Results for “Coding Guidelines” — Page 24

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-FG-CAMPUS-JeP2-05: MRI-Guided Single-Fraction Boost Delivery On Individual Axillary Lymph Nodes

Purpose: The Utrecht MRI-linac (MRL) design enables new MR-guided radiotherapy (RT) approaches. This is a feasibility study for a single-fraction high dose (boost) to individual lymph nodes (LNs) in breast-cancer patients, after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (WBI) with conventional axillary RT (AxRT). Methods: After written informed consent, 5 breast-cancer patients (cT1-3N0) were enrolled (NL500460.041.14 trial) and underwent 1.5T MRI in supine RT position, after BCS. Axillary levels, based on ESTRO guidelines, and organs-at-risk (OARs) – including lungs, chest wall, plexus and neurovascular bundle (NVB) – were delineated. Pseudo-CT scans (pCTs) were generated by HU bulk-assignment of water, lung, and air. With Monaco treatment-planning software (TPS Elekta), VMAT plans were generated for simultaneous WBI and AxRT, prescribing 16×2.66=42.56Gy (V95%>99% V107%<2cc). Two scenarios were considered: AxRT of levels I–II; AxRT of levels I–IV, depending on boost location. Per patient, 4 LNs with varying axillary locations were selected, delineated, and expanded to PTV with 2-mm margin. Using dedicated MRL TPS, accounting for magnetic-field effects, an IMRT 1×8.5Gy boost was simulated for each LN, to achieve a total target dose of 66Gy EQD2 (α/β=3.5Gy). WBI/ART doses and boost doses were added, and evaluated in EQD2. Results: For all scenarios, 1×8.5Gy boosts could be simulated within clinical constraints for a 66Gy total dose, in addition to WBI/AxRT. LN target coverage was excellent (V95%>95%, mean >8.5Gy). Additional dose to OARs was limited. Conclusion: Our study explored the concept of LN boosting using on-line MRI guidance. It is feasible to boost individual axillary LNs – with 2-mm margin – with an additional 1×8.5Gy, in all axillary levels, within clinical constraints. This may lead to more personalized RT approaches for patients with involved LNs and may reduce RT-induced toxicity, or the need for axillary surgery. Other LN boost strategies, including dose escalation, are under investigation.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Temporal Study 2021-2022: Sample-Based Surface Water Chemistry and Organic Matter Characterization across Watersheds in the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA (v3)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of temporal variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin. The dataset provides geochemistry and organic matter characterization data generated from samples collected at weekly or bi-weekly intervals at six sites across the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. Related sensor data will be published separately and can be used to link sediment respiration rates to biogeochemical processing rates. The data package was originally published in November 2022. It was updated in November 2023 (v2; modified files) and April 2025 (new and modified files). See the change history section in readme for more details. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC; reported as non-purgeable organic carbon; NPOC), total nitrogen (TN), total suspended solids (TSS), and ions; (5) averaged values from water chemistry data; (6) surface water sampling protocol; (7) sensor protocol; (8) readme; (9) methods codes; (10) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; and (11) folder of high resolution characterization of organic via 12 Tesla Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) through the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL; https://www.pnnl.gov/environmental-molecular-sciences-laboratory). This folder contains two subfolders, one containing the .xml data files and the other containing instructions for using Formularity (https://omics.pnl.gov/software/formularity) and an R script to process the data based on the user's specific needs. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .ref, or .xml. We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected our data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Data and Scripts Associated with the Manuscript “Water Column Respiration in the Yakima River Basin is Explained by Temperature, Nutrients and Suspended Solids”

This data package is associated with the publication “Water Column Respiration in the Yakima River Basin is Explained by Temperature, Nutrients and Suspended Solids” published in EGU Biogeochemistry (Laan et al. 2025). In this research, water column respiration (ERwc) data, surface water chemistry data, organic matter (OM) chemistry data, and publicly available geospatial data were used in analysis to evaluate the variability in ERwc at 47 sites across the Yakima River basin in Washington, USA. In addition to this readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. The data package includes the data inputs, and outputs, and R scripts to reproduce all the analyses performed in the manuscript and create manuscript figures. The data package is comprised of three main folders (Code, Data, and Figures). The Code folder is comprised of four scripts and three analysis-specific subfolders that contain the R scripts to perform the analyses described in the publication and create publication figures. The Data folder is comprised of two “.csv” files and four subfolders that contain data input and output files. The Published_Data folder contains a readme that directs the user to download the appropriate files and add to this folder when using scripts. The Figures folder includes figures from the manuscript in “.pdf” and “.png” formats and a folder with intermediate figure files. This data package is associated with a GitHub repository which can be found at https://github.com/river-corridors-sfa/rcsfa-RC2-SPS-ERwc. We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected some of these data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-F-304-01: Overview of the Working Group On Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (WGSBRT)

