Results for “physicists” — Page 44

DOE OSTI2016

MO-F-204-01: Preparing for Part 1 of the ABR Diagnostic Physics Exam

Adequate, efficient preparation for the ABR Diagnostic and Nuclear Medical Physics exams is key to successfully obtain ABR certification. Each part of the ABR exam presents its own challenges: Part I: Determine the scope of basic medical physics study material, efficiently review this material, and solve related written questions/problems. Part II: Understand imaging principles, modalities, and systems, including image acquisition, processing, and display. Understand the relationship between imaging techniques, image quality, patient dose and safety, and solve related written questions/problems. Part III: Gain crucial, practical, clinical medical physics experience. Effectively communicate and explain the practice, performance, and significance of all aspects of clinical medical physics. All parts of the ABR exam require specific skill sets and preparation: mastery of basic physics and imaging principles; written problem solving often involving rapid calculation; responding clearly and succinctly to oral questions about the practice, methods, and significance of clinical medical physics. This symposium focuses on the preparation necessary for each part of the ABR exam. Although there is some overlap, the nuclear exam covers a different body of knowledge than the diagnostic exam. A separate speaker will address those unique aspects of the nuclear exam, and how preparing for a second specialty differs from the first. Medical physicists who recently completed each ABR exam portion will share their experiences, insights, and preparation methods to help attendees best prepare for the challenges of each part of the ABR exam. In accordance with ABR exam security policy, no recalls or exam questions will be discussed. Learning Objectives: How to prepare for Part 1 of the ABR exam by determining the scope of basic medical physics study material and related problem solving/calculations How to prepare for Part 2 of the ABR exam by understanding diagnostic and/or nuclear imaging physics, systems, dosimetry, safety and related problem solving/calculations How to prepare for Part 3 of the ABR exam by effectively communicating the practice, methods, and significance of clinical diagnostic and/or nuclear medical physics.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-F-204-02: Preparing for Part 2 of the ABR Diagnostic Physics Exam

Adequate, efficient preparation for the ABR Diagnostic and Nuclear Medical Physics exams is key to successfully obtain ABR certification. Each part of the ABR exam presents its own challenges: Part I: Determine the scope of basic medical physics study material, efficiently review this material, and solve related written questions/problems. Part II: Understand imaging principles, modalities, and systems, including image acquisition, processing, and display. Understand the relationship between imaging techniques, image quality, patient dose and safety, and solve related written questions/problems. Part III: Gain crucial, practical, clinical medical physics experience. Effectively communicate and explain the practice, performance, and significance of all aspects of clinical medical physics. All parts of the ABR exam require specific skill sets and preparation: mastery of basic physics and imaging principles; written problem solving often involving rapid calculation; responding clearly and succinctly to oral questions about the practice, methods, and significance of clinical medical physics. This symposium focuses on the preparation necessary for each part of the ABR exam. Although there is some overlap, the nuclear exam covers a different body of knowledge than the diagnostic exam. A separate speaker will address those unique aspects of the nuclear exam, and how preparing for a second specialty differs from the first. Medical physicists who recently completed each ABR exam portion will share their experiences, insights, and preparation methods to help attendees best prepare for the challenges of each part of the ABR exam. In accordance with ABR exam security policy, no recalls or exam questions will be discussed. Learning Objectives: How to prepare for Part 1 of the ABR exam by determining the scope of basic medical physics study material and related problem solving/calculations How to prepare for Part 2 of the ABR exam by understanding diagnostic and/or nuclear imaging physics, systems, dosimetry, safety and related problem solving/calculations How to prepare for Part 3 of the ABR exam by effectively communicating the practice, methods, and significance of clinical diagnostic and/or nuclear medical physics.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-F-204-03: Preparing for Part 3 of the ABR Diagnostic Physics Exam

