AAPM Task Group Report Research Articles

AAPM task group report 135.B: Quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery.

AAPM Task Group Report 135.B covers new technology components that have been added to an established radiosurgery platform and updates the components that were not well covered in the previous report. Considering the current state of the platform, this task group (TG) is a combination of a foundational task group to establish the basis for new processes/technology and an educational task group updating guidelines on the established components of the platform. Because the technology discussed in this document has a relatively small user base compared to C-arm isocentric linacs, the authors chose to emphasize the educational components to assist medical physicists who are new to the technology and have not had the opportunity to receive in-depth vendor training at the time of reading this report. The TG has developed codes of practice, introduced QA, and developed guidelines which are generally expected to become enduring practice. This report makes prescriptive recommendations as there has not been enough longitudinal experience with some of the new technical components to develop a data-based risk analysis.

AAPM Task Group Report 299: Quality control in multi-energy computed tomography.

Multi-energy computed tomography (MECT) offers the opportunity for advanced visualization, detection, and quantification of select elements (e.g., iodine) or materials (e.g., fat) beyond the capability of standard single-energy computed tomography (CT). However, the use of MECT requires careful consideration as substantially different hardware and software approaches have been used by manufacturers, including different sets of user-selected or hidden parameters that affect the performance and radiation dose of MECT. Another important consideration when designing MECT protocols is appreciation of the specific tasks being performed; for instance, differentiating between two different materials or quantifying a specific element. For a given task, it is imperative to consider both the radiation dose and task-specific image quality requirements. Development of a quality control (QC) program is essential to ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of these MECT applications. Although standard QC procedures have been well established for conventional single-energy CT, the substantial differences between single-energy CT and MECT in terms of system implementations, imaging protocols, and clinical tasks warrant QC tests specific to MECT. This task group was therefore charged with developing a systematic QC program designed to meet the needs of MECT applications. In this report, we review the various MECT approaches that are commercially available, including information about hardware implementation, MECT image types, image reconstruction, and postprocessing techniques that are unique to MECT. We address the requirements for MECT phantoms, review representative commercial MECT phantoms, and offer guidance regarding homemade MECT phantoms. We discuss the development of MECT protocols, which must be designed carefully with proper consideration of MECT technology, imaging task, and radiation dose. We then outline specific recommended QC tests in terms of general image quality, radiation dose, differentiation and quantification tasks, and diagnostic and therapeutic applications.

AAPM Task Group Report 325: MRI static magnetic field homogeneity measurement and evaluation procedures - Guidance and resources.

Measurement of static magnetic field (B0) homogeneity is an essential component of routine MRI system evaluation. This report summarizes the work of AAPM Task Group (TG) 325 on vendor-specific methods of B0 homogeneity measurement and evaluation. TG 325 was charged with producing a set of detailed, step-by-step instructions to implement B0 homogeneity measurement methods discussed in the American College of Radiology (ACR) MRI Quality Control Manual using specific makes and models of MRI scanners. The TG produced such instructions for as many approaches as was relevant and practical on six currently available vendor platforms including details of software/tools, settings, phantoms, and other experimental details needed for a reproducible protocol. Because edits to these instructions may need to be made as vendors enter and exit the market and change available tools, interfaces, and access levels over time, the step-by-step instructions are published as a living document on the AAPM website. This summary document provides an introduction to B0 homogeneity testing in MRI and several of the common methods for its measurement and evaluation. A living document on the AAPM website provides vendor-specific step-by-step instructions for performing these tests to facilitate accurate and reproducible B0 homogeneity evaluation on a routine basis.

AAPM task group report 288: Recommendations for guiding radiotherapy event narratives.

