Task Group Report Research Articles

Recommendations for a More Organized and Effective Approach to the Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer From the PRECEDE (Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection) Consortium

Recommendations for a More Organized and Effective Approach to the Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer From the PRECEDE (Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection) Consortium

Electronic charting of radiation therapy planning and treatment: Report of Task Group 262.

While most Radiation Oncology clinics have adopted electronic charting in one form or another, no consensus document exists that provides guidelines for safe and effective use of the Radiation Oncology electronic medical records (RO-EMR). Task Group 262 was formed to provide these guidelines as well as to provide recommendations to vendors for improving electronic charting functionality in future. Guidelines are provided in the following areas: Implementation and training for the RO-EMR, acceptance testing and quality assurance (QA) of the RO-EMR, use of the RO-EMR as an information repository, use of the RO-EMR as a workflow manager, electronic charting for brachytherapy and nonstandard treatments, and information technology (IT) considerations associated with the RO-EMR. The report was based on a literature search by the task group, an extensive survey of task group members on their respective RO-EMR practices, an AAPM membership survey on electronic charting, as well as group consensus.

Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 11.a: Plan and chart review in external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy.

A therapeutic medical physicist is responsible for reviewing radiation therapy treatment plans and patient charts, including initial treatment plans and new chart review, on treatment chart (weekly) review, and end of treatment chart review for both external beam radiation and brachytherapy. Task group report TG 275 examined this topic using a risk‐based approach to provide a thorough analysis and guidance for best practice. Considering differences in resources and workflows of various clinical practice settings, the Professional Council of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine assembled this task group to develop a practice guideline on the same topic to provide a minimum standard that balances an appropriate level of safety and resource utilization. This medical physics practice guidelines (MPPG) thus provides a concise set of recommendations for medical physicists and other clinical staff regarding the review of treatment plans and patient charts while providing specific recommendations about who to be involved, and when/what to check in the chart review process. The recommendations, particularly those related to the initial plan review process, are critical for preventing errors and ensuring smooth clinical workflow. We believe that an effective review process for high‐risk items should include multiple layers with collective efforts across the department. Therefore, in this report, we make specific recommendations for various roles beyond medical physicists. The recommendations of this MPPG have been reviewed and endorsed by the American Society of Radiologic Technologists and the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

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.

Findings of the AAPM Ad Hoc committee on magnetic resonance imaging in radiation therapy: Unmet needs, opportunities, and recommendations.

The past decade has seen the increasing integration of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging into radiation therapy (RT). This growth can be contributed to multiple factors, including hardware and software advances that have allowed the acquisition of high‐resolution volumetric data of RT patients in their treatment position (also known as MR simulation) and the development of methods to image and quantify tissue function and response to therapy. More recently, the advent of MR‐guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) ‐ achieved through the integration of MR imaging systems and linear accelerators ‐ has further accelerated this trend. As MR imaging in RT techniques and technologies, such as MRgRT, gain regulatory approval worldwide, these systems will begin to propagate beyond tertiary care academic medical centers and into more community‐based health systems and hospitals, creating new opportunities to provide advanced treatment options to a broader patient population. Accompanying these opportunities are unique challenges related to their adaptation, adoption, and use including modification of hardware and software to meet the unique and distinct demands of MR imaging in RT, the need for standardization of imaging techniques and protocols, education of the broader RT community (particularly in regards to MR safety) as well as the need to continue and support research, and development in this space. In response to this, an ad hoc committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) was formed to identify the unmet needs, roadblocks, and opportunities within this space. The purpose of this document is to report on the major findings and recommendations identified. Importantly, the provided recommendations represent the consensus opinions of the committee’s membership, which were submitted in the committee's report to the AAPM Board of Directors. In addition, AAPM ad hoc committee reports differ from AAPM task group reports in that ad hoc committee reports are neither reviewed nor ultimately approved by the committee’s parent groups, including at the council and executive committee level. Thus, the recommendations given in this summary should not be construed as being endorsed by or official recommendations from the AAPM.

