Results for “physicists” — Page 18

DOE OSTI2016

MO-A-BRC-00: TG167: Clinical Recommendations for Innovative Brachytherapy Devices and Applicators

Although a multicenter, Phase III, prospective, randomized trial is the gold standard for evidence-based medicine, it is rarely used to evaluate innovative radiotherapy devices because of many practical and ethical reasons. It is usually sufficient to compare the dose distributions and dose rates for determining equivalence of the innovative device to an existing one. Thus, quantitative evaluation of the dosimetric characteristics of an innovative brachytherapy device or application is a critical part in which physicists are actively involved. The physicist’s role, along with physician colleagues, in this process is highlighted for innovative products or 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 regulatory and safety perspectives, and 3) resource assessment and preparedness. Further, calibration methods should be traceable to a primary standards dosimetry laboratory such as NIST in the U.S. or to other primary standards dosimetry laboratory located elsewhere. 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 ADCLs is encouraged before a source is introduced into widespread routine clinical use. The AAPM and GEC-ESTRO have developed guidelines for the safe and consistent application of brachytherapy using innovative brachytherapy 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. NRC, FDA, Department of Transportation, International Electrotechnical Commission Medical Electrical Equipment Standard 60601, European Commission for CE Marking, and institutional review boards and radiation safety committees. Learning Objectives: Understand the necessary 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. Evaluate risks and benefits from regulatory and safety perspectives. Identify necessary resources and create a plan for clinical introduction of innovative brachytherapy device or applications. Consultant for Theragenics Corp.; R. Nath, Consultant to Theragenics Corp.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-A-BRC-01: TG167 Report - Introduction

Although a multicenter, Phase III, prospective, randomized trial is the gold standard for evidence-based medicine, it is rarely used to evaluate innovative radiotherapy devices because of many practical and ethical reasons. It is usually sufficient to compare the dose distributions and dose rates for determining equivalence of the innovative device to an existing one. Thus, quantitative evaluation of the dosimetric characteristics of an innovative brachytherapy device or application is a critical part in which physicists are actively involved. The physicist’s role, along with physician colleagues, in this process is highlighted for innovative products or 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 regulatory and safety perspectives, and 3) resource assessment and preparedness. Further, calibration methods should be traceable to a primary standards dosimetry laboratory such as NIST in the U.S. or to other primary standards dosimetry laboratory located elsewhere. 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 ADCLs is encouraged before a source is introduced into widespread routine clinical use. The AAPM and GEC-ESTRO have developed guidelines for the safe and consistent application of brachytherapy using innovative brachytherapy 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. NRC, FDA, Department of Transportation, International Electrotechnical Commission Medical Electrical Equipment Standard 60601, European Commission for CE Marking, and institutional review boards and radiation safety committees. Learning Objectives: Understand the necessary 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. Evaluate risks and benefits from regulatory and safety perspectives. Identify necessary resources and create a plan for clinical introduction of innovative brachytherapy device or applications. Consultant for Theragenics Corp.; R. Nath, Consultant to Theragenics Corp.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-DE-BRA-02: SIMAC: A Simulation Tool for Teaching Linear Accelerator Physics

Purpose: The first goal of this work is to develop software that can simulate the physics of linear accelerators (linac). The second goal is to show that this simulation tool is effective in teaching linac physics to medical physicists and linac service engineers. Methods: Linacs were modeled using analytical expressions that can correctly describe the physical response of a linac to parameter changes in real time. These expressions were programmed with a graphical user interface in order to produce an environment similar to that of linac service mode. The software, “SIMAC”, has been used as a learning aid in a professional development course 3 times (2014 – 2016) as well as in a physics graduate program. Exercises were developed to supplement the didactic components of the courses consisting of activites designed to reinforce the concepts of beam loading; the effect of steering coil currents on beam symmetry; and the relationship between beam energy and flatness. Results: SIMAC was used to teach 35 professionals (medical physicists; regulators; service engineers; 1 week course) as well as 20 graduate students (1 month project). In the student evaluations, 85% of the students rated the effectiveness of SIMAC as very good or outstanding, and 70% rated the software as the most effective part of the courses. Exercise results were collected showing that 100% of the students were able to use the software correctly. In exercises involving gross changes to linac operating points (i.e. energy changes) the majority of students were able to correctly perform these beam adjustments. Conclusion: Software simulation(SIMAC), can be used to effectively teach linac physics. In short courses, students were able to correctly make gross parameter adjustments that typically require much longer training times using conventional training methods.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-AB-206-00: Diagnostic QA/QC Hands-On Workshop

The involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic ultrasound imaging service is increasing due to QC and accreditation requirements. The goal of this ultrasound hands-on workshop is to demonstrate quality control (QC) testing in diagnostic ultrasound and to provide updates in ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The first half of this workshop will include two presentations reviewing diagnostic ultrasound QA/QC and ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The second half of the workshop will include live demonstrations of basic QC tests. An array of ultrasound testing phantoms and ultrasound scanners will be available for attendees to learn diagnostic ultrasound QC in a hands-on environment with live demonstrations and on-site instructors. The targeted attendees are medical physicists in diagnostic imaging. Learning Objectives: Gain familiarity with common elements of a QA/QC program for diagnostic ultrasound imaging dentify QC tools available for testing diagnostic ultrasound systems and learn how to use these tools Learn ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements Jennifer Walter is an employee of American College of Radiology on Ultrasound Accreditation.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-AB-206-01: Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging Quality Assurance

The involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic ultrasound imaging service is increasing due to QC and accreditation requirements. The goal of this ultrasound hands-on workshop is to demonstrate quality control (QC) testing in diagnostic ultrasound and to provide updates in ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The first half of this workshop will include two presentations reviewing diagnostic ultrasound QA/QC and ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The second half of the workshop will include live demonstrations of basic QC tests. An array of ultrasound testing phantoms and ultrasound scanners will be available for attendees to learn diagnostic ultrasound QC in a hands-on environment with live demonstrations and on-site instructors. The targeted attendees are medical physicists in diagnostic imaging. Learning Objectives: Gain familiarity with common elements of a QA/QC program for diagnostic ultrasound imaging dentify QC tools available for testing diagnostic ultrasound systems and learn how to use these tools Learn ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements Jennifer Walter is an employee of American College of Radiology on Ultrasound Accreditation.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-AB-206-02: ACR Ultrasound Accreditation: Requirements and Pitfalls

The involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic ultrasound imaging service is increasing due to QC and accreditation requirements. The goal of this ultrasound hands-on workshop is to demonstrate quality control (QC) testing in diagnostic ultrasound and to provide updates in ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The first half of this workshop will include two presentations reviewing diagnostic ultrasound QA/QC and ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The second half of the workshop will include live demonstrations of basic QC tests. An array of ultrasound testing phantoms and ultrasound scanners will be available for attendees to learn diagnostic ultrasound QC in a hands-on environment with live demonstrations and on-site instructors. The targeted attendees are medical physicists in diagnostic imaging. Learning Objectives: Gain familiarity with common elements of a QA/QC program for diagnostic ultrasound imaging dentify QC tools available for testing diagnostic ultrasound systems and learn how to use these tools Learn ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements Jennifer Walter is an employee of American College of Radiology on Ultrasound Accreditation.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-AB-206-03: Workshop

The involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic ultrasound imaging service is increasing due to QC and accreditation requirements. The goal of this ultrasound hands-on workshop is to demonstrate quality control (QC) testing in diagnostic ultrasound and to provide updates in ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The first half of this workshop will include two presentations reviewing diagnostic ultrasound QA/QC and ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements. The second half of the workshop will include live demonstrations of basic QC tests. An array of ultrasound testing phantoms and ultrasound scanners will be available for attendees to learn diagnostic ultrasound QC in a hands-on environment with live demonstrations and on-site instructors. The targeted attendees are medical physicists in diagnostic imaging. Learning Objectives: Gain familiarity with common elements of a QA/QC program for diagnostic ultrasound imaging dentify QC tools available for testing diagnostic ultrasound systems and learn how to use these tools Learn ACR ultrasound accreditation requirements Jennifer Walter is an employee of American College of Radiology on Ultrasound Accreditation.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-B-BRC-00: How to Identify and Resolve Potential Clinical Errors Before They Impact Patients Treatment: Lessons Learned

Radiation treatment consists of a chain of events influenced by the quality of machine operation, beam data commissioning, machine calibration, patient specific data, simulation, treatment planning, imaging and treatment delivery. There is always a chance that the clinical medical physicist may make or fail to detect an error in one of the events that may impact on the patient’s treatment. In the clinical scenario, errors may be systematic and, without peer review, may have a low detectability because they are not part of routine QA procedures. During treatment, there might be errors on machine that needs attention. External reviews of some of the treatment delivery components by independent reviewers, like IROC, can detect errors, but may not be timely. The goal of this session is to help junior clinical physicists identify potential errors as well as the approach of quality assurance to perform a root cause analysis to find and eliminate an error and to continually monitor for errors. A compilation of potential errors will be presented by examples of the thought process required to spot the error and determine the root cause. Examples may include unusual machine operation, erratic electrometer reading, consistent lower electron output, variation in photon output, body parts inadvertently left in beam, unusual treatment plan, poor normalization, hot spots etc. Awareness of the possibility and detection of error in any link of the treatment process chain will help improve the safe and accurate delivery of radiation to patients. Four experts will discuss how to identify errors in four areas of clinical treatment. D. Followill, NIH grant CA 180803.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-B-BRC-01: How to Identify and Resolve Potential Clinical Errors

Radiation treatment consists of a chain of events influenced by the quality of machine operation, beam data commissioning, machine calibration, patient specific data, simulation, treatment planning, imaging and treatment delivery. There is always a chance that the clinical medical physicist may make or fail to detect an error in one of the events that may impact on the patient’s treatment. In the clinical scenario, errors may be systematic and, without peer review, may have a low detectability because they are not part of routine QA procedures. During treatment, there might be errors on machine that needs attention. External reviews of some of the treatment delivery components by independent reviewers, like IROC, can detect errors, but may not be timely. The goal of this session is to help junior clinical physicists identify potential errors as well as the approach of quality assurance to perform a root cause analysis to find and eliminate an error and to continually monitor for errors. A compilation of potential errors will be presented by examples of the thought process required to spot the error and determine the root cause. Examples may include unusual machine operation, erratic electrometer reading, consistent lower electron output, variation in photon output, body parts inadvertently left in beam, unusual treatment plan, poor normalization, hot spots etc. Awareness of the possibility and detection of error in any link of the treatment process chain will help improve the safe and accurate delivery of radiation to patients. Four experts will discuss how to identify errors in four areas of clinical treatment. D. Followill, NIH grant CA 180803.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-B-BRC-02: Troubleshooting Issues with Linear Accelerator

Radiation treatment consists of a chain of events influenced by the quality of machine operation, beam data commissioning, machine calibration, patient specific data, simulation, treatment planning, imaging and treatment delivery. There is always a chance that the clinical medical physicist may make or fail to detect an error in one of the events that may impact on the patient’s treatment. In the clinical scenario, errors may be systematic and, without peer review, may have a low detectability because they are not part of routine QA procedures. During treatment, there might be errors on machine that needs attention. External reviews of some of the treatment delivery components by independent reviewers, like IROC, can detect errors, but may not be timely. The goal of this session is to help junior clinical physicists identify potential errors as well as the approach of quality assurance to perform a root cause analysis to find and eliminate an error and to continually monitor for errors. A compilation of potential errors will be presented by examples of the thought process required to spot the error and determine the root cause. Examples may include unusual machine operation, erratic electrometer reading, consistent lower electron output, variation in photon output, body parts inadvertently left in beam, unusual treatment plan, poor normalization, hot spots etc. Awareness of the possibility and detection of error in any link of the treatment process chain will help improve the safe and accurate delivery of radiation to patients. Four experts will discuss how to identify errors in four areas of clinical treatment. D. Followill, NIH grant CA 180803.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-B-BRC-03: Measurement and Calibration Discrepancy: Advanced Warning Guidance

