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.

Many forms of relevant systematic errors can go undetected when the currently prevalent metrics for IMRT∕VMAT commissioning are used. If alternative methods and metrics are used instead of (or in addition to) the conventional metrics, these errors are more likely to be detected, and only once they are detected can they be properly diagnosed and rooted out of the system. Removing systematic errors should be a goal not only of commissioning by the end users but also product validation by the manufacturers. For any systematic errors that cannot be removed, detecting and quantifying them is important as it will help the physicist understand the limits of the system and work with the manufacturer on improvements. In summary, IMRT and VMAT commissioning, along with product validation, would benefit from the retirement of the 3%/3 mm passing rates as a primary metric of performance, and the adoption instead of tighter tolerances, more diligent diagnostics, and more thorough analysis.

Even for a well-commissioned TPS, comparison metrics show better agreement on average to MGDR than to TPS on the arbitrary-shaped measurable "patient." The method requires no more accelerator time than standard QA, while producing more clinically relevant information. Validation in a heterogeneous thoracic phantom is under way, as is the ultimate application of 4D MGDR to virtual motion studies.

We introduce a logical process of three distinct phases to begin the evaluation of a new 3D dosimetry array. The array under investigation is a hollow cylinder phantom with diode detectors fixed in a helical shell forming an “O” axial detector cross section (ArcCHECK), with comparisons drawn to a previously studied 3D array with diodes fixed in two crossing planes forming an “X” axial cross section (Delta 4 ). Phase I testing of the ArcCHECK establishes: robust relative calibration (response equalization) of the individual detectors, minor field size dependency of response not present in a 2D predecessor, and uncorrected angular response dependence in the axial plane. Phase II testing reveals vast differences between the two devices when studying fixed‐width full circle arcs. These differences are primarily due to arc discretization by the TPS that produces low passing rates for the peripheral detectors of the ArcCHECK, but high passing rates for the Delta 4 . Similar, although less pronounced, effects are seen for the test VMAT plans modeled after the AAPM TG119 report. The very different 3D detector locations of the two devices, along with the knock‐on effect of different percent normalization strategies, prove that the analysis results from the devices are distinct and noninterchangeable; they are truly measuring different things. The value of what each device measures, namely their correlation with – or ability to predict – clinically relevant errors in calculation and/or delivery of dose is the subject of future Phase III work.PACS number: 87.55Qr

Introduction of the improved calibration methodology, enabled by a robust virtual inclinometer algorithm, improves the accuracy of the dosimeter's absolute dose measurements. With our treatment planning and delivery chain, gamma analysis passing rates for the VMAT plans based on the AAPM TG-119 report are expected to be above 91% and average at about 95% level for γ(3%/3 mm) with the local dose-error normalization. This stringent comparison methodology is more indicative of the true VMAT system commissioning accuracy compared to the often quoted dose-error normalization to a single high value.