Douglas Pfeiffer

AAPM Task Group 128: Quality assurance tests for prostate brachytherapy ultrasound systems

While ultrasound guided prostate brachytherapy has gained wide acceptance as a primary treatment tool for prostate cancer, quality assurance of the ultrasound guidance system has received very little attention. Task Group 128 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine was created to address quality assurance requirements specific to transrectal ultrasound used for guidance of prostate brachytherapy. Accurate imaging guidance and dosimetry calculation depend upon the quality and accuracy of the ultrasound image. Therefore, a robust quality assurance program for the ultrasound system is essential. A brief review of prostate brachytherapy and ultrasound physics is provided, followed by a recommendation for elements to be included in a comprehensive test phantom. Specific test recommendations are presented, covering grayscale visibility, depth of penetration, axial and lateral resolution, distance measurement, area measurement, volume measurement, needle template/electronic grid alignment, and geometric consistency with the treatment planning computer.

A survey of fluoroscopic exposure rates: AAPM Task Group No. 11 Report

Fluoroscopic procedures, in general, result in much higher exposures to patients than do most types of radiographic procedures [National Council on Radiation Protection, Report 100, p. 31 (1989)]. In spite of this, fluoroscopic exposure rates can vary widely between systems, and often for no apparent reason. The charge of AAPM Task Group No. 11 was to evaluate fluoroscopic exposure rates at the entrant surface of the x-ray image intensifier, and to disseminate this information so that medical physicists could compare their own exposure rate measurements with typical values. The measurement protocol was defined for various system configurations. Sheets of copper were used to attenuate the x-ray beam, and the input exposure rate at the image intensifier (at the input mode closest to 23-cm diameter) in the absence of a scattering medium was determined. With 2 mm of copper as x-ray beam filtration, the median fluoroscopic exposure rate at the image intensifier was found to be 16.5 nC/kg/s (64.0 microR/s), with an average kV of 77 and mA of 2.0 (n = 62).

Ongoing quality control in digital radiography: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 151.

Quality control (QC) in medical imaging is an ongoing process and not just a series of infrequent evaluations of medical imaging equipment. The QC process involves designing and implementing a QC program, collecting and analyzing data, investigating results that are outside the acceptance levels for the QC program, and taking corrective action to bring these results back to an acceptable level. The QC process involves key personnel in the imaging department, including the radiologist, radiologic technologist, and the qualified medical physicist (QMP). The QMP performs detailed equipment evaluations and helps with oversight of the QC program, the radiologic technologist is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the QC program. The continued need for ongoing QC in digital radiography has been highlighted in the scientific literature. The charge of this task group was to recommend consistency tests designed to be performed by a medical physicist or a radiologic technologist under the direction of a medical physicist to identify problems with an imaging system that need further evaluation by a medical physicist, including a fault tree to define actions that need to be taken when certain fault conditions are identified. The focus of this final report is the ongoing QC process, including rejected image analysis, exposure analysis, and artifact identification. These QC tasks are vital for the optimal operation of a department performing digital radiography.

Code of Ethics for the American Association of Physicists in Medicine: report of Task Group 109.

A comprehensive Code of Ethics for the members of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is presented as the report of Task Group 109 which consolidates previous AAPM ethics policies into a unified document. The membership of the AAPM is increasingly diverse. Prior existing AAPM ethics polices were applicable specifically to medical physicists, and did not encompass other types of members such as health physicists, regulators, corporate affiliates, physicians, scientists, engineers, those in training, or other health care professionals. Prior AAPM ethics policies did not specifically address research, education, or business ethics. The Ethics Guidelines of this new Code of Ethics have four major sections: professional conduct, research ethics, education ethics, and business ethics. Some elements of each major section may be duplicated in other sections, so that readers interested in a particular aspect of the code do not need to read the entire document for all relevant information. The prior Complaint Procedure has also been incorporated into this Code of Ethics. This Code of Ethics (PP 24-A) replaces the following AAPM policies: Ethical Guidelines for Vacating a Position (PP 4-B); Ethical Guidelines for Reviewing the Work of Another Physicist (PP 5-C); Guidelines for Ethical Practice for Medical Physicists (PP 8-D); and Ethics Complaint Procedure (PP 21-A). The AAPM Board of Directors approved this Code or Ethics on July 31, 2008.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 3.a: Levels of supervision for medical physicists in clinical training.

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.

Health Physics and Radiological Health, 4th Edition.

Health Physics and Radiological Health, 4th Edition. Johnson Thomas E., Birky Brian K., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a Walter Kluwer business, Baltimore, Maryland, 2012,

SU-A-213-00: Professional Council Symposium: Alternative Career Opportunities for Medical Physicists

205.99. ISBN: 9781609134198, 1288 pp. (hardcover).