MPP Guidelines for Preparing AAPM
Reports for Printing
KEEP FORMATTING TO A MINIMUM
• Chapters should be formatted as little as possible, but do use boldface and italics to emphasize
words, bullets to set off short lists, and numbers to begin paragraphs that need such ordering.
• Use standard 8½ x 11 pages with one-inch margins, no headers, double spaced, and a standard
text font like Times New Roman so Greek symbols come through on our end.
• Headings can be in the same typeface and size as the text. Using a numbering system like this
prevents confusion about which level the heading is:
8.1
Main Heading
8.1.1
Second-level Heading
8.1.1.1 Third-level Heading
SUPPLY ELECTRONIC GRAPHIC FILES
• Figures may be embedded into Word files for guidance on where they should appear in the
finished document, but figures should also be sent to MPP as high-quality color electronic
files in the formats JPG, TIFF, EPS, or WMF identified as Fig8.1.jpg, Fig8.2.jpg, etc.
• Electronic graphic files (bitmaps) must be at least 300 dpi. Line drawings should be 1200 dpi.
• Supply figure and table captions in the text.
SUPPLY TABLES AND GRAPHS IN ELECTRONIC FORM
• Table text can best be captured without scanning or
rekeying if we are sent electronic files in the formats of
the programs used to create them.
• The best line drawings and graphs come from “vector”
files like WMF, AI, EPS, EMF, and PDF because these
formats preserve lines, shapes, and text for sharp
reproduction. PowerPoint and Visio files are great. We
can also pull anything you send from a PDF file and
reproduce it perfectly.
• If you create your own graphics, print them in black-andwhite to confirm that the colors you use will also convey
their information when printed in black-and-white. If not,
revise your color scheme or use dashed/dotted lines, geometric shapes, etc.
Wikipedia graphic
SUBMIT COPIES OF YOUR PERMISSION FORMS WITH YOUR MANUSCRIPT
• Fill out a graphic reproduction permission form for each figure used in your chapter so you
remember where each figure or table came from. AAPM must have these completed forms on
file before printing. Chapters can be submitted before all permissions have been granted.
•
•
Copies of e-mail correspondence from publishers is OK to document that permission to reproduce has been granted.
Many journals use the Copyright Clearance Center to grant reproduction rights. It is a simple
process, but fees are often required. Noting that the AAPM and MPP are nonprofit organizations may reduce fees. The print run of the AAPM book will be about 500. Work with your
editors on how to pay for the licenses your chapter needs.
IN-TEXT CITATIONS
• The accuracy of the reference list is the responsibility of the chapter’s author(s).
• When citing references in the text, list the author’s last name and year of publication in parentheses as shown below. Use “et al.” for three or more authors.
one author
(Brown 2001)
two authors
(Brown and Jones 2001)
three+ authors
(Brown et al. 2001)
• Separate multiple in-text citations with semicolons:
“Recent advances (Brown 2011; Smith et al. 2014; Jones 2012) show that...”
ENDNOTES
• We have used various systems for in-text citations and endnotes over the years. The following
may not apply given your editors’ preferences, in which case we’ll supply you with new
guidelines well in advance. With that said...
• List references in alphabetical order at the end of the paper. Do not number them. Use these
samples as models for your endnotes.
• Standard journal articles:
Cross, W. G., J. Hokkanen, H. Järvinen, F. Mourtada, P. Sipilä, C. G. Soares, and S. Vynckier. (2001).
“Calculation of beta-ray dose distributions from ophthalmic applicators and comparison with
measurements in a model eye.” Med Phys 28:1385. (Multiple authors: it is OK to end the listing with “et
al.” if there are more than seven authors.)
