Purpose: To develop a deep learning model that generates consistent, high-quality lymph node clinical target volumes (CTV) contours for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, as an integral part of a fully automated radiation treatment planning workflow. Methods and Materials: Computed tomography (CT) scans from 71 HNC patients were retrospectively collected and split into training (n Z 51), cross-validation (n Z 10), and test (n Z 10) data sets. All had target volume delineations covering lymph node levels Ia through V (Ia-V), Ib through V (Ib-V), II through IV (II-IV), and retropharyngeal (RP) nodes, which were previously approved by a radiation oncologist specializing in HNC. Volumes of interest (VOIs) about nodal levels were automatically identified using computer vision techniques. The VOI (cropped CT image) and approved contours were used to train a U-Net autosegmentation model. Each lymph node level was trained independently, with model parameters optimized by assessing performance on the cross-validation data set. Once optimal model parameters were identified, overlap and distance metrics were calculated between ground truth and autosegmentations on the test set. Lastly, this final model was used

The purpose of this study is to investigate the dosimetric impact of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positioning errors on a Varian Halcyon for both random and systematic errors, and to evaluate the effectiveness of portal dosimetry quality assurance in catching clinically significant changes caused by these errors. Both random and systematic errors were purposely added to 11 physician-approved head and neck volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans, yielding a total of 99 unique plans. Plans were then delivered on a preclinical Varian Halcyon linear accelerator This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

A large number of surveys have been sent to the medical physics community addressing many clinical topics for which the medical physicist is, or may be, responsible. Each survey provides an insight into clinical practice relevant to the medical physics community. The goal of this study was to create a summary of these surveys giving a snapshot of clinical practice patterns. Surveys used in this study were created using SurveyMonkey and distributed between February 6, 2013 and January 2, 2018 via the MEDPHYS and MEDDOS listserv groups. The format of the surveys included questions that were multiple choice and free response. Surveys were included in this analysis if they met the following criteria: more than 20 responses, relevant to radiation therapy physics practice, not single‐vendor specific, and formatted as multiple‐choice questions (i.e., not exclusively free‐text responses). Although the results of free response questions were not explicitly reported, they were carefully reviewed, and the responses were considered in the discussion of each topic. Two‐hundred and fifty‐two surveys were available, of which 139 passed the inclusion criteria. The mean number of questions per survey was 4. The mean number of respondents per survey was 63. Summaries were made for the following topics: simulation, treatment planning, electron treatments, linac commissioning and quality assurance, setup and treatment verification, IMRT and VMAT treatments, SRS/SBRT, breast treatments, prostate treatments, brachytherapy, TBI, facial lesion treatments, clinical workflow, and after‐hours/emergent treatments. We have provided a coherent overview of medical physics practice according to surveys conducted over the last 5 yr, which will be instructive for medical physicists.

Developers and users of artificial-intelligence-based tools for automatic contouring and treatment planning in radiotherapy are expected to assess clinical acceptability of these tools. However, what is ‘clinical acceptability’? Quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used to assess this ill-defined concept, all of which have advantages and disadvantages or limitations. The approach chosen may depend on the goal of the study as well as on available resources. In this paper, we discuss various aspects of ‘clinical acceptability’ and how they can move us toward a standard for defining clinical acceptability of new autocontouring and planning tools.