Radiation treatment consists of a chain of events influenced by the quality of machine operation, beam data commissioning, machine calibration, patient specific data, simulation, treatment planning, imaging and treatment delivery. There is always a chance that the clinical medical physicist may make or fail to detect an error in one of the events that may impact on the patient’s treatment. In the clinical scenario, errors may be systematic and, without peer review, may have a low detectability because they are not part of routine QA procedures. During treatment, there might be errors on machine that needs attention. External reviews of some of the treatment delivery components by independent reviewers, like IROC, can detect errors, but may not be timely. The goal of this session is to help junior clinical physicists identify potential errors as well as the approach of quality assurance to perform a root cause analysis to find and eliminate an error and to continually monitor for errors. A compilation of potential errors will be presented by examples of the thought process required to spot the error and determine the root cause. Examples may include unusual machine operation, erratic electrometer reading, consistent lower electron output, variation in photon output, body parts inadvertently left in beam, unusual treatment plan, poor normalization, hot spots etc. Awareness of the possibility and detection of error in any link of the treatment process chain will help improve the safe and accurate delivery of radiation to patients. Four experts will discuss how to identify errors in four areas of clinical treatment. D. Followill, NIH grant CA 180803.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-BRC-00: Emerging Technologies in SRS/SBRT Delivery

The delivery techniques for SRS/SBRT have been under rapid developments in recent years, which pose new challenges to medical physicists ranging from planning and quality assurance to imaging and motion management. This educational course will provide a general overview of the latest delivery techniques in SRS/SBRT, and discuss the clinical processes to address the challenges of each technique with special emphasis on dedicated gamma-ray based device, robotic x-band linac-based system and conventional C-arm s-band linac-based SRS systems. (1). Gamma-ray based SRS/SRT: This is the gold standard of intracranial SRS. With the advent of precision imaging guidance and frameless patient positioning capabilities, novel stereoscopic CBCT and automatic dose adaption solution are introduced to the Gamma-ray based SRS for the first time. The first North American system has been approved by the US regulatory for patient treatments in the spring of 2016. (2). Robotic SRS/SBRT system: A number of technological milestones have been developed in the past few years, including variable aperture collimator, sequential optimization technique, and the time reduction technique. Recently, a new robotic model allows the option of a multi-leaf collimator. These technological advances have reduced the treatment time and improved dose conformity significantly and could potentially expand the application of radiosurgery for the treatment of targets not previously suitable for robotic SRS/SBRT or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. These technological advances have created new demanding mandates on hardware and patient quality assurance (QA) tasks, as well as the need for updating/educating the physicists in the community on these requirements. (3). Conventional Linac based treatments: Modulated arc therapy (MAT) has gained wide popularities in Linac-based treatments in recent years due to its high delivery efficiency and excellent dose conformities. Recently, MAT has been introduced to deliver highly conformal radiosurgery treatments to multiple targets simultaneously via a single isocenter to replace the conventional multi-iso multi-plan treatments. It becomes important to understand the advantages and limitations of this technique, and the pitfalls for implementing this technique in clinical practice. The planning process of single-iso multi-target MAT will be described, and its plan quality and delivery efficiency will be compared with multi-iso plans. The QA process for verifying such complex plans will be illustrated, and pitfalls in imaging and patient set up will be discussed. Overall, this session will focus on the following areas: 1) Update on the emerging technology in current SRS/SBRT delivery. 2) New developments in treatment planning and Quality Assurance program. 3) Imaging guidance and motion management. Learning Objectives: To understand the SRS/SBRT principles and its clinical applications, and gain knowledge on the emerging technologies in SRS/SBRT. To review planning concepts and useful tips in treatment planning. To learn about the imaging guidance procedures and the quality assurance program in SRS/SBRT. National Institutes of Health, Varian Medical System; L. Ren, The presenter is funded by National Institutes of Health and Varian Medical System.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-BRC-01: An Overview of Emerging Technologies in SRS/SBRT Delivery

