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 c 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 c verification algorithm employing benchmark cases are presented. Results: Operational shortcomings that can reduce the c 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 c 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.

Purpose Cardiac toxicity is an important sequela of breast radiotherapy. However, the relationship between dose to cardiac structures and subsequent toxicity has not been well defined, partially due to variation in substructure delineation, which can lead to inconsistent dose reporting and the failure to detect potential correlations. Here we have developed a heart atlas and evaluated its effect on contour accuracy and concordance. Methods and Materials A detailed cardiac CT atlas was developed jointly by cardiology, cardiac radiology, and radiation oncology. Seven radiation oncologists were recruited to delineate the whole heart (WH), left main (LM), left anterior descending interventricular branch (LAD), and right coronary arteries (RCA) on four cases before and after studying the atlas. Contour accuracy was assessed by percent overlap with gold standard (GS) atlas volumes. The concordance index (CI) was also calculated. Standard radiation fields were applied. Doses to observer-contoured cardiac (OC) structures were calculated, and compared with GS contour doses. Pre- and post- atlas values were analyzed using a paired t-test. Results The cardiac atlas significantly improved contour accuracy and concordance. Percent overlap and CI of OC and GS volumes improved for all structures, by up to 2.3-fold (p<0.002). After application of the atlas, reported WH, LM, LAD, and RCA mean doses were within 0.1, 0.9, 2.6, and 0.6 Gy of GS doses. Conclusions This validated University of Michigan cardiac atlas may serve as a useful tool in future studies assessing cardiac toxicity and in clinical trials which include dose volume constraints to the heart.

WBI represents a significant portion of radiation oncology practice, and these recommendations are intended to offer the groundwork for defining evidence-based practice for this common and important modality. This guideline also seeks to promote appropriately individualized, shared decision-making regarding WBI between physicians and patients.

Intensity modulated radiation therapy ͑IMRT͒ poses a number of challenges for properly measuring commissioning data and quality assurance ͑QA͒ radiation dose distributions. This report provides a comprehensive overview of how dosimeters, phantoms, and dose distribution analysis techniques should be used to support the commissioning and quality assurance requirements of an IMRT program. The proper applications of each dosimeter are described along with the limitations of each system. Point detectors, arrays, film, and electronic portal imagers are discussed with respect to their proper use, along with potential applications of 3D dosimetry. Regardless of the IMRT technique utilized, some situations require the use of multiple detectors for the acquisition of accurate commissioning data. The overall goal of this task group report is to provide a document that aids the physicist in the proper selection and use of the dosimetry tools available for IMRT QA and to provide a resource for physicists that describes dosimetry measurement techniques for purposes of IMRT commissioning and measurement-based characterization or verification of IMRT treatment plans. This report is not intended to provide a comprehensive review of commissioning and QA procedures for IMRT. Instead, this report focuses on the aspects of metrology, particularly the practical aspects of measurements that are unique to IMRT. The metrology of IMRT concerns the application of measurement instruments and their suitability, calibration, and quality control of measurements. Each of the dosimetry measurement tools has limitations that need to be considered when incorporating them into a commissioning process or a comprehensive QA program. For example, routine quality assurance procedures require the use of robust field dosimetry systems. These often exhibit limitations with respect to spatial resolution or energy response and need to themselves be commissioned against more established dosimeters. A chain of dosimeters, from secondary standards to field instruments, is established to assure the quantitative nature of the tests. This report is intended to describe the characteristics of the components of these systems; dosimeters, phantoms, and dose evaluation algorithms. This work is the report of AAPM Task Group 120.

Purpose To quantify the multi-institutional and multi-observer variability of target and organ-at-risk (OAR) delineation for breast-cancer radiotherapy (RT), and its dosimetric impacts, as the first step of a RTOG effort to establish a breast cancer atlas. Methods and Materials Nine radiation oncologists specializing in breast RT from eight institutions independently delineated targets (e.g., lumpectomy cavity, boost planning target volume, breast, supraclavicular, axillary and internal mammary nodes, and chest wall) and OARs (e.g., heart, lung) on the same CT images of three representative patients with breast cancer. Inter-observer differences in structure delineation were quantified with regard to volume, distance between centers of mass, percent overlap, and average surface distance. The mean, median and standard deviation for these quantities were calculated for all possible combinations. To asses the impact of these variations on treatment planning, representative dosimetric plans based on observer-specific contours were generated. Results The variability in contouring the targets and OARs between the institutions/observers was substantial. The structure overlaps were as low as 10% and the volume variations had standard deviations up to 60%. The large variability was related both to differences in opinion regarding target and OAR boundaries as well as approach to incorporation of setup uncertainty and dosimetric limitations in target delineation. These inter-observer differences result in substantial variations in dosimetric planning for breast RT. Conclusions The differences in target and OAR delineation for breast irradiation between institutions/observers appear to be clinically and dosimetrically significant. A systematic consensus is highly desirable, particularly in the era of IMRT/IGRT.

