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.

No abstract

The Radixact® linear accelerator contains the motion Synchrony system, which tracks and compensates for intrafraction patient motion. For respiratory motion, the system models the motion of the target and synchronizes the delivery of radiation with this motion using the jaws and multi‐leaf collimators (MLCs). It was the purpose of this work to determine the ability of the Synchrony system to track and compensate for different phantom motions using a delivery quality assurance (DQA) workflow. Thirteen helical plans were created on static datasets from liver, lung, and pancreas subjects. Dose distributions were measured using a Delta4® Phantom+ mounted on a Hexamotion® stage for the following three case scenarios for each plan: (a) no phantom motion and no Synchrony (M0S0), (b) phantom motion and no Synchrony (M1S0), and (c) phantom motion with Synchrony (M1S1). The LEDs were placed on the Phantom+ for the 13 patient cases and were placed on a separate one‐dimensional surrogate stage for additional studies to investigate the effect of separate target and surrogate motion. The root‐mean‐square (RMS) error between the Synchrony‐modeled positions and the programmed phantom positions was <1.5 mm for all Synchrony deliveries with the LEDs on the Phantom+. The tracking errors increased slightly when the LEDs were placed on the surrogate stage but were similar to tracking errors observed for other motion tracking systems such as CyberKnife Synchrony. One‐dimensional profiles indicate the effects of motion interplay and dose blurring present in several of the M1S0 plans that are not present in the M1S1 plans. All 13 of the M1S1 measured doses had gamma pass rates (3%/2 mm/10%T) compared to the planned dose > 90%. Only two of the M1S0 measured doses had gamma pass rates > 90%. Motion Synchrony offers a potential alternative to the current, ITV‐based motion management strategy for helical tomotherapy deliveries.

Delivery verification is the process in which the energy fluence delivered during a treatment is verified. This verified energy fluence can be used in conjunction with an image in the treatment position to reconstruct the full three-dimensional dose deposited. A method for delivery verification that utilizes a measured database of detector signal is described in this work. This database is a function of two parameters, radiological path-length and detector-to-phantom distance, both of which are computed from a CT image taken at the time of delivery. Such a database was generated and used to perform delivery verification and dose reconstruction. Two experiments were conducted: a simulated prostate delivery on an inhomogeneous abdominal phantom, and a nasopharyngeal delivery on a dog cadaver. For both cases, it was found that the verified fluence and dose results using the database approach agreed very well with those using previously developed and proven techniques. Delivery verification with a measured database and CT image at the time of treatment is an accurate procedure for tomotherapy. The database eliminates the need for any patient-specific, pre-or post-treatment measurements. Moreover, such an approach creates an opportunity for accurate, real-time delivery verification and dose reconstruction given fast image reconstruction and dose computation tools.

No abstract