Adequate, efficient preparation for the ABR Diagnostic and Nuclear Medical Physics exams is key to successfully obtain ABR certification. Each part of the ABR exam presents its own challenges: Part I: Determine the scope of basic medical physics study material, efficiently review this material, and solve related written questions/problems. Part II: Understand imaging principles, modalities, and systems, including image acquisition, processing, and display. Understand the relationship between imaging techniques, image quality, patient dose and safety, and solve related written questions/problems. Part III: Gain crucial, practical, clinical medical physics experience. Effectively communicate and explain the practice, performance, and significance of all aspects of clinical medical physics. All parts of the ABR exam require specific skill sets and preparation: mastery of basic physics and imaging principles; written problem solving often involving rapid calculation; responding clearly and succinctly to oral questions about the practice, methods, and significance of clinical medical physics. This symposium focuses on the preparation necessary for each part of the ABR exam. Although there is some overlap, the nuclear exam covers a different body of knowledge than the diagnostic exam. A separate speaker will address those unique aspects of the nuclear exam, and how preparing for a second specialty differs from the first. Medical physicists who recently completed each ABR exam portion will share their experiences, insights, and preparation methods to help attendees best prepare for the challenges of each part of the ABR exam. In accordance with ABR exam security policy, no recalls or exam questions will be discussed. Learning Objectives: How to prepare for Part 1 of the ABR exam by determining the scope of basic medical physics study material and related problem solving/calculations How to prepare for Part 2 of the ABR exam by understanding diagnostic and/or nuclear imaging physics, systems, dosimetry, safety and related problem solving/calculations How to prepare for Part 3 of the ABR exam by effectively communicating the practice, methods, and significance of clinical diagnostic and/or nuclear medical physics.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-F-204-04: Preparing for Parts 2 & 3 of the ABR Nuclear Medicine Physics Exam

Adequate, efficient preparation for the ABR Diagnostic and Nuclear Medical Physics exams is key to successfully obtain ABR certification. Each part of the ABR exam presents its own challenges: Part I: Determine the scope of basic medical physics study material, efficiently review this material, and solve related written questions/problems. Part II: Understand imaging principles, modalities, and systems, including image acquisition, processing, and display. Understand the relationship between imaging techniques, image quality, patient dose and safety, and solve related written questions/problems. Part III: Gain crucial, practical, clinical medical physics experience. Effectively communicate and explain the practice, performance, and significance of all aspects of clinical medical physics. All parts of the ABR exam require specific skill sets and preparation: mastery of basic physics and imaging principles; written problem solving often involving rapid calculation; responding clearly and succinctly to oral questions about the practice, methods, and significance of clinical medical physics. This symposium focuses on the preparation necessary for each part of the ABR exam. Although there is some overlap, the nuclear exam covers a different body of knowledge than the diagnostic exam. A separate speaker will address those unique aspects of the nuclear exam, and how preparing for a second specialty differs from the first. Medical physicists who recently completed each ABR exam portion will share their experiences, insights, and preparation methods to help attendees best prepare for the challenges of each part of the ABR exam. In accordance with ABR exam security policy, no recalls or exam questions will be discussed. Learning Objectives: How to prepare for Part 1 of the ABR exam by determining the scope of basic medical physics study material and related problem solving/calculations How to prepare for Part 2 of the ABR exam by understanding diagnostic and/or nuclear imaging physics, systems, dosimetry, safety and related problem solving/calculations How to prepare for Part 3 of the ABR exam by effectively communicating the practice, methods, and significance of clinical diagnostic and/or nuclear medical physics.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-F-201-00: PANEL DISCUSSION: Preparing for Parts 2 and 3 of the ABR Therapy Medical Physics Exam

The goal of this session is to provide guidance to medical physicists undergoing the American Board of Radiology certification process in therapeutic medical physics. This panel discussion will focus on parts 2 (computer-based) and 3 (oral) of the examination. Unlike the latter portions of the exam which are specialty-driven, part 1 is universal for all medical physics fields and will not be addressed. This session is structured into different topics that aim to guide the participants on how to successfully prepare for the board exams. The subjects of discussion will include timing and strategies for exam preparation, crucial differences in preparing for the clinical computer-based exam versus the oral exam, what study tools are currently available for each, etc. The panel discussion format will allow the speakers to collectively present their experience and advice relating to each topic and foment audience participation. Learning Objectives: Know the main differences between what is expected for parts 2 and 3 Know different resources for test preparation Know how to formulate a plan to best study for each part based on the specific skill set the two parts require Know how to best present his/her answers during the oral examination – demeanor, answer structure, etc.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-F-201-01: Panel Member

The goal of this session is to provide guidance to medical physicists undergoing the American Board of Radiology certification process in therapeutic medical physics. This panel discussion will focus on parts 2 (computer-based) and 3 (oral) of the examination. Unlike the latter portions of the exam which are specialty-driven, part 1 is universal for all medical physics fields and will not be addressed. This session is structured into different topics that aim to guide the participants on how to successfully prepare for the board exams. The subjects of discussion will include timing and strategies for exam preparation, crucial differences in preparing for the clinical computer-based exam versus the oral exam, what study tools are currently available for each, etc. The panel discussion format will allow the speakers to collectively present their experience and advice relating to each topic and foment audience participation. Learning Objectives: Know the main differences between what is expected for parts 2 and 3 Know different resources for test preparation Know how to formulate a plan to best study for each part based on the specific skill set the two parts require Know how to best present his/her answers during the oral examination – demeanor, answer structure, etc.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-F-201-02: Panel Member