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) was introduced clinically more than twenty years ago, and many subsequent publications have reported safety and efficacy data. The AAPM Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy/SBRT (WGSBRT) extracted published treatment outcomes data from extensive literature searches to summarize and construct tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for six anatomical regions: Cranial, Head and Neck, Thoracic, Abdominal, Pelvic, and Spinal. In this session, we present the WGSBRT’s work for cranial sites, and recurrent head and neck cancer. From literature-based data and associated models, guidelines to aid with safe and effective hypofractionated radiotherapy treatment are being determined. Further, the ability of existing and proposed radiobiological models to fit these data is considered as to the ability to distinguish between the linear-quadratic and alternative radiobiological models such as secondary cell death from vascular damage, immunogenic, or bystander effects. Where appropriate, specific model parameters are estimated. As described in “The lessons of QUANTEC,” (1), lack of adequate reporting standards continues to limit the amount of useful quantitative information that can be extracted from peer-reviewed publications. Recommendations regarding reporting standards are considered, to enable such reviews to achieve more complete characterization of clinical outcomes. 1 Jackson A, Marks LB, Bentzen SM, Eisbruch A, Yorke ED, Ten Haken RK, Constine LS, Deasy JO. The lessons of QUANTEC: recommendations for reporting and gathering data on dose-volume dependencies of treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S155–60. Learning Objectives: Describe the techniques, types of cancer and dose schedules used in treating recurrent H&N cancers with SBRT List the radiobiological models that compete with the linear-quadratic model in explaining the results of hypofractionated RT Describe the dose/volume metrics that are considered safe in SBRT treatment of tumors near the optic structures. Discuss the efficacy of hypofractionation and dosing schedules used in treating vestibular schwannomas Identify some difficulties in modeling TCP and NTCP for cranial tumors treated with hypofractionation. One moderator, Dr. Grimm, designed and holds intellectual property rights to the DVH Evaluator software tool which is an FDA-cleared product in commercial use, and can analyze some of this data. No others have relevant conflicts of interest.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-F-304-02: Recurrent HNC Treated with SBRT: TCP-Based Outcome Estimates

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) was introduced clinically more than twenty years ago, and many subsequent publications have reported safety and efficacy data. The AAPM Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy/SBRT (WGSBRT) extracted published treatment outcomes data from extensive literature searches to summarize and construct tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for six anatomical regions: Cranial, Head and Neck, Thoracic, Abdominal, Pelvic, and Spinal. In this session, we present the WGSBRT’s work for cranial sites, and recurrent head and neck cancer. From literature-based data and associated models, guidelines to aid with safe and effective hypofractionated radiotherapy treatment are being determined. Further, the ability of existing and proposed radiobiological models to fit these data is considered as to the ability to distinguish between the linear-quadratic and alternative radiobiological models such as secondary cell death from vascular damage, immunogenic, or bystander effects. Where appropriate, specific model parameters are estimated. As described in “The lessons of QUANTEC,” (1), lack of adequate reporting standards continues to limit the amount of useful quantitative information that can be extracted from peer-reviewed publications. Recommendations regarding reporting standards are considered, to enable such reviews to achieve more complete characterization of clinical outcomes. 1 Jackson A, Marks LB, Bentzen SM, Eisbruch A, Yorke ED, Ten Haken RK, Constine LS, Deasy JO. The lessons of QUANTEC: recommendations for reporting and gathering data on dose-volume dependencies of treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S155–60. Learning Objectives: Describe the techniques, types of cancer and dose schedules used in treating recurrent H&N cancers with SBRT List the radiobiological models that compete with the linear-quadratic model in explaining the results of hypofractionated RT Describe the dose/volume metrics that are considered safe in SBRT treatment of tumors near the optic structures. Discuss the efficacy of hypofractionation and dosing schedules used in treating vestibular schwannomas Identify some difficulties in modeling TCP and NTCP for cranial tumors treated with hypofractionation. One moderator, Dr. Grimm, designed and holds intellectual property rights to the DVH Evaluator software tool which is an FDA-cleared product in commercial use, and can analyze some of this data. No others have relevant conflicts of interest.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Innovative Method for Welding in Generation 3 CSP to Enable Reliable Manufacturing of Solar Receivers to withstand Daily Cycling at Temperatures Above 700°C (Final Technical Report)

