Results for “physicists” — Page 11

DOE OSTI2015

TU-CD-213-04: Panel Discussion

As part of the AAPM’s Scope of Practice, medical physicists are expected to collaborate effectively with practioners and allied health care providers. Interpersonal skills such as communication, negotiation and persuasion are vital for successful collaboration to achieve shared goals. This session will provide some theoretical background of these interpersonal skills as well as specific techniques and practical tools to influence others. Applications of these interpersonal skills for administrative and human resource management purposes vital to medical physicists will be shared. Session attendees will gain knowledge and tools to help them effectively collaborate with administrative and physician leaders in areas such as capital and human resource selection, prioritization, and implementation. Participants will hear methods of how to articulate their goals and to understand the goals of administration, helping ensure alignment of purpose. Session speakers will present one of the topics: equipment selection, budget creation, contracts, and program-related policy development. Specifics may include designing a business case in language that administrators understand, calculating the prioritization of budget requests, and influencing policies for safe and effective care. Human resource topics may include staffing justification, recruitment for fit, employment contracts, and benefits. Speakers will provide examples in both radiation therapy and diagnostic imaging departments and will share experiences and outcomes of their approaches for better results. Learning Objectives: After this course attendees will be better able to Understand the shared goal between administrative and physicist leadership. Articulate the “why” of the technical or human resource need. Utilize communication, negotiation and persuasion tools to improve collaboration.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-F-CAMPUS-I-05: Semi-Automated, Open Source MRI Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program for Multi-Unit Institution

Purpose: Phantom measurements allow for the performance of magnetic resonance (MR) systems to be evaluated. Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Report No. 100 Acceptance Testing and Quality Assurance Procedures for MR Imaging Facilities, American College of Radiology (ACR) MR Accreditation Program MR phantom testing, and ACR MRI quality control (QC) program documents help to outline specific tests for establishing system performance baselines as well as system stability over time. Analyzing and processing tests from multiple systems can be time-consuming for medical physicists. Besides determining whether tests are within predetermined limits or criteria, monitoring longitudinal trends can also help prevent costly downtime of systems during clinical operation. In this work, a semi-automated QC program was developed to analyze and record measurements in a database that allowed for easy access to historical data. Methods: Image analysis was performed on 27 different MR systems of 1.5T and 3.0T field strengths from GE and Siemens manufacturers. Recommended measurements involved the ACR MRI Accreditation Phantom, spherical homogenous phantoms, and a phantom with an uniform hole pattern. Measurements assessed geometric accuracy and linearity, position accuracy, image uniformity, signal, noise, ghosting, transmit gain, center frequency, and magnetic field drift. The program was designed with open source tools, employing Linux, Apache, MySQL database and Python programming language for the front and backend. Results: Processing time for each image is <2 seconds. Figures are produced to show regions of interests (ROIs) for analysis. Historical data can be reviewed to compare previous year data and to inspect for trends. Conclusion: A MRI quality assurance and QC program is necessary for maintaining high quality, ACR MRI Accredited MR programs. A reviewable database of phantom measurements assists medical physicists with processing and monitoring of large datasets. Longitudinal data can reveal trends that although are within passing criteria indicate underlying system issues.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-D-207-01: Background and Clinical Implementation of a Screening Program

In the United States, Lung Cancer is responsible for more cancer deaths than the next four cancers combined. In addition, the 5 year survival rate for lung cancer patients has not improved over the past 40 to 50 years. To combat this deadly disease, in 2002 the National Cancer Institute launched a very large Randomized Control Trial called the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). This trial would randomize subjects who had substantial risk of lung cancer (due to age and smoking history) into either a Chest X-ray arm or a low dose CT arm. In November 2010, the National Cancer Institute announced that the NLST had demonstrated 20% fewer lung cancer deaths among those who were screened with low-dose CT than with chest X-ray. In December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended the use of Lung Cancer Screening using low dose CT and a little over a year later (Feb. 2015), CMS announced that Medicare would also cover Lung Cancer Screening using low dose CT. Thus private and public insurers are required to provide Lung Cancer Screening programs using CT to the appropriate population(s). The purpose of this Symposium is to inform medical physicists and prepare them to support the implementation of Lung Screening programs. This Symposium will focus on the clinical aspects of lung cancer screening, requirements of a screening registry for systematically capturing and tracking screening patients and results (such as required Medicare data elements) as well as the role of the medical physicist in screening programs, including the development of low dose CT screening protocols. Learning Objectives: To understand the clinical basis and clinical components of a lung cancer screening program, including eligibility criteria and other requirements. To understand the data collection requirements, workflow, and informatics infrastructure needed to support the tracking and reporting components of a screening program. To understand the role of the medical physicist in implementing Lung Cancer Screening protocols for CT, including utilizing resources such as the AAPM Protocols and the ACR Designated Lung Screening Center program. UCLA Department of Radiology has an Institutional research agreement with Siemens Healthcare; Dr. McNitt-Gray has been a recipient of Research Support from Siemens Healthcare in the past. Dr. Aberle has been a Member of Advisory Boards for the LUNGevity Foundation (2011-present) and Siemens Medical Solutions. (2013)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-D-207-02: Capturing Data Elements and the Role of Imaging Informatics