Incident reporting and learning systems provide an opportunity to identify systemic vulnerabilities that contribute to incidents and potentially degrade quality. The narrative of an incident is intended to provide a clear, easy to understand description of an incident. Unclear, incomplete or poorly organized narratives compromise the ability to learn from them. This report provides guidance for drafting effective narratives, with particular attention to the use of narratives in incident reporting and learning systems (IRLS). Examples are given that compare effective and less than effective narratives. This report is mostly directed to organizations that maintain IRLS, but also may be helpful for individuals who desire to write a useful narrative for entry into such a system. Recommendations include the following: (1) Systems should allow a one- or two-sentence, free-text synopsis of an incident without guessing at causes; (2) Information included should form a sequence of events with chronology; and (3) Reporting and learning systems should consider using the headings suggested to guide the reporter through the narrative: (a) incident occurrences and actions by role; (b) prior circumstances and actions; (c) method by which the incident was identified; (d) equipment related details if relevant; (e) recovery actions by role; (f) relevant time span between responses; (g) and how individuals affected during or immediately after incident. When possible and appropriate, supplementary information including relevant data elements should be included using numerical scales or drop-down choices outside of the narrative. Information that should not be included in the narrative includes: (a) patient health information (PHI); (b) conjecture or blame; (c) jargon abbreviations or details without specifying their significance; (d) causal analysis.

Characterization of positional accuracy of MLC using an ionization chamber array

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to characterize the positional accuracy of the multileaf collimator (MLC) using an ionization chamber array and develop an MLC quality assurance (QA) method. MethodsHalf of the volume for each ionization chamber located at the lower layer of the device was occluded by a specific leaf using the half-beam block (HBB) method, and the corresponding ionization chamber response was used as a baseline for the subsequent MLC QA study. The sensitivity of the method was assessed by introducing known leaf positional errors, varying from 0.5 to 2.5 mm in 0.5 mm increments in the positive and negative directions, into the baseline. The relative outputs of the detectors were linearly corrected according to the leaf position error recorded. The relationship between detector response variation relative to the baseline and the introduced leaf error was determined by function. The usefulness of the MLC QA technique developed in this study was verified weekly over 5 months. ResultsDuring the development of the algorithm, the maximum leaf absolute random position error was 0.3 mm. A strong linear relationship was observed between the relative output of the detector and the MLC positional error introduced, and the slope and coefficient of determination were −0.05159 and 0.99928, respectively. The mean MLC positional accuracy across all leaves for the error field and HBB baseline field over the 5-month assessment was 0.0649 ± 0.1340 mm and 0.0002± 0.0835 mm, respectively. ConclusionsThe automated MLC QA procedure we proposed has proven to be effective and robust, and satisfies the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group Report 198 guideline criteria of ± 1 mm.

AAPM Task Group Report 261: Comprehensive quality control methodology and management of dental and maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems.

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems specifically designed and manufactured for dental, maxillofacial imaging (MFI) and otolaryngology (OLR) applications have been commercially available in the United States since 2001 and have been in widespread clinical use since. Until recently, there has been a lack of professional guidance available for medical physicists about how to assess and evaluate the performance of these systems and about the establishment and management of quality control (QC) programs. The owners and users of dental CBCT systems may have only a rudimentary understanding of this technology, including how it differs from conventional multidetector CT (MDCT) in terms of acceptable radiation safety practices. Dental CBCT systems differ from MDCT in several ways and these differences are described. This report provides guidance to medical physicists and serves as a basis for stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding how to manage and develop a QC program for dental CBCT systems. It is important that a medical physicist with experience in dental CBCT serves as a resource on this technology and the associated radiation protection best practices. The medical physicist should be involved at the pre-installation stage to ensure that a CBCT room configuration allows for a safe and efficient workflow and that structural shielding, if needed, is designed into the architectural plans. Acceptance testing of new installations should include assessment of mechanical alignment of patient positioning lasers and x-ray beam collimation and benchmarking of essential image quality performance parameters such as image uniformity, noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), spatial resolution, and artifacts. Several approaches for quantifying radiation output from these systems are described, including simply measuring the incident air-kerma (Kair) at the entrance surface of the image receptor. These measurements are to be repeated at least annually as part of routine QC by the medical physicist. QC programs for dental CBCT, at least in the United States, are often driven by state regulations, accreditation program requirements, or manufacturer recommendations.