Recommendations on the practice of calibration, dosimetry, and quality assurance for gamma stereotactic radiosurgery: Report of AAPM Task Group 178.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed Task Group 178 (TG-178) to perform the following tasks: review in-phantom and in-air calibration protocols for gamma stereotactic radiosurgery (GSR), suggest a dose rate calibration protocol that can be successfully utilized with all gamma stereotactic radiosurgery (GSR) devices, and update quality assurance (QA) protocols in TG-42 (AAPM Report 54, 1995) for static GSR devices. The TG-178 report recommends a GSR dose rate calibration formalism and provides tabulated data to implement it for ionization chambers commonly used in GSR dosimetry. The report also describes routine mechanical, dosimetric, and safety checks for GSR devices, and provides treatment process quality assurance recommendations. Sample worksheets, checklists, and practical suggestions regarding some QA procedures are given in appendices. The overall goal of the report is to make recommendations that help standardize GSR physics practices and promote the safe implementation of GSR technologies.

Magnetic resonance biomarkers in radiation oncology: The report of AAPM Task Group 294.

PurposeA magnetic resonance (MR) biologic marker (biomarker) is a measurable quantitative characteristic that is an indicator of normal biological and pathogenetic processes or a response to therapeutic intervention derived from the MR imaging process. There is significant potential for MR biomarkers to facilitate personalized approaches to cancer care through more precise disease targeting by quantifying normal versus pathologic tissue function as well as toxicity to both radiation and chemotherapy. Both of which have the potential to increase the therapeutic ratio and provide earlier, more accurate monitoring of treatment response. The ongoing integration of MR into routine clinical radiation therapy (RT) planning and the development of MR guided radiation therapy systems is providing new opportunities for MR biomarkers to personalize and improve clinical outcomes. Their appropriate use, however, must be based on knowledge of the physical origin of the biomarker signal, the relationship to the underlying biological processes, and their strengths and limitations. The purpose of this report is to provide an educational resource describing MR biomarkers, the techniques used to quantify them, their strengths and weakness within the context of their application to radiation oncology so as to ensure their appropriate use and application within this field.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on gender-related work from home in STEM fields-Report of the WiMPBME Task Group.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has forced many people, including those in the fields of science and engineering, to work from home. The new working environment caused by the pandemic is assumed to have a different impact on the amount of work that women and men can do from home. Particularly, if the major burden of child and other types of care is still predominantly on the shoulders of women. As such, a survey was conducted to assess the main issues that biomedical engineers, medical physicists (academics and professionals), and other similar professionals have been facing when working from home during the pandemic. A survey was created and disseminated worldwide. It originated from a committee of International Union for Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine (IUPESM; Women in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Task Group) and supported by the Union. The ethics clearance was received from Carleton University. The survey was deployed on the Survey Monkey platform and the results were analyzed using IBM SPSS software. The analyses mainly consisted of frequency of the demographic parameters and the cross‐tabulation of gender with all relevant variables describing the impact of work at home. A total of 921 responses from biomedical professions in 76 countries were received: 339 males, 573 females, and nine prefer‐not‐to‐say/other. Regarding marital/partnership status, 85% of males were married or in partnership, and 15% were single, whereas 72% of females were married or in partnership, and 26% were single. More women were working from home during the pandemic (68%) versus 50% of men. More men had access to an office at home (68%) versus 64% for women. The proportion of men spending more than 3 h on child care and schooling per day was 12%, while for women it was 22%; for household duties, 8% of men spent more than 3 h; for women, this was 12.5%. It is interesting to note that 44% of men spent between 1 and 3 h per day on household duties, while for women, it was 55%. The high number of survey responses can be considered excellent. It is interesting to note that men participate in childcare and household duties in a relatively high percentage; although this corresponds to less hours daily than for women. It is far more than can be found 2 and 3 decades ago. This may reflect the situation in the developed countries only—as majority of responses (75%) was received from these countries. It is evident that the burden of childcare and household duties will have a negative impact on the careers of women if the burden is not more similar for both sexes. It is important to recognize that a change in policies of organizations that hire them may be required to provide accommodation and compensation to minimize the negative impact on the professional status and career of men and women who work in STEM fields.

Report of Task Group 201 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine: Quality management of external beam therapy data transfer.

With the advancement of data-intensive technologies, such as image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the amount and complexity of data to be transferred between clinical subsystems have increased beyond the reach of manual checking. As a result, unintended treatment deviations (e.g., dose errors) may occur if the treatment system is not closely monitored by a comprehensive data transfer quality management program (QM). This report summarizes the findings and recommendations from the task group (TG) on quality assurance (QA) of external beam treatment data transfer (TG-201), with the aim to assist medical physicists in designing their own data transfer QM. As a background, a section of this report describes various models of data flow (distributed data repositories and single data base systems) and general data test characteristics (data integrity, interpretation, and consistency). Recommended tests are suggested based on the collective experience of TG-201 members. These tests are for the acceptance of, commissioning of, and upgrades to subsystems that store and/or modify clinical treatment data. As treatment complexity continues to evolve, we will need to do and know more about ensuring the quality of data transfers. The report concludes with the recommendation to move toward data transfer open standards compatibility and to develop tools that automate data transfer QA.