The goal of this session is to provide guidance to medical physicists undergoing the American Board of Radiology certification process in therapeutic medical physics. This panel discussion will focus on parts 2 (computer-based) and 3 (oral) of the examination. Unlike the latter portions of the exam which are specialty-driven, part 1 is universal for all medical physics fields and will not be addressed. This session is structured into different topics that aim to guide the participants on how to successfully prepare for the board exams. The subjects of discussion will include timing and strategies for exam preparation, crucial differences in preparing for the clinical computer-based exam versus the oral exam, what study tools are currently available for each, etc. The panel discussion format will allow the speakers to collectively present their experience and advice relating to each topic and foment audience participation. Learning Objectives: Know the main differences between what is expected for parts 2 and 3 Know different resources for test preparation Know how to formulate a plan to best study for each part based on the specific skill set the two parts require Know how to best present his/her answers during the oral examination – demeanor, answer structure, etc.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-F-201-03: Panel Member

The goal of this session is to provide guidance to medical physicists undergoing the American Board of Radiology certification process in therapeutic medical physics. This panel discussion will focus on parts 2 (computer-based) and 3 (oral) of the examination. Unlike the latter portions of the exam which are specialty-driven, part 1 is universal for all medical physics fields and will not be addressed. This session is structured into different topics that aim to guide the participants on how to successfully prepare for the board exams. The subjects of discussion will include timing and strategies for exam preparation, crucial differences in preparing for the clinical computer-based exam versus the oral exam, what study tools are currently available for each, etc. The panel discussion format will allow the speakers to collectively present their experience and advice relating to each topic and foment audience participation. Learning Objectives: Know the main differences between what is expected for parts 2 and 3 Know different resources for test preparation Know how to formulate a plan to best study for each part based on the specific skill set the two parts require Know how to best present his/her answers during the oral examination – demeanor, answer structure, etc.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-A-BRB-00: PANEL DISCUSSION: SBRT/SRS Case Studies - Brain and Spine

Brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are commonly treated by a multidisciplinary team of neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical physicists. However the treatment objectives, constraints, and technical considerations involved can be quite different between the two techniques. In this interactive session an expert panel of speakers will present clinical brain SRS and spine SBRT cases in order to demonstrate real-world considerations for ensuring safe and accurate treatment delivery and to highlight the significant differences in approach for each treatment site. The session will include discussion of topic such as clinical indications, immobilization, target definition, normal tissue tolerance limits, and beam arrangements. Learning Objectives: Understand the differences in indications and dose/fractionation strategies for intracranial SRS and spine SBRT. Describe the different treatment modalities which can be used to deliver intracranial SRS and spine SBRT. Cite the major differences in treatment setup and delivery principles between intracranial and spine treatments. Identify key critical structures and clinical dosimetric tolerance levels for spine SBRT and intracranial SRS. Understand areas of ongoing work to standardize intracranial SRS and spine SBRT procedures. Schlesinger: Research support: Elekta Instruments, AB; D. Schlesinger, Elekta Instruments, AB - research support; B. Winey, No relevant external funding for this subject.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-A-BRB-01: Panel Member

Brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are commonly treated by a multidisciplinary team of neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical physicists. However the treatment objectives, constraints, and technical considerations involved can be quite different between the two techniques. In this interactive session an expert panel of speakers will present clinical brain SRS and spine SBRT cases in order to demonstrate real-world considerations for ensuring safe and accurate treatment delivery and to highlight the significant differences in approach for each treatment site. The session will include discussion of topic such as clinical indications, immobilization, target definition, normal tissue tolerance limits, and beam arrangements. Learning Objectives: Understand the differences in indications and dose/fractionation strategies for intracranial SRS and spine SBRT. Describe the different treatment modalities which can be used to deliver intracranial SRS and spine SBRT. Cite the major differences in treatment setup and delivery principles between intracranial and spine treatments. Identify key critical structures and clinical dosimetric tolerance levels for spine SBRT and intracranial SRS. Understand areas of ongoing work to standardize intracranial SRS and spine SBRT procedures. Schlesinger: Research support: Elekta Instruments, AB; D. Schlesinger, Elekta Instruments, AB - research support; B. Winey, No relevant external funding for this subject.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-A-BRB-02: Panel Member

Brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are commonly treated by a multidisciplinary team of neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical physicists. However the treatment objectives, constraints, and technical considerations involved can be quite different between the two techniques. In this interactive session an expert panel of speakers will present clinical brain SRS and spine SBRT cases in order to demonstrate real-world considerations for ensuring safe and accurate treatment delivery and to highlight the significant differences in approach for each treatment site. The session will include discussion of topic such as clinical indications, immobilization, target definition, normal tissue tolerance limits, and beam arrangements. Learning Objectives: Understand the differences in indications and dose/fractionation strategies for intracranial SRS and spine SBRT. Describe the different treatment modalities which can be used to deliver intracranial SRS and spine SBRT. Cite the major differences in treatment setup and delivery principles between intracranial and spine treatments. Identify key critical structures and clinical dosimetric tolerance levels for spine SBRT and intracranial SRS. Understand areas of ongoing work to standardize intracranial SRS and spine SBRT procedures. Schlesinger: Research support: Elekta Instruments, AB; D. Schlesinger, Elekta Instruments, AB - research support; B. Winey, No relevant external funding for this subject.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-A-BRB-03: Panel Member

Brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are commonly treated by a multidisciplinary team of neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical physicists. However the treatment objectives, constraints, and technical considerations involved can be quite different between the two techniques. In this interactive session an expert panel of speakers will present clinical brain SRS and spine SBRT cases in order to demonstrate real-world considerations for ensuring safe and accurate treatment delivery and to highlight the significant differences in approach for each treatment site. The session will include discussion of topic such as clinical indications, immobilization, target definition, normal tissue tolerance limits, and beam arrangements. Learning Objectives: Understand the differences in indications and dose/fractionation strategies for intracranial SRS and spine SBRT. Describe the different treatment modalities which can be used to deliver intracranial SRS and spine SBRT. Cite the major differences in treatment setup and delivery principles between intracranial and spine treatments. Identify key critical structures and clinical dosimetric tolerance levels for spine SBRT and intracranial SRS. Understand areas of ongoing work to standardize intracranial SRS and spine SBRT procedures. Schlesinger: Research support: Elekta Instruments, AB; D. Schlesinger, Elekta Instruments, AB - research support; B. Winey, No relevant external funding for this subject.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-AB-207A-03: Image Quality, Dose, and Clinical Applications

Practicing medical physicists are often time charged with the tasks of evaluating and troubleshooting complex image quality issues related to CT scanners. This course will equip them with a solid and practical understanding of common CT imaging chain and its major components with emphasis on acquisition physics and hardware, reconstruction, artifacts, image quality, dose, and advanced clinical applications. The core objective is to explain the effects of these major system components on the image quality. This course will not focus on the rapid-changing advanced technologies given the two-hour time limit, but the fundamental principles discussed in this course may facilitate better understanding of those more complicated technologies. The course will begin with an overview of CT acquisition physics and geometry. X-ray tube and CT detector are important acquisition hardware critical to the overall image quality. Each of these two subsystems consists of several major components. An in-depth description of the function and failure modes of these components will be provided. Examples of artifacts related to these failure modes will be presented: off-focal radiation, tube arcing, heel effect, oil bubble, offset drift effect, cross-talk effect, and bad pixels. The fundamentals of CT image reconstruction will first be discussed on an intuitive level. Approaches that do not require rigorous derivation of mathematical formulations will be presented. This is followed by a detailed derivation of the Fourier slice theorem: the foundation of the FBP algorithm. FBP for parallel-beam, fan-beam, and cone-beam geometries will be discussed. To address the issue of radiation dose related to x-ray CT, recent advances in iterative reconstruction, their advantages, and clinical applications will also be described. Because of the nature of fundamental physics and mathematics, limitations in data acquisition, and non-ideal conditions of major system components, image artifact often arise in the reconstructed images. Because of the limited scope of this course, only major imaging artifacts, their appearance, and possible mitigation and corrections will be discussed. Assessment of the performance of a CT scanner is a complicated subject. Procedures to measure common image quality metrics such as high contrast spatial resolution, low contrast detectability, and slice profile will be described. The reason why these metrics used for FBP may not be sufficient for statistical iterative reconstruction will be explained. Optimizing radiation dose requires comprehension of CT dose metrics. This course will briefly describe various dose metrics, and interaction with acquisition parameters and patient habitus. CT is among the most frequently used imaging tools due to its superior image quality, easy to operate, and a broad range of applications. This course will present several interesting CT applications such as a mobile CT unit on an ambulance for stroke patients, low dose lung cancer screening, and single heartbeat cardiac CT. Learning Objectives: Understand the function and impact of major components of X-ray tube on the image quality. Understand the function and impact of major components of CT detector on the image quality. Be familiar with the basic procedure of CT image reconstruction. Understand the effect of image reconstruction on CT image quality and artifacts. Understand the root causes of common CT image artifacts. Be familiar with image quality metrics especially high and low contrast resolution, noise power spectrum, slice sensitivity profile, etc. Understand why basic image quality metrics used for FBP may not be sufficient to characterize the performance of advanced iterative reconstruction. Be familiar with various CT dose metrics and their interaction with acquisition parameters. New development in advanced CT clinical applications. JH: Employee of GE Healthcare. FD: No disclosure.; J. Hsieh, Jiang Hsieh is an employee of GE Healthcare.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-D-201-01: 2016 Economics Update