In the United States, Lung Cancer is responsible for more cancer deaths than the next four cancers combined. In addition, the 5 year survival rate for lung cancer patients has not improved over the past 40 to 50 years. To combat this deadly disease, in 2002 the National Cancer Institute launched a very large Randomized Control Trial called the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). This trial would randomize subjects who had substantial risk of lung cancer (due to age and smoking history) into either a Chest X-ray arm or a low dose CT arm. In November 2010, the National Cancer Institute announced that the NLST had demonstrated 20% fewer lung cancer deaths among those who were screened with low-dose CT than with chest X-ray. In December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended the use of Lung Cancer Screening using low dose CT and a little over a year later (Feb. 2015), CMS announced that Medicare would also cover Lung Cancer Screening using low dose CT. Thus private and public insurers are required to provide Lung Cancer Screening programs using CT to the appropriate population(s). The purpose of this Symposium is to inform medical physicists and prepare them to support the implementation of Lung Screening programs. This Symposium will focus on the clinical aspects of lung cancer screening, requirements of a screening registry for systematically capturing and tracking screening patients and results (such as required Medicare data elements) as well as the role of the medical physicist in screening programs, including the development of low dose CT screening protocols. Learning Objectives: To understand the clinical basis and clinical components of a lung cancer screening program, including eligibility criteria and other requirements. To understand the data collection requirements, workflow, and informatics infrastructure needed to support the tracking and reporting components of a screening program. To understand the role of the medical physicist in implementing Lung Cancer Screening protocols for CT, including utilizing resources such as the AAPM Protocols and the ACR Designated Lung Screening Center program. UCLA Department of Radiology has an Institutional research agreement with Siemens Healthcare; Dr. McNitt-Gray has been a recipient of Research Support from Siemens Healthcare in the past. Dr. Aberle has been a Member of Advisory Boards for the LUNGevity Foundation (2011-present) and Siemens Medical Solutions. (2013)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-D-207-03: CT Protocols for Screening and the ACR Designated Lung Screening Program

In the United States, Lung Cancer is responsible for more cancer deaths than the next four cancers combined. In addition, the 5 year survival rate for lung cancer patients has not improved over the past 40 to 50 years. To combat this deadly disease, in 2002 the National Cancer Institute launched a very large Randomized Control Trial called the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). This trial would randomize subjects who had substantial risk of lung cancer (due to age and smoking history) into either a Chest X-ray arm or a low dose CT arm. In November 2010, the National Cancer Institute announced that the NLST had demonstrated 20% fewer lung cancer deaths among those who were screened with low-dose CT than with chest X-ray. In December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended the use of Lung Cancer Screening using low dose CT and a little over a year later (Feb. 2015), CMS announced that Medicare would also cover Lung Cancer Screening using low dose CT. Thus private and public insurers are required to provide Lung Cancer Screening programs using CT to the appropriate population(s). The purpose of this Symposium is to inform medical physicists and prepare them to support the implementation of Lung Screening programs. This Symposium will focus on the clinical aspects of lung cancer screening, requirements of a screening registry for systematically capturing and tracking screening patients and results (such as required Medicare data elements) as well as the role of the medical physicist in screening programs, including the development of low dose CT screening protocols. Learning Objectives: To understand the clinical basis and clinical components of a lung cancer screening program, including eligibility criteria and other requirements. To understand the data collection requirements, workflow, and informatics infrastructure needed to support the tracking and reporting components of a screening program. To understand the role of the medical physicist in implementing Lung Cancer Screening protocols for CT, including utilizing resources such as the AAPM Protocols and the ACR Designated Lung Screening Center program. UCLA Department of Radiology has an Institutional research agreement with Siemens Healthcare; Dr. McNitt-Gray has been a recipient of Research Support from Siemens Healthcare in the past. Dr. Aberle has been a Member of Advisory Boards for the LUNGevity Foundation (2011-present) and Siemens Medical Solutions. (2013)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-BRA-01: Patient Safety and Treatment Quality Improvement Through Incident Learning: Experience of a Non-Academic Proton Therapy Center