Mijnheer, B., J. Batterman, and A. Wambersie. (1987). “What degree of accuracy is required and can be
achieved in proton and neutron therapy.” Radiother Oncol 8:237−252. (Three authors)
Purdy, J. A. and C. A. Perez. (1996). “Quality assurance in radiation oncology in the United States.” Rays
21:505−540. (Two authors)
Raabe, O. G. (1969). “Concerning the interactions that occur between decay products and aerosols.” Health
Phys 17:177−185. (One author)
•
Books:
Klevenhagen, S. C. Physics and Dosimetry of Therapy Electron Beams. Madison, WI: Medical Physics
Publishing, 1993.
Anderson, L. L., R. Nath, K. A. Weaver, D. Nori, T. L. Phillips, Y. H. Son, S. Chiu-Tsao, A. S. Meigooni, J.
A. Meli, and V. Smith. Interstitial Brachytherapy, Physical, Biological and Clinical Considerations.
New York: Raven Press, 1990.
•
Chapters within books:
Moiseenko, V., J. O. Deasy, and J. Van Dyk. “Radiobiological Modeling for Treatment Planning.” In The
Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology: A Compendium for Medical Physicists and Radiation
Oncologists, vol. 2, J. Van Dyk, ed. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing, 2005.
•
Technical reports:
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). (1979). Limits for intakes of radionuclides by
workers. Oxford: Pergammon Press, ICRP Publication 30, Part 1. Ann. ICRP 2(3/4):1−116.
PROVIDE A TABLE OF CONTENTS AND AUTHOR INFORMATION
• Place a chapter table of contents at the front of your submission that mirrors the headings used
in the chapter (see sample below).
• Identify authors in simple form on p. 1 of the text and in longer form for the book’s list of contributors (see sample below).
Todd Pawlicki, Ph.D., FAAPM
Professor and Vice Chair of Medical Physics and Technology
Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences
University of California – San Diego
La Jolla, California
tpaw@ucsd.edu
Chapter 1
Frank Rath, MSIE
Department of Engineering Professional Development
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Madison, Wisconsin
rath@engr.wisc.edu
Introduction to Quality
George W. Sherouse, Ph.D., DABR, FAAPM
Landauer Medical Physics
Glenwood, Illinois
GWS@GWSherouse.com
Peter Dunscombe, Ph.D.1, Suzanne Evans, M.D.2,
and Jeff Williamson, Ph.D.3
1
Director of Medical Physics, Tom Baker Cancer Centre,
Calgary, Alberta
Assistant Professor, Department of Therapeutic Radiology,
Yale University School of Medicine,
New Haven, Connecticut
3
Professor of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology
Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, Virginia
2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Quality and Safety in Radiotherapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Quality in Radiotherapy: Patient’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Quality in Radiotherapy: Physician’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Quality in Radiotherapy: Physicist’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.1 Evolution of Quality Management in Radiation Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.2 A Physicist’s View of the Radiation Therapy Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.3 The Current Approach to Radiation Therapy Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.4 Contemporary Approaches to Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4.4.1 Emerging Developments in Process-centric Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4.4.2 Emerging Developments in Device-centered Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.4.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.1
Quality and Safety in Radiotherapy
Quality and safety of clinical care are the cornerstones of the radiation medicine
professional’s practice. The radiation medicine community has not been complacent in the face of advancing technologies and clinical strategies. Indeed, much
effort by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and other
professional organizations across the globe has been directed toward maintaining
and enhancing quality in an era of rapid change. However, it is also true that early
reports of safety issues in medicine generally (Institute of Medicine 1999) and
radiotherapy in particular (International Atomic Energy Agency 2000) have not
received the attention they perhaps deserve.
A series of high-profile New York Times articles (Bogdanich 2010) and some
well-publicized incidents in Europe (Scottish Ministers for The Ionising Radiation
2006) have forced the community to reassess how safe radiotherapy actually is.
This belated but heightened interest in radiotherapy safety has spawned a flurry of
activity, including the rapidly convened Miami meeting “Safety in Radiation Therapy: a Call to Action” (Hendee and Herman 2011), a series of white papers from
1