AAPM Task Group Report 311: Guidance for performance evaluation of fluorescence-guided surgery systems.

The last decade has seen a large growth in fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) imaging and interventions. With the increasing number of clinical specialties implementing FGS, the range of systems with radically different physical designs, image processing approaches, and performance requirements is expanding. This variety of systems makes it nearly impossible to specify uniform performance goals, yet at the same time, utilization of different devices in new clinical procedures and trials indicates some need for common knowledge bases and a quality assessment paradigm to ensure that effective translation and use occurs. It is feasible to identify key fundamental image quality characteristics and corresponding objective test methods that should be determined such that there are consistent conventions across a variety of FGS devices. This report outlines test methods, tissue simulating phantoms and suggested guidelines, as well as personnel needs and professional knowledge bases that can be established. This report frames the issues with guidance and feedback from related societies and agencies having vested interest in the outcome, coming from an independent scientific group formed from academics and international federal agencies for the establishment of these professional guidelines.

Size Specific Dose Estimate in Abdominal Computed Tomography by AAPM TG Report-204 and AAPM TG Report-220

Purpose: The AAPM Task Group (TG) reports 204 and 220 presented methods for evaluation of patient dose by announcing the SSDE. The TG reports provide the Size Specific Conversion factors that can be multiplied to CTDIvol to calculate the patient dose in terms of SSDE constructed from Deff (AAPM TG-204) and Dw (AAPM TG-220). Our study presents a comparison of the two TG reports on SSDE for the routine Abdominal Computed Tomography. Materials and Methods: The scan lengths of abdomen were measured from computed tomography (CT) topographic images and cross-section at the mid-slice of the abdomen were measured from tomographic images of 61 adults who had undergone abdominal CT using the GE Advance Workstation (AWS) software. The Deff and Dw was computed according to TG- 204 and TG-220 reports, respectively. Further, we performed the correlation analysis between Deff and BMI, Dw and BMI and SSDE and BMI for both the TG- reports. The Student’s paired t-test was performed to compare the two of SSDE calculation methods. Results: The results confirm that the mean value of SSDE is 13.04 (𝑚𝐺𝑦) and 13.60 (𝑚𝐺𝑦) for AAPM TG-220 and AAPM TG-204, respectively. And a good positive correlation was observed between Deff and BMI, Dw and BMI with r = 0.67 and r = 0.68 respectively. Also, the weak correlation was observed between SSDE and BMI for both the TG - reports. The Student’s paired t-test shows that the two means of SSDE calculation methods are significantly different (𝑝< 0.01) in abdominal computed tomography. Conclusion: We confirm the AAPM TG reports 204/220 using clinical data for SSDE calculation that the mean SSDE values computed from Deff and Dw in abdomenal computed tomography are significantly different and we conclude that the SSDE calculated by Dw method gives a more accurate evaluation of SSDE for the patients undergoing abdominal computed tomography scan then the SSDE calculated by Deff method.

AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor-neutral reject analysis in radiography.

Reject rate analysis is considered an integral part of a diagnostic radiography quality control (QC) program.A rejected image is a patient radiograph that was not presented to a radiologist for diagnosis and that contributes unnecessary radiation dose to the patient.Reject rates that are either too high or too low may suggest systemic department shortcomings in QC mechanisms. Due to the lack of standardization, reject data often cannot be easily compared between radiographysystems from different vendors.The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to help standardize data elements that are required for comprehensive reject analysis and to propose data reporting and workflows to enable an effective and comprehensive reject rate monitoring program. Essential data elements, a proposed schema for classifying reject reasons, and workflow implementation options are recommended in this task group report.

AAPM task group report 275.S: Survey strategy and results on plan review and chart check practices in US and Canada.