Inconel® Alloy 740H® (alloy 740H) was the first age-hardenable nickel-based alloy approved by the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code for use in pressure-boundary applications. Over the past ~20 years the alloy has been optimized for weldability and high-temperature stability, approved for use in different applications. Development of a supply chain combined with the advantageous properties of the alloy (high-temperature creep strength, oxidation and corrosion resistance, etc.) have resulted in the alloy being applied to new high-temperature power cycle demonstration projects, and of particular interest are applications to concentrating solar power (CSP) to enable higher-efficiency Generation 3 CSP systems and the corresponding supercritical CO 2 (sCO 2 ) power cycle components (heat exchangers, piping, etc.). The high allowable stresses of alloy 740H also make it a desirable material for current Generation 2 CSP solar power receivers to improve cyclic capability and/or reduce receiver height. Recent experiences in demonstration projects utilizing alloy 740H identified cracking issues during welding and fabrication. In this project, a detailed study was done to confirm and clarify the Stress Relaxation Cracking (SRxC) mechanism, also known as stress relief cracking or strain-age cracking (SAC), during post-weld heat-treatment (PWHT). This involved detailed microscopy and advanced characterization to understand the root cause(s) of three failures obtained from industry. Based in-part on these findings, a targeted laboratory based SRxC test method was utilized to evaluate variables such as heat-to-heat variations, strain level, PWHT temperature, and starting material condition on three heats of alloy 740H. Industrial shop welding of cold-worked plates was also conducted. The research showed the following: SRxC was confirmed as the cracking mechanism for all field failures; Stress state (from residual stresses, constraint, deformation, and local stress concentrations) was playing a significant role in field failures and laboratory testing confirmed increasing susceptibility for all heats with increasing strain levels. High levels of microstructural strain were identified at crack initiation locations, in some cases leading to local recrystallization; Precipitate free zones (PFZs) at grain boundaries were found at relaxation cracks and crack initiation locations uniquely associated with SRxC in alloy 740H. Laboratory testing reproduced this microstructural feature which had only previously been reported in long-term creep testing of weldments. Advanced nano-scale characterization confirmed the presence of a moving boundary leading to coarsening of precipitates and PFZs where damage accumulated; The research suggested heat-to-heat variations due to local chemistry and processing may influence SRxC susceptibility, but more work is needed to fully clarify these effects. To disseminate the key learnings from this research to the scientific and engineering communities and alloy 740H end users, multiple technical publications and presentations were made, an industrial alloy 740H users meeting was held, and a new industry guideline specification document which can be directly implemented by end-users of alloy 740H was produced.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Data for Stetten et al. (2025), "Biogeochemical controls on iron speciation and cycling across upland to shoreline gradients in freshwater and estuarine coastal soils (Lake Erie and Chesapeake Bay, United States)"

