| Question 1: According to the report of AAPM Task Group 114, what is/are the most important difference(s) between the primary and secondary dose/MU software programs? |
| Reference: | Stern RL, Heaton R, Fraser MW, Murty Goddu S, Kirby TH, Lam KL, Molineu A, Zhu TC. Verification of monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT clinical radiotherapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 114. Med Phys. 2011; 38: 504-530. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3521473. |
| Choice A: | Different operating system |
| Choice B: | Independent algorithm and different program |
| Choice C: | Different program and different user |
| Choice D: | Different patient model |
| Question 2: What is the primary goal of an MU verification for a non-IMRT plan? |
| Reference: | Stern R. AAPM Spring Clinical Meeting 2013. TG114: Verification of Monitor Unit Calculations for Non-IMRT Clinical Radiotherapy. 2013. https://www.aapm.org/education/VL/vl.asp?id=3267. |
| Choice A: | Serves as a substitute for TPS commissioning |
| Choice B: | Complete plan review |
| Choice C: | Check of overall accuracy of TPS |
| Choice D: | Find gross errors in MU calculation |
| Question 3: According to MPPG 11.a, what is the tolerance for a secondary dose calculation difference? |
| Reference: | Xia P, Sintay BJ, Colussi VC, Chuang C, Lo Y, Schofield D, Wells M, Zhou S. Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 11.a: Plan and chart review in external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021; 22: 4-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13366. |
| Choice A: | < 2% |
| Choice B: | < 3% |
| Choice C: | < 5% |
| Choice D: | < 10% |
| Question 4: According to the report of AAPM Task Group 219, how should a secondary MU calculation of an IMRT/VMAT plan be performed? |
| Reference: | Zhu TC, Stathakis S, Clark JR, Feng W, Georg D, Holmes SM, Kry SF, C Ma, Miften M, Mihailidis D, Moran JM, Papanikolaou N, Poppe B, Xiao Y. Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation-based dose/MU verification for IMRT. Med Phys. 2021; 48: e808-e829. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15069. |
| Choice A: | Always at least in 1D |
| Choice B: | Always at least in 2D |
| Choice C: | Not necessary if measurement-based verification is performed |
| Choice D: | Not necessary |
| Question 5: According to the report of AAPM Task Group 59, a “dose at large distance” method for a secondary dose calculation in HDR brachytherapy can detect all of the following EXCEPT: |
| Reference: | Kubo HD, Glasgow GP, Pethel TD, Thomadsen BR, Williamson JF. High dose-rate brachytherapy treatment delivery: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 59. Med Phys. 1998; 25: 375-403. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598232. |
| Choice A: | Local dose variations |
| Choice B: | Errors in source strength input |
| Choice C: | Unauthorized changes in physical dose factors |
| Choice D: | Miscalculation which can globally effect dose calculation accuracy |
| Question 6: According to the report of AAPM Task Group 71, when should the MU verification be performed? |
| Reference: | Gibbons JP, Antolak JA, Followill DS, Huq MS, Klein EE, Lam KL, Palta JR, Roback DM, Reid M, Khan FM. Monitor unit calculations for external photon and electron beams: Report of the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee Task Group No. 71. Med Phys. 2014; 41: 031501. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4864244. |
| Choice A: | Before the start of treatment |
| Choice B: | Before the start of treatment and in emergent cases, before the third fraction or before 10% of the dose is delivered (whichever comes first) |
| Choice C: | During the first chart check |
| Choice D: | Before 50% of the dose is delivered |
| Question 7: The strengths of a measurement-based approach to patient-specific IMRT QA do NOT include: |
| Reference: | Kry SF. 2020 Joint AAPM | COMP Virtual Meeting. Limitations with IMRT QA. 2020. https://aapm.org/education/VL/vl.asp?id=14278. |
| Choice A: | Comprehensive and complete evaluation of quality of the patient treatment plan |
| Choice B: | Verification of delivery of intended dose |
| Choice C: | Verification of plan deliverability |
| Choice D: | Ability to catch errors in data transfer |
| Question 8: Based on a retrospective study of self-reported incidents to an internal ILS, Ford et al. found that pre-treatment IMRT QA is estimated to detect approximately what percentage of high-severity events? |
| Reference: | Ford EC, Terezakis S, Souranis A, Harris K, Gay H, Mutic S. Quality Control Quantification (QCQ): A Tool to Measure the Value of Quality Control Checks in Radiation Oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2012; 84(3): e263-e269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.04.036. |
| Choice A: | 60% |
| Choice B: | 40% |
| Choice C: | 20% |
| Choice D: | 10% |
| Choice E: | 2% |
| Question 9: According to the report of AAPM Task Group 218, it is recommended that the relative dose rather than the absolute dose be compared when performing analysis of IMRT QA measurements and the corresponding treatment plan. |
| Reference: | Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, Moran J, Pawlicki T, Molineu A, Li H, Wijesooriya K, Shi J, Xia P, Papanikolaou N, Low DA. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med Phys. 2018; 45: e53-e83. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12810. |
| Choice A: | True |
| Choice B: | False |
| Question 10: According to the report of AAPM Task Group 218, if the angular dependence of the QA device is negligible or is accounted for in the vendor software, it is recommended that IMRT QA measurements be performed using the _________ delivery method. |
| Reference: | Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, Moran J, Pawlicki T, Molineu A, Li H, Wijesooriya K, Shi J, Xia P, Papanikolaou N, Low DA. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med Phys. 2018; 45: e53-e83. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12810. |
| Choice A: | perpendicular field-by-field |
| Choice B: | perpendicular composite |
| Choice C: | true composite |