Erratum to Medical Physics article "Principles and applications of multienergy CT: Report of AAPM Task Group 291"

In AAPM Report 291, “Principles and applications of multienergy CT: Report of AAPM Task Group 291,”1 scientists from Canon Medical Systems Corporation, GE Healthcare Technologies, Philips Healthcare, and Siemens Healthcare GmbH participated as authors and contributed sections to describe, in general, the technology used in their company’s dual- or multi-energy CT systems. Specific scanner models were sometimes mentioned to provide examples of the overall approach. The general statements made about the approach may not, however, apply to the specific scanner model used as an example. The intermingling of the general and specific statements is regrettable, as it is ready source of potential confusion. Readers should view each section as a description of an overall dual- or multi-energy CT approach, even if a specific scanner model is mentioned as an example. Readers should refer to manufacturer specifications and the published literature to assess the specifications and performance of a specific CT system. A numerical error exists on page e895 in the second paragraph of the limitations section for kV switching. The statement “… so the system software currently prevents the use of gantry rotation times of less than approximately 500 ms, which may limit the quality of cardiac examinations,” implies that a minimum 500 ms rotation time applies to the scanner used as an example in the kV switching setting (GE Discovery CT750 HD). However, this value (500 msec) does not reflect the minimum rotation time on the GE Discovery CT750 HD. Rather, from the earliest publications on the use of this specific CT scanner model for dual-energy cardiac imaging, the minimum rotation time of 350 ms was used.2, 3 The second and third paragraphs in this same section on the limitations of kV switching reiterate the physics principles discussed on page e894, at the top of the second. Namely, as first demonstrated in 1979 by Kelcz et al., decreased spectral separation causes increased noise in decomposed material-specific images.4 In 2009, Primak et al. demonstrated that tube-specific filtration can increase spectral separation and decrease image noise in material decomposed images using a commercial dual-source CT system.5 While spectral separation is indeed an important determinant of the underlying noise properties of the acquired data, noise reduction methods can be applied such that the material decomposition calculations performed using kV switching (or other non-dual-source approaches) can also yield accurate quantification of iodine concentration.6

Toward automation of initial chart check for photon/electron EBRT: the clinical implementation of new AAPM task group reports and automation techniques.

PurposeThe recently published AAPM TG‐275 and the public review version of TG‐315 list new recommendations for comprehensive and minimum physics initial chart checks, respectively. This article addresses the potential development and benefit of initial chart check automation when these recommendations are implemented for clinical photon/electron EBRT.MethodsEight board‐certified physicists with 2–20 years of clinical experience performed initial chart checks using checklists from TG‐275 and TG‐315. Manual check times were estimated for three types of plans (IMRT/VMAT, 3D, and 2D) and for prostate, whole pelvis, lung, breast, head and neck, and brain cancers. An expert development team of three physicists re‐evaluated the automation feasibility of TG‐275 checklist based on their experience of developing and implementing the in‐house and the commercial automation tools in our institution. Three levels of initial chart check automation were simulated: (1) Auto_UMMS_tool (which consists of in‐house program and commercially available software); (2) Auto_TG275 (with full and partial automation as indicated in TG‐275); and (3) Auto_UMMS_exp (with full and partial automation as determined by our experts’ re‐evaluation).ResultsWith no automation of initial chart checks, the ranges of manual check times were 29–56 min (full TG‐315 list) and 102–163 min (full TG‐275 list), which varied significantly with physicists but varied little at different tumor sites. The 69 of 71 checks which were considered as “not fully automated” in TG‐275 were re‐evaluated with more automation feasibility. Compared to no automation, the higher levels of automation yielded a great reduction in both manual check times (by 44%–98%) and potentially residual detectable errors (by 15–85%).ConclusionThe initial chart check automation greatly improves the practicality and efficiency of implementing the new TG recommendations. Revisiting the TG reports with new technology/practice updates may help develop and utilize more automation clinically.

Validation of American Association of Physicists in Medicine TG 43 Dosimetry Data in Commercial Treatment Planning System.