Coastal environments are dynamic interfaces that mediate carbon and nutrient exchanges between terrestrial landscapes and open waters, but it is unclear how biogeochemical reactions, in particular iron (Fe) redox transformations, affect the understanding and prediction of coastal ecosystem functions. This dataset includes measurements from two freshwater sites in the Western and Central basins of Lake Erie (Ohio, United States) and two estuarine sites in the Chesapeake Bay (Maryland, United States); the analytical results were reported by Stetten et al. (2025) in Science of the Total Environment. It was produced as part of the COMPASS-FME project, which seeks to advance a scalable, predictive understanding of the fundamental biogeochemical processes, ecological structure, and ecosystem dynamics that distinguish coastal terrestrial-aquatic interfaces from the purely terrestrial or aquatic systems to which they are coupled. The sites were sampled in November 2022 (CRC), December 2022 (MSM), February 2023 (GCW), and March 2023 (OWC); site codes follow those used by Pennington et al. (2025).The dataset consists of the following soil data:- Solid data (Fe concentration, etc.)- Porewater data (sulfate, sulfide, etc.)- Linear combination fitting results of X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES) spectra; i.e., quantitative results of the oxidation state of Fe, indicated as a proportion of pure Fe(III) and Fe(II) model compounds- Linear combination fitting results of EXAFS (extended X-ray absorption fine structure) spectra, indicated as proportion of of Fe-model compounds (illite, smectite, etc.)Each data type has a single file in comma-separated value (CSV) format. No special software is required to read it.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery challenges traditional prescriptive quality management (QM) methods, such as many of those included in guidelines published by organizations such as the AAPM, ASTRO, ACR, ESTRO, and IAEA. These prescriptive guidelines have traditionally focused on monitoring all aspects of the functional performance of radiotherapy (RT) equipment by comparing parameters against tolerances set at strict but achievable values. Many errors that occur in radiation oncology are not due to failures in devices and software; rather they are failures in workflow and process. A systematic understanding of the likelihood and clinical impact of possible failures throughout a course of radiotherapy is needed to direct limit QM resources efficiently to produce maximum safety and quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and has developed a framework for designing QM activities, based on estimates of the probability of identified failures and their clinical outcome through the RT planning and delivery process. The Task Group has chosen a specific radiotherapy process required for “intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)” as a case study. The goal of this work is to apply modern risk-based analysis techniques to this complex RT process in order to demonstrate to the RT community that such techniques may help identify more effective and efficient ways to enhance the safety and quality of our treatment processes. The task group generated by consensus an example quality management program strategy for the IMRT process performed at the institution of one of the authors. This report describes the methodology and nomenclature developed, presents the process maps, FMEAs, fault trees, and QM programs developed, and makes suggestions on how this information could be used in the clinic. The development and implementation of risk-assessment techniques will make radiation therapy safer and more efficient.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Groundwater and Surface Water Flow (GSFLOW) model files for the East River, Colorado

The data package contains model input files and executables for the East River, Colorado (750 km2) located in the headwaters of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The code applied is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Groundwater and Surface Water Flow (GSFLOW) model. The model contains a 100-m grid resolution to represent topographic complexity and a daily timestep accounts for energy and water partitioning between the snowpack, vegetation, soil zone and bedrock. The land surface model is dynamically linked to a three-dimensional groundwater flow model that allows for streamflow gaining and losing conditions. The groundwater model accounts for nine stratigraphic units and extends 400 m below land surface. Using this modeling framework we explore historical water budgets (water year 1987-2022) and the influence of seasonal warming and associated mechanisms driving groundwater declines and streamflow loss. A Readme_062424.txt file provides instructions on how to download all files. Input and output files are provided for the historical simulation representative of water years 1987 to 2022 (i.e. baseline) and the all-year +4C warming scenario. Instructions are provided to run the seasonal warming scenarios with warming applied only to the autumn, winter, spring or summer months. Modeled output used in figures for Carroll et al., 2024 are also provided with metadata describing where these data were obtained. This dataset additionally includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.Updated on 06-24-2024: The dataset was updated to include model outputs (updated base.zip and 4C.zip files), figure source files (Figure_Source_Files.zip), an updated Readme file (Readme_062424.txt), climate input files (climate_input_files.zip), and the adoption of ESS-DIVE File Level Metadata and CSV reporting formats (inclusion of flmd.csv and dd.csv files).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-F-304-00: Outcomes of Hypofractionated Treatments - Results of the WGSBRT