AAPM Task Group (TG) 275 was charged with developing practical, evidence-based recommendations for physics plan and chart review clinical processes for radiation therapy. As part of this charge, and to characterize practices and clinical processes, a survey of the medical physics community was developed and conducted. Detailed analyses and trends based on the survey that exceeded TG report length constraints are presented herein. The design, development, and detailed results of the TG- 275 survey as well as statistical analysis and trends are described in detail. This is complementary material to the TG 275 report. The survey consisted of 100 multiple-choice questions divided into four main sections: 1) Demographics, 2) Initial Plan Check, 3) On-Treatment, and 4) End-of-Treatment Chart Check. The survey was released to all AAPM members who self-reported working in the radiation oncology field, and it was kept open for 7weeks. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. To study practice differences, tests of association were performed using data grouped by four demographic questions: 1) Institution Type, 2) Average number of patients treated daily, 3) Radiation Oncology Electronic Medical Record, and 4) Perceived Culture of Safety. The survey captured 1370 non-duplicate entries from the United States and Canada. Differences across practices were grouped and presented based on Process-Based and Check-Specific questions. A risk-based summary was created to show differences amongst the four demographic questions for checks associated with the highest risk failure modes identified by TG-275. The TG-275 survey captured a baseline of practices on initial plan, on-treatment, and end-of-treatment checks across a wide variety of clinics and institutions. The results of test of association showed practice heterogeneities as a function of demographic characteristics. Survey data were successfully used to inform TG-275 recommendations.

AAPM Task Group Report 238: 3D C-arms with volumetric imaging capability.

This report reviews the image acquisition and reconstruction characteristics of C-arm Cone Beam Computed Tomography (C-arm CBCT) systems and provides guidance on quality control of C-arm systems with this volumetric imaging capability.The concepts of 3D image reconstruction, geometric calibration, image quality, and dosimetry covered in this report are also pertinent to CBCT for Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT). However, IGRT systems introduce a number of additional considerations, such as geometric alignment of the imaging at treatment isocenter, which are beyond the scope of the charge to the task group and the report. Section 1 provides an introduction to C-arm CBCT systems and reviews a variety of clinical applications. Section 2 briefly presents nomenclature specific or unique to these systems. A short review of C-arm fluoroscopy quality control (QC) in relation to 3D C-arm imaging is given in Section 3.Section 4 discusses system calibration, including geometric calibration and uniformity calibration.A review of the unique approaches and challenges to 3D reconstruction of data sets acquired by C-arm CBCT systems is give in Section 5. Sections 6 and 7 go in greater depth to address the performance assessment of C-arm CBCT units. First, Section 6 describes testing approaches and phantoms that may be used to evaluate image quality (spatial resolution and image noise and artifacts) and identifies several factors that affect image quality.Section 7 describes both free-in-air and in-phantom approaches to evaluating radiation dose indices. The methodologies described for assessing image quality and radiation dose may be used for annual constancy assessment and comparisons among different systems to help medical physicists determine when a system is not operating as expected. Baseline measurements taken either at installation or after a full preventative maintenance service call can also provide valuable data to help determine whether the performance of the system is acceptable. Collecting image quality and radiation dose data on existing phantoms used for CT image quality and radiation dose assessment, or on newly developed phantoms, will inform the development of performance criteria and standards. Phantom images are also useful for identifying and evaluating artifacts. In particular, comparing baseline data with those from current phantom images can reveal the need for system calibration before image artifacts are detected in clinical practice. Examples of artifacts are provided in Sections 4, 5, and 6.

AAPM Task Group Report 306: Quality control and assurance for tomotherapy: An update to Task Group Report 148.

