Radiographic image guidance has emerged as the new paradigm for patient positioning, target localization, and external beam alignment in radiotherapy. Although widely varied in modality and method, all radiographic guidance techniques have one thing in common--they can give a significant radiation dose to the patient. As with all medical uses of ionizing radiation, the general view is that this exposure should be carefully managed. The philosophy for dose management adopted by the diagnostic imaging community is summarized by the acronym ALARA, i.e., as low as reasonably achievable. But unlike the general situation with diagnostic imaging and image-guided surgery, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) adds the imaging dose to an already high level of therapeutic radiation. There is furthermore an interplay between increased imaging and improved therapeutic dose conformity that suggests the possibility of optimizing rather than simply minimizing the imaging dose. For this reason, the management of imaging dose during radiotherapy is a different problem than its management during routine diagnostic or image-guided surgical procedures. The imaging dose received as part of a radiotherapy treatment has long been regarded as negligible and thus has been quantified in a fairly loose manner. On the other hand, radiation oncologists examine the therapy dose distribution in minute detail. The introduction of more intensive imaging procedures for IGRT now obligates the clinician to evaluate therapeutic and imaging doses in a more balanced manner. This task group is charged with addressing the issue of radiation dose delivered via image guidance techniques during radiotherapy. The group has developed this charge into three objectives: (1) Compile an overview of image-guidance techniques and their associated radiation dose levels, to provide the clinician using a particular set of image guidance techniques with enough data to estimate the total diagnostic dose for a specific treatment scenario, (2) identify ways to reduce the total imaging dose without sacrificing essential imaging information, and (3) recommend optimization strategies to trade off imaging dose with improvements in therapeutic dose delivery. The end goal is to enable the design of image guidance regimens that are as effective and efficient as possible.

New technologies continue to be developed to improve the practice of radiation therapy. As several of these technologies have been implemented clinically, the Therapy Committee and the Quality Assurance and Outcomes Improvement Subcommittee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine commissioned Task Group 147 to review the current nonradiographic technologies used for localization and tracking in radiotherapy. The specific charge of this task group was to make recommendations about the use of nonradiographic methods of localization, specifically; radiofrequency, infrared, laser, and video based patient localization and monitoring systems. The charge of this task group was to review the current use of these technologies and to write quality assurance guidelines for the use of these technologies in the clinical setting. Recommendations include testing of equipment for initial installation as well as ongoing quality assurance. As the equipment included in this task group continues to evolve, both in the type and sophistication of technology and in level of integration with treatment devices, some of the details of how one would conduct such testing will also continue to evolve. This task group, therefore, is focused on providing recommendations on the use of this equipment rather than on the equipment itself, and should be adaptable to each user's situation in helping develop a comprehensive quality assurance program.

Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a complex procedure that involves the delivery of complex intensity patterns from various gantry angles. Due to the complexity of the treatment plans, the standard care is to perform measurement‐based, patient‐specific quality assurance (QA). IMRT QA is traditionally done with film for relative dose in a plane and with an ion chamber for absolute dose. This is a laborious and time‐consuming process. In this work, we characterized, commissioned, and evaluated the QA capabilities of a novel commercial IMRT device, Delta4, (ScandiDos, Uppsala, Sweden). This device consists of diode matrices in two orthogonal planes inserted in a cylindrical acrylic phantom that is 22 cm in diameter. Although the system has detectors in only two planes, it provides a novel interpolation algorithm that is capable of estimating doses at points where no detectors are present. Each diode is sampled per beam pulse so that the dose distribution can be evaluated on segment‐by‐segment, beam‐by‐beam, or as a composite plan from a single set of measurements. The end user can calibrate the system to perform absolute dosimetry, eliminating the need for additional ion chamber measurements. The patient's IMRT plan is imported into the device over the hospital LAN and the results of the measurements can be displayed as gamma profiles, distance‐to‐agreement maps, dose difference maps, or the measured dose distribution can be superimposed on the patient's anatomy to display an as‐delivered plan. We evaluated the system's reproducibility, stability, pulse‐rate dependence, dose‐rate dependence, angular dependence, linearity of dose response, and energy response using carefully planned measurements. We also validated the system's interpolation algorithm by measuring a complex dose distribution from an IMRT treatment. Several simple and complex isodose distributions planned using a treatment planning system were delivered to the QA device; the planned and measured dose distributions were then compared and analyzed. In addition, the dose distributions measured by conventional IMRT QA, which uses an ion chamber and film, were compared. We found that the Delta4 device is accurate and reproducible and that its interpolation algorithm is valid. In addition, the supplied software and network interface allow a streamlined IMRT QA process.PACS number: 87.56Fc

Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) was added to aluminum/poly(vinylidene fluoride) (Al/PVDF) energetic blends to enhance melt flow rate and adhesion in a fused deposition modeling (FDM) manufacturing scenario.