Purpose: Incident learning has been proven to improve patient safety and treatment quality in conventional radiation therapy. However, its application in proton therapy has not been reported yet to our knowledge. In this study, we report our experience in developing and implementation of an in-house incident learning system. Methods: An incident learning system was developed based on published principles and tailored for our clinical practice and available resource about 18 months ago. The system includes four layers of error detection and report: 1) dosimetry peer review; 2) physicist plan quality assurance (QA); 3) treatment delivery issue on call and record; and 4) other incident report. The first two layers of QA and report were mandatory for each treatment plan through easy-to-use spreadsheets that are only accessible by the dosimetry and physicist departments. The treatment delivery issues were recorded case by case by the on call physicist. All other incidents were reported through an online incident report system, which can be anonymous. The incident report includes near misses on planning and delivery, process deviation, machine issues, work flow and documentation. Periodic incident reviews were performed. Results: In total, about 116 errors were reported through dosimetry review, 137 errors through plan QA, 83 treatment issues through physics on call record, and 30 through the online incident report. Only 8 incidents (2.2%) were considered to have a clinical impact to patients, and the rest of errors were either detected before reaching patients or had negligible dosimetric impact (<5% dose variance). Personnel training & process improvements were implemented upon periodic incident review. Conclusion: An incident learning system can be helpful in personnel training, error reduction, and patient safety and treatment quality improvement. The system needs to be catered for each clinic’s practice and available resources. Incident and knowledge sharing among proton centers are encouraged.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Guidelines by the AAPM and GEC-ESTRO on the use of innovative brachytherapy devices and applications: Report of Task Group 167

Although a multicenter, Phase III, prospective, randomized trial is the gold standard for evidence-based medicine, it is rarely used in the evaluation of innovative devices because of many practical and ethical reasons. It is usually sufficient to compare the dose distributions and dose rates for determining the equivalence of the innovative treatment modality to an existing one. Thus, quantitative evaluation of the dosimetric characteristics of innovative radiotherapy devices or applications is a critical part in which physicists should be actively involved. The physicist’s role, along with physician colleagues, in this process is highlighted for innovative brachytherapy devices and applications and includes evaluation of (1) dosimetric considerations for clinical implementation (including calibrations, dose calculations, and radiobiological aspects) to comply with existing societal dosimetric prerequisites for sources in routine clinical use, (2) risks and benefits from a regulatory and safety perspective, and (3) resource assessment and preparedness. Further, it is suggested that any developed calibration methods be traceable to a primary standards dosimetry laboratory (PSDL) such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the U.S. or to other PSDLs located elsewhere such as in Europe. Clinical users should follow standards as approved by their country’s regulatory agencies that approved such a brachytherapy device. Integration of this system into the medical source calibration infrastructure of secondary standard dosimetry laboratories such as the Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratories in the U.S. is encouraged before a source is introduced into widespread routine clinical use. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine and the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) have developed guidelines for the safe and consistent application of brachytherapy using innovative devices and applications. The current report covers regulatory approvals, calibration, dose calculations, radiobiological issues, and overall safety concerns that should be addressed during the commissioning stage preceding clinical use. These guidelines are based on review of requirements of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Transportation, International Electrotechnical Commission Medical Electrical Equipment Standard 60601, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Commission for CE Marking (Conformité Européenne), and institutional review boards and radiation safety committees.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-B-BRA-09: Panel Member

In the current rapidly changing Healthcare environment, many groups are competing for limited resources. How can medical physicists position themselves to be a relevant stakeholder in the discussion of how those resources are allocated Our value goes beyond what can be shown in a business plan and is heavily involved with safety and quality. Three areas will be explored: What is our value? Who needs to receive that message? How do we communicate that message? To help frame the discussion in terms of how other stakeholders may view the value of medical physicists, a physician and an administrator will present their perspective. Lastly, a multidisciplinary panel will present real life examples of strategies that can be utilized today to establish the value of medical physicists. The presentation of these examples will lead into an interactive question and answer time. V. Willcut, I work for Elekta. There was no research associated with this talk.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-B-BRA-01: Introduction