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) was introduced clinically more than twenty years ago, and many subsequent publications have reported safety and efficacy data. The AAPM Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy/SBRT (WGSBRT) extracted published treatment outcomes data from extensive literature searches to summarize and construct tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for six anatomical regions: Cranial, Head and Neck, Thoracic, Abdominal, Pelvic, and Spinal. In this session, we present the WGSBRT’s work for cranial sites, and recurrent head and neck cancer. From literature-based data and associated models, guidelines to aid with safe and effective hypofractionated radiotherapy treatment are being determined. Further, the ability of existing and proposed radiobiological models to fit these data is considered as to the ability to distinguish between the linear-quadratic and alternative radiobiological models such as secondary cell death from vascular damage, immunogenic, or bystander effects. Where appropriate, specific model parameters are estimated. As described in “The lessons of QUANTEC,” (1), lack of adequate reporting standards continues to limit the amount of useful quantitative information that can be extracted from peer-reviewed publications. Recommendations regarding reporting standards are considered, to enable such reviews to achieve more complete characterization of clinical outcomes. 1 Jackson A, Marks LB, Bentzen SM, Eisbruch A, Yorke ED, Ten Haken RK, Constine LS, Deasy JO. The lessons of QUANTEC: recommendations for reporting and gathering data on dose-volume dependencies of treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S155–60. Learning Objectives: Describe the techniques, types of cancer and dose schedules used in treating recurrent H&N cancers with SBRT List the radiobiological models that compete with the linear-quadratic model in explaining the results of hypofractionated RT Describe the dose/volume metrics that are considered safe in SBRT treatment of tumors near the optic structures. Discuss the efficacy of hypofractionation and dosing schedules used in treating vestibular schwannomas Identify some difficulties in modeling TCP and NTCP for cranial tumors treated with hypofractionation. One moderator, Dr. Grimm, designed and holds intellectual property rights to the DVH Evaluator software tool which is an FDA-cleared product in commercial use, and can analyze some of this data. No others have relevant conflicts of interest.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-F-304-05: Cranial TCP/NTCP Modeling Insights and Caveats

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) was introduced clinically more than twenty years ago, and many subsequent publications have reported safety and efficacy data. The AAPM Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy/SBRT (WGSBRT) extracted published treatment outcomes data from extensive literature searches to summarize and construct tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for six anatomical regions: Cranial, Head and Neck, Thoracic, Abdominal, Pelvic, and Spinal. In this session, we present the WGSBRT’s work for cranial sites, and recurrent head and neck cancer. From literature-based data and associated models, guidelines to aid with safe and effective hypofractionated radiotherapy treatment are being determined. Further, the ability of existing and proposed radiobiological models to fit these data is considered as to the ability to distinguish between the linear-quadratic and alternative radiobiological models such as secondary cell death from vascular damage, immunogenic, or bystander effects. Where appropriate, specific model parameters are estimated. As described in “The lessons of QUANTEC,” (1), lack of adequate reporting standards continues to limit the amount of useful quantitative information that can be extracted from peer-reviewed publications. Recommendations regarding reporting standards are considered, to enable such reviews to achieve more complete characterization of clinical outcomes. 1 Jackson A, Marks LB, Bentzen SM, Eisbruch A, Yorke ED, Ten Haken RK, Constine LS, Deasy JO. The lessons of QUANTEC: recommendations for reporting and gathering data on dose-volume dependencies of treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S155–60. Learning Objectives: Describe the techniques, types of cancer and dose schedules used in treating recurrent H&N cancers with SBRT List the radiobiological models that compete with the linear-quadratic model in explaining the results of hypofractionated RT Describe the dose/volume metrics that are considered safe in SBRT treatment of tumors near the optic structures. Discuss the efficacy of hypofractionation and dosing schedules used in treating vestibular schwannomas Identify some difficulties in modeling TCP and NTCP for cranial tumors treated with hypofractionation. One moderator, Dr. Grimm, designed and holds intellectual property rights to the DVH Evaluator software tool which is an FDA-cleared product in commercial use, and can analyze some of this data. No others have relevant conflicts of interest.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Spatial Study 2021: Sample-Based Surface Water Chemistry and Organic Matter Characterization across Watersheds in the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA (v3)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of spatial variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin. The dataset provides geochemistry and organic matter characterization data generated from samples collected during the same two-week period at 47 sites within multiple rivers throughout the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. Related sensor data are published at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1892054. This data package was originally published September 2022. It was updated May 2023 (modified files) and November 2024 (new and modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. This dataset is comprised of one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC; reported as non-purgeable organic carbon; NPOC), total nitrogen (TN), total suspended solids (TSS), ions, and benzene polycarboxylic acid (BPCA) concentration and stable isotope data; (5) averaged values from water chemistry data; (6) surface water sampling protocol; (7) sensor protocol (8) readme; (9) methods codes; (10) international generic-sample number (IGSN) mapping file; and (11) folder of high resolution characterization of organic matter via 12 Tesla Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) through the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL; https://www.pnnl.gov/environmental-molecular-sciences-laboratory). This folder contains two subfolders, one containing the .xml data files and the other containing instructions for using Formultitude (https://github.com/PNNL-Comp-Mass-Spec/Formultitude) and an R script to process the data based on the user's specific needs. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .ref, or .xml. We thank the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Parks, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and Cowiche Canyon Conservancy for access to field locations where these samples were collected. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-D-201-06: Remote Dosmetric Auditing of VMAT Deliveries for Clinical Trials Using EPID

