On dosimetric characteristics of detectors for relative dosimetry in small fields: a multicenter experimental study

Objective. In this multicentric collaborative study, we aimed to verify whether the selected radiation detectors satisfy the requirements of TRS-483 Code of Practice for relative small field dosimetry in megavoltage photon beams used in radiotherapy, by investigating four dosimetric characteristics. Furthermore, we intended to analyze and complement the recommendations given in TRS-483.Approach. Short-term stability, dose linearity, dose-rate dependence, and leakage were determined for 17 models of detectors considered suitable for small field dosimetry. Altogether, 47 detectors were used in this study across ten institutions. Photon beams with 6 and 10 MV, with and without flattening filters, generated by Elekta Versa HDTMor Varian TrueBeamTMlinear accelerators, were used.Main results. The tolerance level of 0.1% for stability was fulfilled by 70% of the data points. For the determination of dose linearity, two methods were considered. Results from the use of a stricter method show that the guideline of 0.1% for dose linearity is not attainable for most of the detectors used in the study. Following the second approach (squared Pearson's correlation coefficientr2), it was found that 100% of the data fulfill the criteriar2> 0.999 (0.1% guideline for tolerance). Less than 50% of all data points satisfied the published tolerance of 0.1% for dose-rate dependence. Almost all data points (98.2%) satisfied the 0.1% criterion for leakage.Significance. For short-term stability (repeatability), it was found that the 0.1% guideline could not be met. Therefore, a less rigorous criterion of 0.25% is proposed. For dose linearity, our recommendation is to adopt a simple and clear methodology and to define an achievable tolerance based on the experimental data. For dose-rate dependence, a realistic criterion of 1% is proposed instead of the present 0.1%. Agreement was found with published guidelines for background signal (leakage).

EFOMP policy statement 18: Medical physics education for the non-physics healthcare professions

Although Medical Physics educators have historically contributed to the education of the non-physics healthcare professions, their role was not studied in a systematic manner. In 2009, EFOMP set up a group to research the issue. In their first paper, the group carried out an extensive literature review regarding physics teaching for the non-physics healthcare professions. Their second paper reported the results of a pan-European survey of physics curricula delivered to the healthcare professions and a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) audit of the role. The group's third paper presented a strategic development model for the role, based on the SWOT data. A comprehensive curriculum development model was subsequently published, whilst plans were laid to develop the present policy statement. This policy statement presents mission and vision statements for Medical Physicists teaching non-physics users of medical devices and physical agents, best practices for teaching non-physics healthcare professionals, a stepwise process for curriculum development (content, method of delivery and assessment), and summary recommendations based on the aforementioned research studies.

A generic curriculum development model for the biomedical physics component of the educational and training programmes of the non-physics healthcare professions

The objective of the study was the construction of a generic curriculum development model for the use of biomedical physics (BMP) educators teaching the non-physics healthcare professions (HCP) in Europe. A comprehensive, qualitative cross-sectional Europe-wide survey of the curricula delivered by BMP in Faculties of Medicine and Health Sciences (FMHS) was carried out. Curricular content was collected from faculty web-sites, curricular documents and textbooks. The survey data was supplemented with semi-structured interviews and direct observation during onsite visits. The number of faculties studied was 118 from 67 universities spread all over Europe, whilst the number of onsite visits/interviews was 15 (geographically distributed as follows: Eastern Europe 6, North Western Europe 5, and South Western Europe 4). EU legislation, recommendations by European national medical councils, educational benchmark statements by higher education quality assurance agencies, research journals concerning HCP education and other documents relevant to standards in clinical practice and undergraduate education were also analyzed. Best practices and BMP learning outcomes were elicited from the curricular materials, interviews and documentation and these were subsequently used to construct the curriculum development model. A structured, comprehensive BMP learning outcomes inventory was designed in the format required by the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). The structures of the inventory and curriculum development model make them ideally suited for use by BMP involved in European curriculum development initiatives for the HCP.

Medical physics in Europe following recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency

BACKGROUND

Medical physics is a health profession where principles of applied physics are mostly directed towards the application of ionizing radiation in medicine. The key role of the medical physics expert in safe and effective use of ionizing radiation in medicine was widely recognized in recent European reference documents like the European Union Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM (2014), and European Commission Radiation Protection No. 174, European Guidelines on Medical Physics Expert (2014). Also the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been outspoken in supporting and fostering the status of medical physics in radiation medicine through multiple initiatives as technical and cooperation projects and important documents like IAEA Human Health Series No. 25, Roles and Responsibilities, and Education and Training Requirements for Clinically Qualified Medical Physicists (2013) and the International Basic Safety Standards, General Safety Requirements Part 3 (2014). The significance of these documents and the recognition of the present insufficient fulfilment of the requirements and recommendations in many European countries have led the IAEA to organize in 2015 the Regional Meeting on Medical Physics in Europe, where major issues in medical physics in Europe were discussed. Most important outcomes of the meeting were the recommendations addressed to European member states and the survey on medical physics status in Europe conducted by the IAEA and European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics.

CONCLUSIONS

Published recommendations of IAEA Regional Meeting on Medical Physics in Europe shall be followed and enforced in all European states. Appropriate qualification framework including education, clinical specialization, certification and registration of medical physicists shall be established and international recommendation regarding staffing levels in the field of medical physics shall be fulfilled in particular. European states have clear legal and moral responsibility to effectively transpose Basic Safety Standards into national legislation in order to ensure high quality and safety in patient healthcare.

Dosimetric inter-institutional comparison in European radiotherapy centres: Results of IAEA supported treatment planning system audit

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

One of the newer audit modalities operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) involves audits of treatment planning systems (TPS) in radiotherapy. The main focus of the audit is the dosimetry verification of the delivery of a radiation treatment plan for three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy using high energy photon beams. The audit has been carried out in eight European countries - Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, Poland and Portugal. The corresponding results are presented.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The TPS audit reviews the dosimetry, treatment planning and radiotherapy delivery processes using the 'end-to-end' approach, i.e. following the pathway similar to that of the patient, through imaging, treatment planning and dose delivery. The audit is implemented at the national level with IAEA assistance. The national counterparts conduct the TPS audit at local radiotherapy centres through on-site visits. TPS calculated doses are compared with ion chamber measurements performed in an anthropomorphic phantom for eight test cases per algorithm/beam. A set of pre-defined agreement criteria is used to analyse the performance of TPSs.

RESULTS

TPS audit was carried out in 60 radiotherapy centres. In total, 190 data sets (combination of algorithm and beam quality) have been collected and reviewed. Dosimetry problems requiring interventions were discovered in about 10% of datasets. In addition, suboptimal beam modelling in TPSs was discovered in a number of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The TPS audit project using the IAEA methodology has verified the treatment planning system calculations for 3D conformal radiotherapy in a group of radiotherapy centres in Europe. It contributed to achieving better understanding of the performance of TPSs and helped to resolve issues related to imaging, dosimetry and treatment planning.