The task group ͑TG͒ for quality assurance of medical accelerators was constituted by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Science Council under the direction of the Radiation Therapy Committee and the Quality Assurance and Outcome Improvement Subcommittee. The task group ͑TG-142͒ had two main charges. First to update, as needed, recommendations of Table II of the AAPM TG-40 report on quality assurance and second, to add recommendations for asymmetric jaws, multileaf collimation ͑MLC͒, and dynamic/virtual wedges. The TG accomplished the update to TG-40, specifying new test and tolerances, and has added recommendations for not only the new ancillary delivery technologies but also for imaging devices that are part of the linear accelerator. The imaging devices include x-ray imaging, photon portal imaging, and cone-beam CT. The TG report was designed to account for the types of treatments delivered with the particular machine. For example, machines that are used for radiosurgery treatments or intensity-modulated radiotherapy ͑IMRT͒ require different tests and/or tolerances. There are specific recommendations for MLC quality assurance for machines performing IMRT. The report also gives recommendations as to action levels for the physicists to implement particular actions, whether they are inspection, scheduled action, or immediate and corrective action. The report is geared to be flexible for the physicist to customize the QA program depending on clinical utility. There are specific tables according to daily, monthly, and annual reviews, along with unique tables for wedge systems, MLC, and imaging checks. The report also gives specific recommendations regarding setup of a QA program by the physicist in regards to building a QA team, establishing procedures, training of personnel, documentation, and end-to-end system checks. been considerably expanded as compared with the original TG-40 report and the recommended tolerances accommodate differences in the intended use of the machine functionality ͑non-IMRT, IMRT, and stereotactic delivery͒.

For commissioning a linear accelerator for clinical use, medical physicists are faced with many challenges including the need for precision, a variety of testing methods, data validation, the lack of standards, and time constraints. Since commissioning beam data are treated as a reference and ultimately used by treatment planning systems, it is vitally important that the collected data are of the highest quality to avoid dosimetric and patient treatment errors that may subsequently lead to a poor radiation outcome. Beam data commissioning should be performed with appropriate knowledge and proper tools and should be independent of the person collecting the data. To achieve this goal, Task Group 106 (TG-106) of the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine was formed to review the practical aspects as well as the physics of linear accelerator commissioning. The report provides guidelines and recommendations on the proper selection of phantoms and detectors, setting up of a phantom for data acquisition (both scanning and no-scanning data), procedures for acquiring specific photon and electron beam parameters and methods to reduce measurement errors (<1%), beam data processing and detector size convolution for accurate profiles. The TG-106 also provides a brief.discussion on the emerging trend in Monte Carlo simulation techniques in photon and electron beam commissioning. The procedures described in this report should assist a qualified medical physicist in either measuring a complete set of beam data, or in verifying a subset of data before initial use or for periodic quality assurance measurements. By combining practical experience with theoretical discussion, this document sets a new standard for beam data commissioning.

No abstract

In this study, we present three significant artifacts that have the potential to negatively impact the accuracy and precision of film dosimetry measurements made using GAFCHROMIC EBT radiochromic film when read out with CCD flatbed scanners. Films were scanned using three commonly employed instruments: a Macbeth TD932 spot densitometer, an Epson Expression 1680 CCD array scanner, and a Microtek ScanMaker i900 CCD array scanner. For the two scanners we assessed the variation in optical density (OD) of GAFCHROMIC EBT film with scanning bed position, angular rotation of the film with respect to the scan line direction, and temperature inside the scanner due to repeated scanning. Scanning uniform radiochromic films demonstrated a distinct bowing effect in profiles in the direction of the CCD array with a nonuniformity of up to 17%. Profiles along a direction orthogonal to the CCD array demonstrated a 7% variation. A strong angular dependence was found in measurements made with the flatbed scanners; the effect could not be reproduced with the spot densitometer. An IMRT quality assurance film was scanned twice rotating the film 90' between the scans. For films scanned on the Epson scanner, up to 12% variation was observed in unirradiated EBT films rotated between 0 degrees and 90 degrees, which decreased to approximately 8% for EBT films irradiated to 300 cGy. Variations of up to 80% were observed for films scanned with the Microtek scanner. The scanners were found to significantly increase the film temperature with repeated scanning. Film temperature between 18 and 33 degrees C caused OD changes of approximately 7%. Considering these effects, we recommend adherence to a strict scanning protocol that includes: maintaining the orientation of films scanned on flatbed scanners, limiting scanning to the central portion of the scanner bed, and limiting the number of consecutive scans to minimize changes in OD caused by film heating.

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.