The delivery techniques for SRS/SBRT have been under rapid developments in recent years, which pose new challenges to medical physicists ranging from planning and quality assurance to imaging and motion management. This educational course will provide a general overview of the latest delivery techniques in SRS/SBRT, and discuss the clinical processes to address the challenges of each technique with special emphasis on dedicated gamma-ray based device, robotic x-band linac-based system and conventional C-arm s-band linac-based SRS systems. (1). Gamma-ray based SRS/SRT: This is the gold standard of intracranial SRS. With the advent of precision imaging guidance and frameless patient positioning capabilities, novel stereoscopic CBCT and automatic dose adaption solution are introduced to the Gamma-ray based SRS for the first time. The first North American system has been approved by the US regulatory for patient treatments in the spring of 2016. (2). Robotic SRS/SBRT system: A number of technological milestones have been developed in the past few years, including variable aperture collimator, sequential optimization technique, and the time reduction technique. Recently, a new robotic model allows the option of a multi-leaf collimator. These technological advances have reduced the treatment time and improved dose conformity significantly and could potentially expand the application of radiosurgery for the treatment of targets not previously suitable for robotic SRS/SBRT or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. These technological advances have created new demanding mandates on hardware and patient quality assurance (QA) tasks, as well as the need for updating/educating the physicists in the community on these requirements. (3). Conventional Linac based treatments: Modulated arc therapy (MAT) has gained wide popularities in Linac-based treatments in recent years due to its high delivery efficiency and excellent dose conformities. Recently, MAT has been introduced to deliver highly conformal radiosurgery treatments to multiple targets simultaneously via a single isocenter to replace the conventional multi-iso multi-plan treatments. It becomes important to understand the advantages and limitations of this technique, and the pitfalls for implementing this technique in clinical practice. The planning process of single-iso multi-target MAT will be described, and its plan quality and delivery efficiency will be compared with multi-iso plans. The QA process for verifying such complex plans will be illustrated, and pitfalls in imaging and patient set up will be discussed. Overall, this session will focus on the following areas: 1) Update on the emerging technology in current SRS/SBRT delivery. 2) New developments in treatment planning and Quality Assurance program. 3) Imaging guidance and motion management. Learning Objectives: To understand the SRS/SBRT principles and its clinical applications, and gain knowledge on the emerging technologies in SRS/SBRT. To review planning concepts and useful tips in treatment planning. To learn about the imaging guidance procedures and the quality assurance program in SRS/SBRT. National Institutes of Health, Varian Medical System; L. Ren, The presenter is funded by National Institutes of Health and Varian Medical System.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-BRC-02: A Review of Emerging Technologies in Robotic SRS/SBRT Delivery

