| Question 1: Based on TG-219 recommendation, secondary dose/MU calculations should be performed for every IMRT/VMAT plan, at least in 1D as predominantly available at the present time but preferably in 2D/3D, regardless of the method of measurement based verification. |
| Reference: | Zhu, Timothy C., et al. "Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT." Medical physics 48.10 (2021): e808-e829. |
| Choice A: | True |
| Choice B: | False |
| Question 2: Which type of common error sources for the secondary MU calculation in the high gradient region belong? |
| Reference: | Zhu, Timothy C., et al. "Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT." Medical physics 48.10 (2021): e808-e829. |
| Choice A: | Data related error |
| Choice B: | User related error |
| Choice C: | Plan related error |
| Question 3: Most of the existing commercial systems specifically designed for IMRT verification use which methods? |
| Reference: | Zhu, Timothy C., et al. "Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT." Medical physics 48.10 (2021): e808-e829. |
| Choice A: | Factor based method |
| Choice B: | Model based method |
| Choice C: | Deterministic method |
| Choice D: | Monte Carlo method |
| Question 4: Which secondary MU calculation algorithm type has the lowest typical error range to the measurement or Monte Carlo in the center of the lung? |
| Reference: | 1. Kry, Stephen F., et al. "Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic differences as measured with the Radiological Physics Center's anthropomorphic thorax phantom used for RTOG credentialing." International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics 85.1 (2013): e95-e100.
2. Zhu, Timothy C., et al. "Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT." Medical physics 48.10 (2021): e808-e829. |
| Choice A: | Factor based method |
| Choice B: | Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) |
| Choice C: | Collapsed cone |
| Choice D: | Deterministic method (Grid-based Boltzmann solver, GBBS) |
| Question 5: Based on the recommendation from TG-219, when should ongoing QA for the secondary dose/MU software be carried out? |
| Reference: | Zhu, Timothy C., et al. "Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT." Medical physics 48.10 (2021): e808-e829. |
| Choice A: | Annually |
| Choice B: | TPS upgrade |
| Choice C: | Secondary dose/MU software upgrade |
| Choice D: | All of the above |
| Question 6: Linac log files can be used as input for independent dose verification. |
| Reference: | Litzenberg, Dale W., Jean M. Moran, and Benedick A. Fraass. "Verification of dynamic and segmental IMRT delivery by dynamic log file analysis." Journal of applied clinical medical physics 3.2 (2002): 63-72 |
| Choice A: | True |
| Choice B: | False |
| Question 7: Commissioning of the secondary dose/MU software should be performed based on the recommendations of which AAPM reports? |
| Reference: | Zhu, Timothy C., et al. "Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT." Medical physics 48.10 (2021): e808-e829 |
| Choice A: | TG 142 & TG 40 |
| Choice B: | TG 53 and MPPG 5A |
| Choice C: | TG 51 & TG 43 |
| Choice D: | TG 75 & MPPG 2A |
| Question 8: It is acceptable for independent secondary dose/MU software to use the same beam data used for the TPS commissioning, provided the algorithm for dose calculation is different. |
| Reference: | Zhu, Timothy C., et al. "Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT." Medical physics 48.10 (2021): e808-e829 |
| Choice A: | True |
| Choice B: | False |
| Question 9: What is the TG 219 recommended action level of a second MU calculation compared to TPS calculation for a single point and composite plan in a high dose/low gradient homogeneous region? |
| Reference: | Zhu, Timothy C., et al. "Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT." Medical physics 48.10 (2021): e808-e829. |
| Choice A: | 3% |
| Choice B: | 5% |
| Choice C: | 7% |
| Choice D: | 10% |
| Question 10: What is the TG 218 recommended general guideline for gamma passing rate action level of a 2D or 3D second MU calculation compared to TPS calculation? |
| Reference: | Zhu, Timothy C., et al. "Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation‐based dose/MU verification for IMRT." Medical physics 48.10 (2021): e808-e829. |
| Choice A: | 90% for 3%/2 mm |
| Choice B: | 95% for 3%/3 mm |
| Choice C: | 95% for 2%/2 mm |
| Choice D: | 90% for 2%/2 mm |