Purpose: To develop a method for remote dosimetric auditing the delivery of VMAT using EPID which allows for simple, inexpensive and time efficient dosimetric credentialing for clinical trials. Methods: Remote centers are provided with CT datasets and planning guidelines to produce VMAT plans for a head and neck and a post-prostatectomy treatment. Plans are transferred in the planning system to two virtual water equivalent phantoms, one flat and one cylindrical. Cine images are acquired during VMAT delivery to the EPID in air with gantry angle recorded in image headers. Centers also deliver provided calibration plans to enable EPID signal to dose conversion, determination of the central axis, and correction of EPID sag prior to analysis. EPID images and planned doses are sent to the central site. EPID cine images are converted to dose in the virtual phantoms using an established backprojection method (King et al., Med.Phys. 2012) with EPID backscatter correction. Individual arcs (with gantry angles collapsed to zero) are evaluated at 10 cm depth in the flat phantom using 2D gamma, and total doses are evaluated in the cylindrical phantom using 3D gamma. Results are reported for criteria of 3%,3mm, 3%,2mm and 2%,2mm for all points greater than 10% of global maximum. Results: The pilot study for Varian centers has commenced, and three centers have been audited for head and neck plans and two for post-prostatectomy plans to date. The mean pass rate for arc-by-arc 2D analysis at 3%,3mm is 99.5% and for 3D analysis is 95.8%. A method for Elekta linacs using an inclinometer for gantry angle information is under development. Conclusion: Preliminary results for this new method are promising. The method takes advantage of EPID equipment available at most centers and clinically established software to provide a feasible, low cost solution to credentialing centers for clinical trials. Funding has been provided from Calvary Mater Newcastle Department of Radiation Oncology, TROG Cancer Research and the University of Newcastle. Kimberley Legge is the recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award. Narges Miri is a recipient of a University of Newcastle postgraduate scholarship.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

