AAPM Medical physics practice guideline 15.A: Peer review in clinical physics.

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 8000 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. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: Updates and critical information 2019.

The need for a guidance document on MR safe practices arose from a growing awareness of the MR environment's potential risks and adverse event reports involving patients, equipment, and personnel. Initially published in 2002, the American College of Radiology White Paper on MR Safety established de facto industry standards for safe and responsible practices in clinical and research MR environments. The most recent version addresses new sources of risk of adverse events, increases awareness of dynamic MR environments, and recommends that those responsible for MR medical director safety undergo annual MR safety training. With regular updates to these guidelines, the latest MR safety concerns can be accounted for to ensure a safer MR environment where dangers are minimized. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:331-338.

Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.

The Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial, conducted by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network, is a clinical trial designed to compare the accuracy of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus screen-film mammography in a screening population. Five FFDM systems from four manufacturers (Fischer, Fuji, General Electric, and Lorad) were employed in the study at 35 clinical sites. A core physics team devised and implemented tests to evaluate these systems. A detailed description of physics and quality control tests is presented, including estimates of: mean glandular dose, modulation transfer function (MTF), 2D noise power spectra, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The mean glandular doses for the standard breast ranged from 0.79 to 2.98 mGy, with 1.62 mGy being the average across all units and machine types. For the five systems evaluated, the MTF dropped to 50% at markedly different percentages (22% to 87%) of the Nyquist limit, indicating that factors other than detector element (del) size have an important effect on spatial resolution. Noise power spectra and SNR were measured; however, we found that it was difficult to standardize and compare these between units. For each machine type, the performance as measured by the tests was very consistent, and no predictive benefit was seen for many of the tests during the 2-year period of the trial. It was found that, after verification of proper operation during acceptance testing, if systems failed they generally did so suddenly rather than through gradual deterioration of performance. Because of the relatively short duration of this study further, investigation of the long-term failure characteristics of these systems is advisable.

Quality control for digital mammography: part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial.

The Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST), conducted under the auspices of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN), is a clinical trial designed to compare the accuracy of digital versus screen-film mammography in a screening population [E. Pisano et al., ACRIN 6652-Digital vs. Screen-Film Mammography, ACRIN (2001)]. Part I of this work described the Quality Control program developed to ensure consistency and optimal operation of the digital equipment. For many of the tests, there were no failures during the 24 months imaging was performed in DMIST. When systems failed, they generally did so suddenly rather than through gradual deterioration of performance. In this part, the utility and effectiveness of those tests are considered. This suggests that after verification of proper operation, routine extensive testing would be of minimal value. A recommended set of tests is presented including additional and improved tests, which we believe meet the intent and spirit of the Mammography Quality Standards Act regulations to ensure that full-field digital mammography systems are functioning correctly, and consistently producing mammograms of excellent image quality.