Purpose To report interim cosmetic results and toxicity from a prospective study evaluating accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) administered using a highly conformal external beam approach. Methods and Materials We enrolled breast cancer patients in an institutional review board–approved prospective study of APBI using beamlet intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) at deep-inspiration breath-hold. Patients received 38.5 Gy in 3.85 Gy fractions twice daily. Dosimetric parameters in patients who maintained acceptable cosmesis were compared with those in patients developing unacceptable cosmesis in follow-up, using t-tests. Results Thirty-four patients were enrolled; 2 were excluded from analysis because of fair baseline cosmesis. With a median follow-up of 2.5 years, new unacceptable cosmesis developed in 7 patients, leading to early study closure. We compared patients with new unacceptable cosmesis with those with consistently acceptable cosmesis. Retrospective analysis demonstrated that all but one plan adhered to the dosimetric requirements of the national APBI trial. The mean proportion of a whole-breast reference volume receiving 19.25 Gy (V50) was lower in patients with acceptable cosmesis than in those with unacceptable cosmesis (34.6% vs. 46.1%; p = 0.02). The mean percentage of this reference volume receiving 38.5 Gy (V100) was also lower in patients with acceptable cosmesis (15.5% vs. 23.0%; p = 0.02). Conclusions The hypofractionated schedule and parameters commonly used for external beam APBI and prescribed by the ongoing national trial may be suboptimal, at least when highly conformal techniques such as IMRT with management of breathing motion are used. The V50 and V100 of the breast reference volume seem correlated with cosmetic outcome, and stricter limits may be appropriate in this setting.

A few of the recent unsatisfactory germanium n-channel metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor MOSFET experimentations are believed to stem from the poor source and drain n+-p junction formations. In order to explain the primary cause and suggest rectifying solutions, we have examined the activation of common n-type dopants in germanium and the related dependences. These dependences include thermal anneal budget, impurity species, and implantation dosage. Low thermal budgets are generally preferred to activate shallow junctions to simultaneously annihilate defects and suppress fast dopant diffusion. Injecting dopants over the solid-solubility limitation into shallow junctions would only generate more implantation damage but could not however lower the junction sheet resistance.

A substantial barrier to the single- and multi-institutional aggregation of data to supporting clinical trials, practice quality improvement efforts, and development of big data analytics resource systems is the lack of standardized nomenclatures for expressing dosimetric data. To address this issue, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 was charged with providing nomenclature guidelines and values in radiation oncology for use in clinical trials, data-pooling initiatives, population-based studies, and routine clinical care by standardizing: (1) structure names across image processing and treatment planning system platforms; (2) nomenclature for dosimetric data (eg, dose-volume histogram [DVH]-based metrics); (3) templates for clinical trial groups and users of an initial subset of software platforms to facilitate adoption of the standards; (4) formalism for nomenclature schema, which can accommodate the addition of other structures defined in the future. A multisociety, multidisciplinary, multinational group of 57 members representing stake holders ranging from large academic centers to community clinics and vendors was assembled, including physicists, physicians, dosimetrists, and vendors. The stakeholder groups represented in the membership included the AAPM, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), NRG Oncology, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children's Oncology Group (COG), Integrating Healthcare Enterprise in Radiation Oncology (IHE-RO), and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine working group (DICOM WG); A nomenclature system for target and organ at risk volumes and DVH nomenclature was developed and piloted to demonstrate viability across a range of clinics and within the framework of clinical trials. The final report was approved by AAPM in October 2017. The approval process included review by 8 AAPM committees, with additional review by ASTRO, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD). This Executive Summary of the report highlights the key recommendations for clinical practice, research, and trials.