The delivery techniques for SRS/SBRT have been under rapid developments in recent years, which pose new challenges to medical physicists ranging from planning and quality assurance to imaging and motion management. This educational course will provide a general overview of the latest delivery techniques in SRS/SBRT, and discuss the clinical processes to address the challenges of each technique with special emphasis on dedicated gamma-ray based device, robotic x-band linac-based system and conventional C-arm s-band linac-based SRS systems. (1). Gamma-ray based SRS/SRT: This is the gold standard of intracranial SRS. With the advent of precision imaging guidance and frameless patient positioning capabilities, novel stereoscopic CBCT and automatic dose adaption solution are introduced to the Gamma-ray based SRS for the first time. The first North American system has been approved by the US regulatory for patient treatments in the spring of 2016. (2). Robotic SRS/SBRT system: A number of technological milestones have been developed in the past few years, including variable aperture collimator, sequential optimization technique, and the time reduction technique. Recently, a new robotic model allows the option of a multi-leaf collimator. These technological advances have reduced the treatment time and improved dose conformity significantly and could potentially expand the application of radiosurgery for the treatment of targets not previously suitable for robotic SRS/SBRT or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. These technological advances have created new demanding mandates on hardware and patient quality assurance (QA) tasks, as well as the need for updating/educating the physicists in the community on these requirements. (3). Conventional Linac based treatments: Modulated arc therapy (MAT) has gained wide popularities in Linac-based treatments in recent years due to its high delivery efficiency and excellent dose conformities. Recently, MAT has been introduced to deliver highly conformal radiosurgery treatments to multiple targets simultaneously via a single isocenter to replace the conventional multi-iso multi-plan treatments. It becomes important to understand the advantages and limitations of this technique, and the pitfalls for implementing this technique in clinical practice. The planning process of single-iso multi-target MAT will be described, and its plan quality and delivery efficiency will be compared with multi-iso plans. The QA process for verifying such complex plans will be illustrated, and pitfalls in imaging and patient set up will be discussed. Overall, this session will focus on the following areas: 1) Update on the emerging technology in current SRS/SBRT delivery. 2) New developments in treatment planning and Quality Assurance program. 3) Imaging guidance and motion management. Learning Objectives: To understand the SRS/SBRT principles and its clinical applications, and gain knowledge on the emerging technologies in SRS/SBRT. To review planning concepts and useful tips in treatment planning. To learn about the imaging guidance procedures and the quality assurance program in SRS/SBRT. National Institutes of Health, Varian Medical System; L. Ren, The presenter is funded by National Institutes of Health and Varian Medical System.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-BRC-03: Emerging Linac Based SRS/SBRT Technologies with Modulated Arc Delivery

The delivery techniques for SRS/SBRT have been under rapid developments in recent years, which pose new challenges to medical physicists ranging from planning and quality assurance to imaging and motion management. This educational course will provide a general overview of the latest delivery techniques in SRS/SBRT, and discuss the clinical processes to address the challenges of each technique with special emphasis on dedicated gamma-ray based device, robotic x-band linac-based system and conventional C-arm s-band linac-based SRS systems. (1). Gamma-ray based SRS/SRT: This is the gold standard of intracranial SRS. With the advent of precision imaging guidance and frameless patient positioning capabilities, novel stereoscopic CBCT and automatic dose adaption solution are introduced to the Gamma-ray based SRS for the first time. The first North American system has been approved by the US regulatory for patient treatments in the spring of 2016. (2). Robotic SRS/SBRT system: A number of technological milestones have been developed in the past few years, including variable aperture collimator, sequential optimization technique, and the time reduction technique. Recently, a new robotic model allows the option of a multi-leaf collimator. These technological advances have reduced the treatment time and improved dose conformity significantly and could potentially expand the application of radiosurgery for the treatment of targets not previously suitable for robotic SRS/SBRT or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. These technological advances have created new demanding mandates on hardware and patient quality assurance (QA) tasks, as well as the need for updating/educating the physicists in the community on these requirements. (3). Conventional Linac based treatments: Modulated arc therapy (MAT) has gained wide popularities in Linac-based treatments in recent years due to its high delivery efficiency and excellent dose conformities. Recently, MAT has been introduced to deliver highly conformal radiosurgery treatments to multiple targets simultaneously via a single isocenter to replace the conventional multi-iso multi-plan treatments. It becomes important to understand the advantages and limitations of this technique, and the pitfalls for implementing this technique in clinical practice. The planning process of single-iso multi-target MAT will be described, and its plan quality and delivery efficiency will be compared with multi-iso plans. The QA process for verifying such complex plans will be illustrated, and pitfalls in imaging and patient set up will be discussed. Overall, this session will focus on the following areas: 1) Update on the emerging technology in current SRS/SBRT delivery. 2) New developments in treatment planning and Quality Assurance program. 3) Imaging guidance and motion management. Learning Objectives: To understand the SRS/SBRT principles and its clinical applications, and gain knowledge on the emerging technologies in SRS/SBRT. To review planning concepts and useful tips in treatment planning. To learn about the imaging guidance procedures and the quality assurance program in SRS/SBRT. National Institutes of Health, Varian Medical System; L. Ren, The presenter is funded by National Institutes of Health and Varian Medical System.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Sci-Fri AM: Quality, Safety, and Professional Issues 01: CPQR Technical Quality Control Suite Development including Quality Control Workload Results