MO-PIS-Exhibit Hall-01: Imaging: CT Dose Optimization Technologies I

Partners in Solutions is an exciting new program in which AAPM partners with our vendors to present practical “hands-on” information about the equipment and software systems that we use in our clinics. The imaging topic this year is CT scanner dose optimization capabilities. Note that the sessions are being held in a special purpose room built on the Exhibit Hall Floor, to encourage further interaction with the vendors. Dose Optimization Capabilities of GE Computed Tomography Scanners Presentation Time: 11:15 – 11:45 AM GE Healthcare is dedicated to the delivery of high quality clinical images through the development of technologies, which optimize the application of ionizing radiation. In computed tomography, dose management solutions fall into four categories: employs projection data and statistical modeling to decrease noise in the reconstructed image - creating an opportunity for mA reduction in the acquisition of diagnostic images. Veo represents true Model Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBiR). Using high-level algorithms in tandem with advanced computing power, Veo enables lower pixel noise standard deviation and improved spatial resolution within a single image. Advanced Adaptive Image Filters allow for maintenance of spatial resolution while reducing image noise. Examples of adaptive image space filters include Neuro 3-D filters and Cardiac Noise Reduction Filters. AutomA adjusts mA along the z-axis and is the CT equivalent of auto exposure control in conventional x-ray systems. Dynamic Z-axis Tracking offers an additional opportunity for dose reduction in helical acquisitions while SmartTrack Z-axis Tracking serves to ensure beam, collimator and detector alignment during tube rotation. SmartmA provides angular mA modulation. ECG Helical Modulation reduces mA during the systolic phase of the heart cycle. SmartBeam optimization uses bowtie beam-shaping hardware and software to filter off-axis x-rays - minimizing dose and reducing x-ray scatter. The DICOM Radiation Dose Structured Report (RDSR) generates a dose report at the conclusion of every examination. Dose Check preemptively notifies CT operators when scan parameters exceed user-defined dose thresholds. DoseWatch is an information technology application providing vendor-agnostic dose tracking and analysis for CT (and all other diagnostic x-ray modalities) SnapShot Pulse improves coronary CTA dose management. VolumeShuttle uses two acquisitions to increase coverage, decrease dose, and conserve on contrast administration. Color-Coding for Kids applies the Broselow-Luten Pediatric System to facilitate pediatric emergency care and reduce medical errors. FeatherLight achieves dose optimization through pediatric procedure-based protocols. Adventure Series scanners provide a child-friendly imaging environment promoting patient cooperation with resultant reduction in retakes and patient motion. Philips CT Dose Optimization Tools and Advanced Reconstruction Presentation Time: 11:45 ‘ 12:15 PM The first part of the talk will cover “Dose Reduction and Dose Optimization Technologies” present in Philips CT Scanners. The main Technologies to be presented include: DoseRight and tube current modulation (DoseRight, Z-DOM, 3D-DOM, DoseRight Cardiac) Special acquisition modes Beam filtration and beam shapers Eclipse collimator and ClearRay collimator NanoPanel detector DoseRight will cover automatic tube current selection that automatically adjusts the dose for the individual patient. The presentation will explore the modulation techniques currently employed in Philips CT scanners and will include the algorithmic concepts as well as illustrative examples. Modulation and current selection technologies to be covered include the Automatic Current Selection component of DoseRight, ZDOM longitudinal dose modulation, 3D-DOM (combination of longitudinal and rotational dose modulation), Cardiac Dose right (an ECG based dose modulation scheme), and the DoseRight Index (DRI) IQ index. The special acquisition modes covers acquisition techniques such as prospective gating that is designed to reduce exposure to the patient through the Cardiac Step and Shoot scan mode. This mode can substitute the much higher dose retrospective scan modes for certain types of cardiac imaging. The beam filtration and beam shaper portion will discuss the variety of filtration and beam shaping configurations available on Philips scanners. This topic includes the x-ray beam characteristics, tube filtration as well as dose compensator characteristics. The Eclipse collimator, ClearRay collimator and the NanoPanel detector portion will discuss additional technologies specific to wide coverage CT that address some of the unique challenges encountered and techniques employed to optimize image quality and optimize dose utilization. The Eclipse collimator reduces extraneous exposure by actively blocking the radiation tails at either end of helical scans that do not contribute to the image generation. The ClearRay collimator and the NanoPanel detector optimize the quality of the signal that reaches the detectors by addressing the increased scattered radiation present in wide coverage and the NanoPanel detector adds superior electronic noise characteristics valuable when imaging at a low dose level. The second part of the talk will present “Advanced Reconstruction Technologies” currently available on Philips CT Scanners. The talk will cover filtered back projection (FBP), iDose4 and Iterative Model Reconstruction (IMR). Each reconstruction method will include a discussion of the algorithm as well as similarities and differences between the algorithms. Examples illustrating the merits of each algorithm will be presented, and techniques and metrics to characterize the performance of each type of algorithm will be presented. The Filtered Back projection portion will discuss and provide a brief summary of relevant standard image reconstruction techniques in common use, and discuss the common tradeoffs when using the FBP algorithm. The iDose4 portion will present the algorithms used for iDose4 as well the different levels. The meaning of different levels of iDose4 available will be presented and quantified. Guidelines for selection iDose4 parameters based on the imaging need will be explained. The different image quality goals available with iDose4 and specifically how iDose4 enables noise reduction, spatial resolution improvement or both will be explained. The approaches to leveraging the benefits of iDose4 such as improved spatial resolution, decreased noise, and artifact prevention will be described and quantified; and measurements and metrics behind the improvements will be presented. The image quality benefits in specific imaging situations as well as how to best combine the technology with other dose reduction strategies to ensure the best image quality at a given dose level will be presented. Insight into the IMR algorithm as well as contrast to the iDose4 techniques and performance characteristics will be discussed. Metrics and techniques for characterizing this class of algorithm and IQ performance will be presented. The image quality benefits and the dose reduction capabilities of IMR will be explored. Illustrative examples of the noise reduction, spatial resolution improvement, and low contrast detectability improvements of the reconstruction method will be presented: clinical cases and phantom measurements demonstrating the benefits of IMR in the areas of low dose imaging, spatial resolution and low contrast resolution are discussed and the technical details behind the measurements will be presented compared to both iDose4 and traditional filtered back projection (FBP)

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