Since the publication of AAPM Task Group (TG) 148 on quality assurance (QA) for helical tomotherapy, there have been many new developments on the tomotherapy platform involving treatment delivery, on-board imaging options, motion management, and treatment planning systems (TPSs). In response to a need for guidance on quality control (QC) and QA for these technologies, the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee commissioned TG 306 to review these changes and make recommendations related to these technology updates. The specific objectives of this TG were (1) to update, as needed, recommendations on tolerance limits, frequencies and QC/QA testing methodology in TG 148, (2) address the commissioning and necessary QA checks, as a supplement to Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPG) with respect to tomotherapy TPS and (3) to provide risk-based recommendations on the new technology implemented clinically and treatment delivery workflow. Detailed recommendations on QA tests and their tolerance levels are provided for dynamic jaws, binary multileaf collimators, and Synchrony motion management. A subset of TPS commissioning and QA checks in MPPG 5.a. applicable to tomotherapy are recommended. In addition, failure mode and effects analysis has been conducted among TG members to obtain multi-institutional analysis on tomotherapy-related failure modes and their effect ranking.

AAPM task group report 303 endorsed by the ABS: MRI implementation in HDR brachytherapy-Considerations from simulation to treatment.

The task group (TG) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) implementation in high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT)-Considerations from simulation to treatment, TG 303, was constituted by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine's (AAPM's) Science Council under the direction of the Therapy Physics Committee, the Brachytherapy Subcommittee, and the Working Group on Brachytherapy Clinical Applications. The TG was charged with developing recommendations for commissioning, clinical implementation, and on-going quality assurance (QA). Additionally, the TG was charged with describing HDR BT workflows and evaluating practical consideration that arise when implementing MR imaging. For brevity, the report is focused on the treatment of gynecologic and prostate cancer. The TG report provides an introduction and rationale for MRI implementation in BT, a review of previous publications on topics including available applicators, clinical trials, previously published BT-related TG reports, and new image-guided recommendations beyond CT-based practices. The report describes MRI protocols and methodologies, including recommendations for the clinical implementation and logical considerations for MR imaging for HDR BT. Given the evolution from prescriptive to risk-based QA, an example of a risk-based analysis using MRI-based, prostate HDR BT is presented. In summary, the TG report is intended to provide clear and comprehensive guidelines and recommendations for commissioning, clinical implementation, and QA for MRI-based HDR BT that may be utilized by the medical physics community to streamline this process. This report is endorsed by the American Brachytherapy Society.

AAPM task group report 302: Surface-guided radiotherapy.

The clinical use of surface imaging has increased dramatically, with demonstrated utility for initial patient positioning, real‐time motion monitoring, and beam gating in a variety of anatomical sites. The Therapy Physics Subcommittee and the Imaging for Treatment Verification Working Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine commissioned Task Group 302 to review the current clinical uses of surface imaging and emerging clinical applications. The specific charge of this task group was to provide technical guidelines for clinical indications of use for general positioning, breast deep‐inspiration breath hold treatment, and frameless stereotactic radiosurgery. Additionally, the task group was charged with providing commissioning and on‐going quality assurance (QA) requirements for surface‐guided radiation therapy (SGRT) as part of a comprehensive QA program including risk assessment. Workflow considerations for other anatomic sites and for computed tomography simulation, including motion management, are also discussed. Finally, developing clinical applications, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or proton radiotherapy, are presented. The recommendations made in this report, which are summarized at the end of the report, are applicable to all video‐based SGRT systems available at the time of writing.

AAPM Task Group Report 290: Respiratory motion management for particle therapy.