The purpose of this session is to introduce attendees to the healthcare reimbursement system and how it applies to the clinical work of a medical physicist. This will include general information about the different categories of payers and payees, how work is described by CPT codes, and how various payers set values for this work in different clinical settings. 2016 is another year of significant changes to the payment system. This presentation will describe the work encompassed in these codes and will give attendees an overview of the changes for 2016 as they apply to radiation oncology. Finally, some insight into what can be expected during 2017 will be presented. This includes what information is typically released by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) during the year and how we as an organization respond. This will include ways members can interact with the AAPM professional economics committee and other resources members may find helpful. Learning objectives1) Basics of how Medicare is structured and how reimbursement rates are set.2) Basic understanding of proposed changes to the 2016 Medicare rules.3) Describe economics and policy resources that are available from the AAPM and how to interact with the professional economics committee.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-D-201-03: Results of a Survey On the Implementation of the TG-51 Protocol and Associated Addendum On Reference Dosimetry of External Beams

Purpose: The working group on the review and extension of the TG-51 protocol (WGTG51) collected data from American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members with respect to their current TG-51 and associated addendum usage in the interest of considering future protocol addenda and guidance on reference dosimetry best practices. This study reports an overview of this survey on dosimetry of external beams. Methods: Fourteen survey questions were developed by WGTG51 and released in November 2015. The questions collected information on reference dosimetry, beam quality specification, and ancillary calibration equipment. Results: Of the 190 submissions completed worldwide (U.S. 70%), 83% were AAPM members. Of the respondents, 33.5% implemented the TG-51 addendum, with the maximum calibration difference for any photon beam, with respect to the original TG-51 protocol, being <1% for 97.4% of responses. One major finding is that 81.8% of respondents used the same cylindrical ionization chamber for photon and electron dosimetry, implying that many clinics are foregoing the use of parallel-plate chambers. Other evidence suggests equivalent dosimetric results can be obtained with both cylindrical and parallel-plate chambers in electron beams. This, combined with users comfort with cylindrical chambers for electrons will likely impact recommendations put forward in an upcoming electron beam addendum to the TG-51 protocol. Data collected on ancillary equipment showed 58.2% (45.0%) of the thermometers (barometers) in use for beam calibration had NIST traceable calibration certificates, but 48.4% (42.7%) were never recalibrated. Conclusion: This survey provides a snapshot of TG-51 external beam reference dosimetry practice in radiotherapy centers. Findings demonstrate the rapid take-up of the TG-51 photon beam addendum and raise issues for the WGTG51 to focus on going forward, including guidelines on ancillary equipment and the choice of chamber for electron beam dosimetry.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-D-201-04: Veracity of Data Elements in Radiation Oncology Incident Learning Systems