AimsThis study aimed to validate the dosimetric data of low-energy photon-emitting low-dose rate (LE-LDR) brachytherapy seed sources in commercial treatment planning system (TPS).Materials and MethodsThe LE-LDR seed sources dosimetric data were published in the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group reports TG-43 (1995), TG-43U1 (2004), TG-43U1S1 (2007), and TG-43U1S2. The Bhabha Atomic Research centre (BARC) 125I Ocu-Prosta seed dosimetry data are also available in the literature. The commercially available TPSs are using both two-dimensional (cylindrically symmetric line-source) and one-dimensional (1D) (point source) dose-calculation formalisms. TPS used in this study uses only 1D dose-calculation formalism for permanent implant dosimetry. The point-dose calculation, dose summation, isodose representation, and dose–volume histogram quality assurance tests were performed in this study. The point-source dose-calculation tests were performed for all the available sources in the literature. The others tests were performed for the I-125 BARC Ocu-Prosta seeds. The TPS-calculated doses were validated using manual calculation.Results and DiscussionIn point-source calculation test, the TPS-calculated point-dose values are within ±2% agreement with manually calculated dose for all the seeds studied. The agreement between the TPS and manually calculated dose is 0.5% for the dose summation test. The isodose line pass through the grid points at an equal distance was verified visually on the computer screen for seed used clinically. In dose–volume histogram test, the TPS-determined volume was compared with the real volume.ConclusionMisinterpretation of the TPS test and/or misunderstanding of the TG-43 dose-calculation formalism may cause large errors. It is very important to validate the TPS using literature provided dosimetric data. The dosimetric data of BARC 125I Ocu-Prosta Seed are validated with other AAPM TG-43-recommended seeds. The dose calculation of Best® NOMOS permanent implant TPS is accurate for all permanent implant seeds studied.

Reference dataset for benchmarking fetal doses derived from Monte Carlo simulations of CT exams.

Task Group Report 195 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine contains reference datasets for the direct comparison of results among different Monte Carlo (MC) simulation tools for various aspects of imaging research that employs ionizing radiation. While useful for comparing and validating MC codes, that effort did not provide the information needed to compare absolute dose estimates from CT exams. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to extend those efforts by providing a reference dataset for benchmarking fetal dose derived from MC simulations of clinical CT exams. The reference dataset contains the four necessary elements for validating MC engines for CT dosimetry: (a) physical characteristics of the CT scanner, (b) patient information, (c) exam specifications, and (d) fetal dose results from previously validated and published MC simulations methods in tabular form. Scanner characteristics include non-proprietary descriptions of equivalent source cumulative distribution function (CDF) spectra and bowtie filtration profiles, as well as scanner geometry information. Additionally, for the MCNPX MC engine, normalization factors are provided to convert raw simulation results to absolute dose in mGy. The patient information is based on a set of publicly available fetal dose models and includes de-identified image data; voxelized MC input files with fetus, uterus, and gestational sac identified; and patient size metrics in the form of water equivalent diameter (Dw ) z-axis distributions from a simulated topogram (Dw,topo ) and from the image data (Dw,image ). Exam characteristics include CT scan start and stop angles and table and patient locations, helical pitch, nominal collimation and measured beam width, and gantry rotation time for each simulation. For simulations involving estimating doses from exams using tube current modulation (TCM), a realistic TCM scheme is presented that is estimated based upon a validated method. (d) Absolute and CTDIvol -normalized fetal dose results for both TCM and FTC simulations are given for each patient model under each scan scenario. Equivalent source CDFs and bowtie filtration profiles are available in text files. Image data are available in DICOM format. Voxelized models are represented by a header followed by a list of integers in a text file representing a three-dimensional model of the patient. Size distribution metrics are also given in text files. Results of absolute and normalized fetal dose with associated MC error estimates are presented in tabular form in an Excel spreadsheet. All data are stored on Zenodo and are publicly accessible using the following link: https://zenodo.org/record/3959512. Similar to the work of AAPM Report 195, this work provides a set of reference data for benchmarking fetal dose estimates from clinical CT exams. This provides researchers with an opportunity to compare MC simulation results to a set of published reference data as part of their efforts to validate absolute and normalized fetal dose estimates. This could also be used as a basis for comparison to other non-MC approaches, such as deterministic approaches, or to commercial packages that provide estimates of fetal doses from clinical CT exams.

Report of IRPA task group on issues and actions taken in response to the change in eye lens dose limit

In 2018, the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) established its third task group (TG) on the implementation of the eye lens dose limit. To contribute to sharing experience and raising awareness within the radiation protection community about protection of workers in exposure of the lens of the eye, the TG conducted a questionnaire survey and analysed the responses. This paper provides an overview of the results of the questionnaire.