Dose uncertainty induced by respiratory motion remains a major concern for treating thoracic and abdominal lesions using particle beams. This Task Group report reviews the impact of tumor motion and dosimetric considerations in particle radiotherapy, current motion‐management techniques, and limitations for different particle‐beam delivery modes (i.e., passive scattering, uniform scanning, and pencil‐beam scanning). Furthermore, the report provides guidance and risk analysis for quality assurance of the motion‐management procedures to ensure consistency and accuracy, and discusses future development and emerging motion‐management strategies. This report supplements previously published AAPM report TG76, and considers aspects of motion management that are crucial to the accurate and safe delivery of particle‐beam therapy. To that end, this report produces general recommendations for commissioning and facility‐specific dosimetric characterization, motion assessment, treatment planning, active and passive motion‐management techniques, image guidance and related decision‐making, monitoring throughout therapy, and recommendations for vendors. Key among these recommendations are that: (1) facilities should perform thorough planning studies (using retrospective data) and develop standard operating procedures that address all aspects of therapy for any treatment site involving respiratory motion; (2) a risk‐based methodology should be adopted for quality management and ongoing process improvement.

AAPM Task Group Report 272: Comprehensive acceptance testing and evaluation of fluoroscopy imaging systems

Modern fluoroscopes used for image guidance have become quite complex. Adding to this complexity are the many regulatory and accreditation requirements that must be fulfilled during acceptance testing of a new unit. Further, some of these acceptance tests have pass/fail criteria, whereas others do not, making acceptance testing a subjective and time-consuming task. The AAPM Task Group 272 Report spells out the details of tests that are required and gives visibility to some of the tests that while not yet required are recommended as good practice. The organization of the report begins with the most complicated fluoroscopes used in interventional radiology or cardiology and continues with general fluoroscopy and mobile C-arms. Finally, the appendices of the report provide useful information, an example report form and topics that needed their own section due to the level of detail.

Commissioning and routine quality assurance of the Radixact Synchrony system

The Radixact Synchrony system allows for target motion correction when tracking either fiducials in/around the target or a dense lesion in the lung. As such evaluation testing and quality assurance (QA) tests are required. To allow for QA procedures to be performed with a range of available phantoms evaluation of the dosimetric delivery accuracy was performed for a range of motions, phantoms, and motion platforms. A Computerized Imaging Reference Systems, Incorporated (CIRS) 1D motion platform and Accuray Tomotherapy "Cheese" phantom was utilized to perform absolute dose and GafChromic EBT3 film measurements. A HexaMotion platform and Delta4 phantom were utilized to quantify the effects of 1D and 3D motions. Inter-device comparison was performed with the ArcCHECK and Delta4 phantoms and GafChromic EBT3 film, five patient plans were delivered to each phantom when static and with two different motion types both with and without Synchrony motion correction. A range of QA tests are described. A phantom was designed to allow for daily verification of system functionality. This test allows for the detection of either fiducials or a dense silicone target with a stationary phantom. Monthly testing procedures are described that allow the user to verify the dosimetric improvement when utilizing synchrony delivery motion compensation versus uncorrected motions. These can be performed utilizing a 1D motion stage with an ion-chamber and GafChromic EBT3 film to allow for a 2D dosimetric validation. Alternatively, a 3D motion platform can be utilized where available. Monthly and annual imaging tests are described. Finally, annual test procedures designed to verify the coincidence of the imaging system and treatment isocenter are described. The evaluation of the Synchrony system using a range of QA devices shows consistently high dosimetric accuracy with similar trends in passing criteria found with GafChromic EBT3 film, ArcCHECK, and Delta4 phantoms for density-based respiratory model compensation. These results highlight the large improvements in the dose distribution when motion is accounted for with the Synchrony system as measured with a range of phantoms and motion platforms that the majority of users will have available. The testing methods and QA procedures described provide guidance for new users of the Radixact Synchrony system as they implement their own QA programs for this system, until such time as an AAPM task group report is made available. QA procedures including Kilovolts (kV) imaging quality metrics and imaging dose parameters, dose deposition accuracy, target detection coincidence, and target position detection accuracy are described.

