry. While this report provides general guidelines for TLD and OSLD processes, the report provides specific details for TLD‐100 and nanoDot TM dosimeters because of their prevalence in clinical practice.