In the current rapidly changing Healthcare environment, many groups are competing for limited resources. How can medical physicists position themselves to be a relevant stakeholder in the discussion of how those resources are allocated Our value goes beyond what can be shown in a business plan and is heavily involved with safety and quality. Three areas will be explored: What is our value? Who needs to receive that message? How do we communicate that message? To help frame the discussion in terms of how other stakeholders may view the value of medical physicists, a physician and an administrator will present their perspective. Lastly, a multidisciplinary panel will present real life examples of strategies that can be utilized today to establish the value of medical physicists. The presentation of these examples will lead into an interactive question and answer time. V. Willcut, I work for Elekta. There was no research associated with this talk.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-B-BRA-02: The Medical Physics Value Proposition for Tomorrow and Today

In the current rapidly changing Healthcare environment, many groups are competing for limited resources. How can medical physicists position themselves to be a relevant stakeholder in the discussion of how those resources are allocated Our value goes beyond what can be shown in a business plan and is heavily involved with safety and quality. Three areas will be explored: What is our value? Who needs to receive that message? How do we communicate that message? To help frame the discussion in terms of how other stakeholders may view the value of medical physicists, a physician and an administrator will present their perspective. Lastly, a multidisciplinary panel will present real life examples of strategies that can be utilized today to establish the value of medical physicists. The presentation of these examples will lead into an interactive question and answer time. V. Willcut, I work for Elekta. There was no research associated with this talk.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-B-BRA-03: A Physician Perspective on the Value of Medical Physics

In the current rapidly changing Healthcare environment, many groups are competing for limited resources. How can medical physicists position themselves to be a relevant stakeholder in the discussion of how those resources are allocated Our value goes beyond what can be shown in a business plan and is heavily involved with safety and quality. Three areas will be explored: What is our value? Who needs to receive that message? How do we communicate that message? To help frame the discussion in terms of how other stakeholders may view the value of medical physicists, a physician and an administrator will present their perspective. Lastly, a multidisciplinary panel will present real life examples of strategies that can be utilized today to establish the value of medical physicists. The presentation of these examples will lead into an interactive question and answer time. V. Willcut, I work for Elekta. There was no research associated with this talk.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-B-BRA-04: An Administrators Perspective on the Value of Medical Physics

In the current rapidly changing Healthcare environment, many groups are competing for limited resources. How can medical physicists position themselves to be a relevant stakeholder in the discussion of how those resources are allocated Our value goes beyond what can be shown in a business plan and is heavily involved with safety and quality. Three areas will be explored: What is our value? Who needs to receive that message? How do we communicate that message? To help frame the discussion in terms of how other stakeholders may view the value of medical physicists, a physician and an administrator will present their perspective. Lastly, a multidisciplinary panel will present real life examples of strategies that can be utilized today to establish the value of medical physicists. The presentation of these examples will lead into an interactive question and answer time. V. Willcut, I work for Elekta. There was no research associated with this talk.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-B-BRA-05: Panel Member

In the current rapidly changing Healthcare environment, many groups are competing for limited resources. How can medical physicists position themselves to be a relevant stakeholder in the discussion of how those resources are allocated Our value goes beyond what can be shown in a business plan and is heavily involved with safety and quality. Three areas will be explored: What is our value? Who needs to receive that message? How do we communicate that message? To help frame the discussion in terms of how other stakeholders may view the value of medical physicists, a physician and an administrator will present their perspective. Lastly, a multidisciplinary panel will present real life examples of strategies that can be utilized today to establish the value of medical physicists. The presentation of these examples will lead into an interactive question and answer time. V. Willcut, I work for Elekta. There was no research associated with this talk.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-B-BRA-06: Panel Member

In the current rapidly changing Healthcare environment, many groups are competing for limited resources. How can medical physicists position themselves to be a relevant stakeholder in the discussion of how those resources are allocated Our value goes beyond what can be shown in a business plan and is heavily involved with safety and quality. Three areas will be explored: What is our value? Who needs to receive that message? How do we communicate that message? To help frame the discussion in terms of how other stakeholders may view the value of medical physicists, a physician and an administrator will present their perspective. Lastly, a multidisciplinary panel will present real life examples of strategies that can be utilized today to establish the value of medical physicists. The presentation of these examples will lead into an interactive question and answer time. V. Willcut, I work for Elekta. There was no research associated with this talk.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-B-BRA-07: Panel Member

In the current rapidly changing Healthcare environment, many groups are competing for limited resources. How can medical physicists position themselves to be a relevant stakeholder in the discussion of how those resources are allocated Our value goes beyond what can be shown in a business plan and is heavily involved with safety and quality. Three areas will be explored: What is our value? Who needs to receive that message? How do we communicate that message? To help frame the discussion in terms of how other stakeholders may view the value of medical physicists, a physician and an administrator will present their perspective. Lastly, a multidisciplinary panel will present real life examples of strategies that can be utilized today to establish the value of medical physicists. The presentation of these examples will lead into an interactive question and answer time. V. Willcut, I work for Elekta. There was no research associated with this talk.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-B-BRA-08: Panel Member