Clinical commissioning of intensity-modulated proton therapy systems: Report of AAPM Task Group 185.

Proton therapy is an expanding radiotherapy modality in the United States and worldwide. With the number of proton therapy centers treating patients increasing, so does the need for consistent, high-quality clinical commissioning practices. Clinical commissioning encompasses the entire proton therapy system's multiple components, including the treatment delivery system, the patient positioning system, and the image-guided radiotherapy components. Also included in the commissioning process are the x-ray computed tomography scanner calibration for proton stopping power, the radiotherapy treatment planning system, and corresponding portions of the treatment management system. This commissioning report focuses exclusively on intensity-modulated scanning systems, presenting details of how to perform the commissioning of the proton therapy and ancillary systems, including the required proton beam measurements, treatment planning system dose modeling, and the equipment needed.

Report of AAPM Task Group 235 Radiochromic Film Dosimetry: An Update to TG-55.

The use of radiochromic film (RCF) dosimetry in radiation therapy is extensive due to its high level of achievable accuracy for a wide range of dose values and its suitability under a variety of measurement conditions. However, since the publication of the 1998 AAPM Task Group 55, Report No. 63 on RCF dosimetry, the chemistry, composition, and readout systems for RCFs have evolved steadily. There are several challenges in using the new RCFs, readout systems and validation of the results depending on their applications. Accurate RCF dosimetry requires understanding of RCF selection, handling and calibration methods, calibration curves, dose conversion methods, correction methodologies as well as selection, operation and quality assurance (QA) programs of the readout systems. Acquiring this level of knowledge is not straight forward, even for some experienced users. This Task Group report addresses these issues and provides a basic understanding of available RCF models, dosimetric characteristics and properties, advantages and limitations, configurations, and overall elemental compositions of the RCFs that have changed over the past 20yr. In addition, this report provides specific guidelines for data processing and analysis schemes and correction methodologies for clinical applications in radiation therapy.

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

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

Practical application of AAPM Report 270 in display quality assurance: A report of Task Group 270.

Published in January 2019, AAPM Report 270 provides an update to the recommendations of the AAPM's "TG18" report. Report 270 provides new definitions of display types, updated testing patterns, and revised performance standards for the modern, flat-panel displays used as part of medical image acquisition and review. The focus of the AAPM report is on consistent image quality and appearance, and how to establish a quality assurance program to achieve those two goals. This work highlights some of the key takeaways of AAPM Report 270 and makes comparisons with existing recommendations from other references. It also provides guidance for establishing a display quality assurance program for different-sized institutions. Finally, it describes future challenges for display quality assurance and what work remains.

Principles and applications of multienergy CT: Report of AAPM Task Group 291.

In x-ray computed tomography (CT), materials with different elemental compositions can have identical CT number values, depending on the mass density of each material and the energy of the detected x-ray beam. Differentiating and classifying different tissue types and contrast agents can thus be extremely challenging. In multienergy CT, one or more additional attenuation measurements are obtained at a second, third or more energy. This allows the differentiation of at least two materials. Commercial dual-energy CT systems (only two energy measurements) are now available either using sequential acquisitions of low- and high-tube potential scans, fast tube-potential switching, beam filtration combined with spiral scanning, dual-source, or dual-layer detector approaches. The use of energy-resolving, photon-counting detectors is now being evaluated on research systems. Irrespective of the technological approach to data acquisition, all commercial multienergyCT systems circa 2020provide dual-energy data. Material decomposition algorithms are then used to identify specific materials according to their effective atomic number and/or to quantitate mass density. These algorithms are applied to either projection or image data. Since 2006, a number of clinical applications have been developed for commercial release, including those that automatically (a) remove the calciumsignal from bony anatomy and/or calcified plaque; (b) create iodine concentration maps from contrast-enhanced CT data and/or quantify absolute iodine concentration; (c) create virtual non-contrast-enhanced images from contrast-enhanced scans; (d) identify perfused blood volume in lung parenchyma or the myocardium; and (e) characterize materials according to their elemental compositions, which can allow in vivo differentiation between uric acid and non-uric acid urinary stones or uric acid (gout) or non-uric acid (calcium pyrophosphate) deposits in articulating joints and surrounding tissues. In this report, the underlying physical principles of multienergy CT are reviewed and each of the current technical approaches are described. In addition, current and evolving clinical applications are introduced. Finally, the impact of multienergy CT technology on patient radiation dose is summarized.