A close partnership between the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR) and the Canadian Organization of Medical Physicist’s (COMP) Quality Assurance and Radiation Safety Advisory Committee (QARSAC) has resulted in the development of a suite of Technical Quality Control (TQC) Guidelines for radiation treatment equipment, that outline specific performance objectives and criteria that equipment should meet in order to assure an acceptable level of radiation treatment quality. The framework includes consolidation of existing guidelines and/or literature by expert reviewers, structured stages of public review, external field-testing and ratification by COMP. The adopted framework for the development and maintenance of the TQCs ensures the guidelines incorporate input from the medical physics community during development, measures the workload required to perform the QC tests outlined in each TQC, and remain relevant (i.e. “living documents”) through subsequent planned reviews and updates. This presentation will show the Multi-Leaf Linear Accelerator document as an example of how feedback and cross-national work to achieve a robust guidance document. During field-testing, each technology was tested at multiple centres in a variety of clinic environments. As part of the defined feedback, workload data was captured. This lead to average time associated with testing as defined in each TQC document. As a result, for a medium-sized centre comprising 6 linear accelerators and a comprehensive brachytherapy program, we evaluate the physics workload to 1.5 full-time equivalent physicist per year to complete all QC tests listed in this suite.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Sci-Fri AM: Quality, Safety, and Professional Issues 07: Global Medical Physics Efforts: Closing the Gap

Purpose: There is an increasing awareness of the disparity in Medical Physics needs between high income countries (HICs) and low-to-middle income countries (LMICs). This is especially evident with the growing incidence of cancer in LMICs. Projections from the recent Lancet Oncology Commission on Expanding Global Access to Radiotherapy indicate that an additional 22,000 Medical Physicists will be required by 2035 to provide uniform access to radiation therapy globally. This paper addresses possibilities and challenges associated with closing the Medical Physics gap between HICs and LMICs. Methods: Medical Physics and Oncology related organizations involved in providing support to enhance cancer therapy in LMICs were reviewed, especially as related to education, training and human resource development. Results: More than 35 organizations involved in addressing the cancer crisis in LMICs were found. Of these, 16 involve Medical Physics activities, with 7 being specific Medical Physics-related organizations. Ten of the 16 are involved in some LMIC activities with 6 having a major emphasis on LMIC contexts. Conclusions: The development of Medical Physics human resource capacity is a major challenge for LMICs. Fifty-five countries have no radiation therapy capabilities and by implication no capacity to train Medical Physicists. Overt attention with structured and altruistic actions by HIC contexts will help make inroads into the LMIC needs. Clear options throughout career structures in support of global health considerations combined with strong partnerships between interested parties in HICs and LMICs will enhance the development of safe and resource-appropriate strategies for advancing Medical Physics capabilities.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

The Expanding Universe: Dark Energy

In 1998, observations of distant supernovae led physicists that not only was the universe expanding, but the expansion was speeding up. In this article, we describe the evidence for an expanding universe and describe what physicists and cosmologists have learned in the intervening years. The target audience for this article is high school physics teachers and college physics professors at teaching institutions.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