Purpose: Incident learning systems encompass volumes, varieties, values, and velocities of underlying data elements consistent with the V’s of big data. Veracity, the 5th V however exists only if there is high inter-rater reliability (IRR) within the data elements. The purpose of this work was to assess IRR in the nationally deployed RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology-Incident Learning System (R) sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Methods: Ten incident reports covering a wide range of scenarios were created in standardized narrative and video formats and disseminated to 67 volunteers of multiple disciplines from 26 institutions along with two published narratives from the International Commission of Radiological Protection to assess IRR on a nationally representative level. The volunteers were instructed to independently enter the associated data elements in a test version of RO-ILS over a 3-week period. All responses were aggregated into a spreadsheet to assess IRR using free-marginal kappa metrics. Results: 48 volunteers from 21 institutions completed all reports in the study period. The average kappa score for all raters across all critical data elements was 0.659 [range 0.326–1.000]. Statistically significant differences (p <0.05) were noted between reporters of different disciplines and raters with varying levels of experience. Kappa scores were high for event classification (0.781) and contributory factors (0.777) and low for likelihood-of-harm (0.326). IRR was highest among AAPM-ASTRO members (0.672) and lowest among trainees (0.463). Conclusion: A moderate-to-substantial level of IRR in RO-ILS was noted in this study. Although the number of events reviewed in this study was small, opportunities for improving the taxonomy for the lower scoring data elements as well as specific educational targets for training were identified by assessing data veracity quantitatively. This is expected to improve the quality of the data garnered from RO-ILS.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-D-201-06: HDR Plan Prechecks Using Eclipse Scripting API

Purpose: Automate brachytherapy treatment plan quality check using Eclipse v13.6 scripting API based on pre-configured rules to minimize human error and maximize efficiency. Methods: The HDR Precheck system is developed based on a rules-driven approach using Eclipse scripting API. This system checks for critical plan parameters like channel length, first source position, source step size and channel mapping. The planned treatment time is verified independently based on analytical methods. For interstitial or SAVI APBI treatment plans, a Patterson-Parker system calculation is performed to verify the planned treatment time. For endobronchial treatments, an analytical formula from TG-59 is used. Acceptable tolerances were defined based on clinical experiences in our department. The system was designed to show PASS/FAIL status levels. Additional information, if necessary, is indicated appropriately in a separate comments field in the user interface. Results: The HDR Precheck system has been developed and tested to verify the treatment plan parameters that are routinely checked by the clinical physicist. The report also serves as a reminder or checklist for the planner to perform any additional critical checks such as applicator digitization or scenarios where the channel mapping was intentionally changed. It is expected to reduce the current manual plan check time from 15 minutes to <1 minute. Conclusion: Automating brachytherapy plan prechecks significantly reduces treatment plan precheck time and reduces human errors. When fully developed, this system will be able to perform TG-43 based second check of the treatment planning system’s dose calculation using random points in the target and critical structures. A histogram will be generated along with tabulated mean and standard deviation values for each structure. A knowledge database will also be developed for Brachyvision plans which will then be used for knowledge-based plan quality checks to further reduce treatment planning errors and increase confidence in the planned treatment.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-FG-201-03: Automatic Pre-Delivery Verification Using Statistical Analysis of Consistencies in Treatment Plan Parameters by the Treatment Site and Modality

Purpose: A novel computer software system, namely APDV (Automatic Pre-Delivery Verification), has been developed for verifying patient treatment plan parameters right prior to treatment deliveries in order to automatically detect and prevent catastrophic errors. Methods: APDV is designed to continuously monitor new DICOM plan files on the TMS computer at the treatment console. When new plans to be delivered are detected, APDV checks the consistencies of plan parameters and high-level plan statistics using underlying rules and statistical properties based on given treatment site, technique and modality. These rules were quantitatively derived by retrospectively analyzing all the EBRT treatment plans of the past 8 years at authors’ institution. Therapists and physicists will be notified with a warning message displayed on the TMS computer if any critical errors are detected, and check results, confirmation, together with dismissal actions will be saved into database for further review. Results: APDV was implemented as a stand-alone program using C# to ensure required real time performance. Mean values and standard deviations were quantitatively derived for various plan parameters including MLC usage, MU/cGy radio, beam SSD, beam weighting, and the beam gantry angles (only for lateral targets) per treatment site, technique and modality. 2D-based rules of combined MU/cGy ratio and averaged SSD values were also derived using joint probabilities of confidence error ellipses. The statistics of these major treatment plan parameters quantitatively evaluate the consistency of any treatment plans which facilitates automatic APDV checking procedures. Conclusion: APDV could be useful in detecting and preventing catastrophic errors immediately before treatment deliveries. Future plan including automatic patient identify and patient setup checks after patient daily images are acquired by the machine and become available on the TMS computer. This project is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) under award 1R01HS0222888. The senior author received research grants from ViewRay Inc. and Varian Medical System.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