| Question 1: Which technique is used to account for the varying segments for IMRT and VMAT Dose calculations? |
| Reference: | J.H. Kung, et al., Med. Phys. 27, 2226, 2000. |
| Choice A: | Modified Batho. |
| Choice B: | Modified Clarkson. |
| Choice C: | Day’s Method. |
| Choice D: | AAA. |
| Question 2: What are the goals of secondary dosimetry calculations? |
| Reference: | Secondary Calculations, Revisiting Rationale, Rethinking Methodologies, SunNuclear White Paper. Stern RL, Heaton R, Fraser MW et al. Verification of monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT clinical radiotherapy: report of AAPM Task Group 114. Med Phys. 2011;38(1):504–30. |
| Choice A: | Prevent potential under or overdosing errors. |
| Choice B: | Calculate the dose for the intended treatment. |
| Choice C: | Calculate the monitor units for the intended treatment. |
| Choice D: | Measure the dose to the intended treatment volume. |
| Question 3: Which is a type of systematic error that can affect a secondary monitor unit calculation? |
| Reference: | Stern RL, Heaton R, Fraser MW et al. Verification of monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT clinical radiotherapy: report of AAPM Task Group 114. Med Phys. 2011;38(1):504–30. |
| Choice A: | Incorrect bolus thickness. |
| Choice B: | Incorrect field size. |
| Choice C: | Incorrect beam energy. |
| Choice D: | Misinterpretation of beam calibration designation (depth of dm vs 10 cm). |
| Question 4: Which is a type of random error that can affect a secondary monitor unit calculation? |
| Reference: | Stern RL, Heaton R, Fraser MW et al. Verification of monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT clinical radiotherapy: report of AAPM Task Group 114. Med Phys. 2011;38(1):504–30. |
| Choice A: | Incorrect bolus thickness. |
| Choice B: | Incorrect field size. |
| Choice C: | Incorrect beam energy. |
| Choice D: | Misinterpretation of beam calibration designation (depth of dm vs 10 cm). |
| Choice E: | None of the above. |
| Question 5: Which AAPM Task Group proposes a set of clinical test cases for testing the accuracy of IMRT planning and delivery systems ? |
| Reference: | Report No. 119 - IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119; report of AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009;36(1):5359-5373. |
| Choice A: | TG-100. |
| Choice B: | TG-114. |
| Choice C: | TG119. |
| Question 6: Which AAPM Task Group proposes “a set of guidelines to help the physicist set clinically reasonable action levels for agreement”? |
| Reference: | ): Verification of monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT clinical radiotherapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 114. Med Phys. 2011;38(1):504-530. |
| Choice A: | TG-100. |
| Choice B: | TG-119. |
| Choice C: | TG-114. |
| Choice D: | TG-147. |