Analysis of R50% location dependence on LINAC-based VMAT cranial stereotactic treatments.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) techniques are used to deliver high doses per fraction to various types of intra-cranial targets. LINAC-based solutions are growing in prevalence due to recent advances in technologies such as high-definition multi-leaf collimators and volumetric arc therapy radiation delivery. A wide variety of clinical pathologies including intracranial metastases, meningioma, glioblastoma, arteriovenous malformation, acoustic neuroma, and trigeminal neuralgia have been successfully treated using SRS/SRT techniques. These lesions can be in virtually at any location within the cranium. Several publications have shown a wide dispersion of intermediate dose conformality (intermediate dose spill) indices such as the Paddick Gradient Index or R50% for lesions of a specific volume. A complete explanation of this dispersion is lacking but location has been suggested as a contributing factor. While prior studies of PTV location in SRS/SRT are retrospective in nature, we have conducted a prospective study to ascertain the potential effects of location within the cranium on plan intermediate dose conformality as measured by R50% while controlling for lesion volume, lesion shape, prescription (Rx) dose, and Rx isodose surface. Lesion volumes utilized in this study are consistent with metastatic disease presentation. Results indicate only a weak relationship between intermediate dose conformality as measured by R50% and the lesion location when considering nine different, strategically placed lesions. Close proximity to critical structures can reduce the degree of conformality, but the effect appears to be minimal. Single isocenter multiple target cases were studied in addition to single target plans. All critical structure doses observed in this study were found to be within the recommendations of AAPM Task Group report 101. Lesion location does not appear to be a significant contributing factor to the observed variation of dose conformality seen in several SRS/SRT publications.

Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation-based dose/MU verification for IMRT.

Independent verification of the dose per monitor unit (MU) to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance (QA). We discuss the role of secondary dose/MU calculation programs as part of a comprehensive QA program. This report provides guidelines on calculation-based dose/MU verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provided by various modalities. We provide a review of various algorithms for "independent/second check" of monitor unit calculations for IMRT/VMAT. The report makes recommendations on the clinical implementation of secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on commissioning and acceptance of various commercially available secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on benchmark QA and periodic QA; and on clinically reasonable action levels for agreement of secondary dose/MU calculation programs.

Report of AAPM Task Group 155: Megavoltage photon beam dosimetry in small fields and non-equilibrium conditions.

Small-field dosimetry used in advance treatment technologies poses challenges due to loss of lateral charged particle equilibrium (LCPE), occlusion of the primary photon source, and the limited choice of suitable radiation detectors. These challenges greatly influence dosimetric accuracy. Many high-profile radiation incidents have demonstrated a poor understanding of appropriate methodology for small-field dosimetry. These incidents are a cause for concern because the use of small fields in various specialized radiation treatment techniques continues to grow rapidly. Reference and relative dosimetry in small and composite fields are the subject of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) dosimetry code of practice that has been published as TRS-483 and an AAPM summary publication (IAEA TRS 483; Dosimetry of small static fields used in external beam radiotherapy: An IAEA/AAPM International Code of Practice for reference and relative dose determination, Technical Report Series No. 483; Palmans et al., Med Phys 45(11):e1123, 2018). The charge of AAPM task group 155 (TG-155) is to summarize current knowledge on small-field dosimetry and to provide recommendations of best practices for relative dose determination in small megavoltage photon beams. An overview of the issue of LCPE and the changes in photon beam perturbations with decreasing field size is provided. Recommendations are included on appropriate detector systems and measurement methodologies. Existing published data on dosimetric parameters in small photon fields (e.g., percentage depth dose, tissue phantom ratio/tissue maximum ratio, off-axis ratios, and field output factors) together with the necessary perturbation corrections for various detectors are reviewed. A discussion on errors and an uncertainty analysis in measurements is provided. The design of beam models in treatment planning systems to simulate small fields necessitates special attention on the influence of the primary beam source and collimating devices in the computation of energy fluence and dose. The general requirements for fluence and dose calculation engines suitable for modeling dose in small fields are reviewed. Implementations in commercial treatment planning systems vary widely, and the aims of this report are to provide insight for the medical physicist and guidance to developers of beams models for radiotherapy treatment planning systems.