In the current rapidly changing Healthcare environment, many groups are competing for limited resources. How can medical physicists position themselves to be a relevant stakeholder in the discussion of how those resources are allocated Our value goes beyond what can be shown in a business plan and is heavily involved with safety and quality. Three areas will be explored: What is our value? Who needs to receive that message? How do we communicate that message? To help frame the discussion in terms of how other stakeholders may view the value of medical physicists, a physician and an administrator will present their perspective. Lastly, a multidisciplinary panel will present real life examples of strategies that can be utilized today to establish the value of medical physicists. The presentation of these examples will lead into an interactive question and answer time. V. Willcut, I work for Elekta. There was no research associated with this talk.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-P-06: Moving From Computed Radiography to Digital Radiography: A Collaborative Approach to Improve Image Quality

Purpose: To bring together radiologists, technologists, and physicists to utilize post-processing techniques in digital radiography (DR) in order to optimize image acquisition and improve image quality. Methods: Sub-optimal images acquired on a new General Electric (GE) DR system were flagged for follow-up by radiologists and reviewed by technologists and medical physicists. Various exam types from adult musculoskeletal (n=35), adult chest (n=4), and pediatric (n=7) were chosen for review. 673 total images were reviewed. These images were processed using five customized algorithms provided by GE. An image score sheet was created allowing the radiologist to assign a numeric score to each of the processed images, this allowed for objective comparison to the original images. Each image was scored based on seven properties: 1) overall image look, 2) soft tissue contrast, 3) high contrast, 4) latitude, 5) tissue equalization, 6) edge enhancement, 7) visualization of structures. Additional space allowed for additional comments not captured in scoring categories. Radiologists scored the images from 1 – 10 with 1 being non-diagnostic quality and 10 being superior diagnostic quality. Scores for each custom algorithm for each image set were summed. The algorithm with the highest score for each image set was then set as the default processing. Results: Images placed into the PACS “QC folder” for image processing reasons decreased. Feedback from radiologists was, overall, that image quality for these studies had improved. All default processing for these image types was changed to the new algorithm. Conclusion: This work is an example of the collaboration between radiologists, technologists, and physicists at the University of New Mexico to add value to the radiology department. The significant amount of work required to prepare the processing algorithms, reprocessing and scoring of the images was eagerly taken on by all team members in order to produce better quality images and improve patient care.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-G-204-01: Building a Career in Academic Medical Physics: The Hardest and Best Job You Will Ever Have!

While many indicators for academic medical physics are distressing – jobs are tight, demands on clinical time are high (and getting worse) and national funding has been flat for several years (meaning less money in reality) the present is perhaps one of the most exciting times in cancer research history, and medical physicists have an opportunity to make a difference. Many of us predict the impact of medical physics on cancer research over the next decade to be more significant than ever. Why is that? First, medical imaging is used for every cancer patient in developed countries. Every improvement in the acquisition, processing or analysis of radiological images has the potential to impact patients. The use of radiation therapy is at an all-time high – and virtually cannot be performed without medical physics. Many of the advances in both biomedical imaging and radiation oncology are the result of the hard work of academic medical physicists who are thinking of the next generation of technologies that will be used against cancer or an even broader spectrum of diseases. A career in academic medical physics is demanding, particularly for those with clinical responsibilities. As the demands for justification of their clinical effort become increasingly metricized, the ability to do “unfunded research” will become even more difficult. This means that many will have to generate external salary support to justify their efforts in research and development. This comes at a time when funding for research is compressed and harder to obtain. Generally speaking, if you are not contributing 50% or more of your effort to research, you are competing at a disadvantage and it is very unlikely you will get an NIH/NCI/NIBIB grant. Furthermore, in the ongoing effort to improve patient care and safety, we have developed credentialing pathways that now require at least two-years of residency training. This full-time clinical training creates a gap in the research trajectory of graduate students who aspire to academic positions with an expectation for extramural funding. To address this, several residency programs have created hybrid programs where the two-years of clinical training is combined with one or two years of research effort to allow candidates to further establish an academic identity and to ensure adequate academic productivity to compete for a beginning faculty position. In conclusion, while the path to a successful career in academic medical physics is steep and sometimes hard to follow, reaching the apex is worth the journey. Different paths to a career in medical physics are available, you just have to decide which one is right for you. If improving cancer care is your goal as a physicist, then academic medical physics is the job for you!.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