Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “physicists”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 667 records · Page 37
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-BRD-00: Task Group 100

Current quality assurance and quality management guidelines provided by various professional organizations are prescriptive in nature, focusing principally on performance characteristics of planning and delivery devices. However, published analyses of events in radiation therapy show that most events are often caused by flaws in clinical processes rather than by device failures. This suggests the need for the development of a quality management program that is based on integrated approaches to process and equipment quality assurance. Industrial engineers have developed various risk assessment tools that are used to identify and eliminate potential failures from a system or a process before a failure impacts a customer. These tools include, but are not limited to, process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis, fault tree analysis. Task Group 100 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine has developed these tools and used them to formulate an example risk-based quality management program for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. This is a prospective risk assessment approach that analyzes potential error pathways inherent in a clinical process and then ranks them according to relative risk, typically before implementation, followed by the design of a new process or modification of the existing process. Appropriate controls are then put in place to ensure that failures are less likely to occur and, if they do, they will more likely be detected before they propagate through the process, compromising treatment outcome and causing harm to the patient. Such a prospective approach forms the basis of the work of Task Group 100 that has recently been approved by the AAPM. This session will be devoted to a discussion of these tools and practical examples of how these tools can be used in a given radiotherapy clinic to develop a risk based quality management program. Learning Objectives: Learn how to design a process map for a radiotherapy process Learn how to perform failure modes and effects analysis analysis for a given process Learn what fault trees are all about Learn how to design a quality management program based upon the information obtained from process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis and fault tree analysis. Dunscombe: Director, TreatSafely, LLC and Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences; Consultant to IAEA and Varian Thomadsen: President, Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences Palta: Vice President of the Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-BRD-01: Process Mapping

Current quality assurance and quality management guidelines provided by various professional organizations are prescriptive in nature, focusing principally on performance characteristics of planning and delivery devices. However, published analyses of events in radiation therapy show that most events are often caused by flaws in clinical processes rather than by device failures. This suggests the need for the development of a quality management program that is based on integrated approaches to process and equipment quality assurance. Industrial engineers have developed various risk assessment tools that are used to identify and eliminate potential failures from a system or a process before a failure impacts a customer. These tools include, but are not limited to, process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis, fault tree analysis. Task Group 100 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine has developed these tools and used them to formulate an example risk-based quality management program for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. This is a prospective risk assessment approach that analyzes potential error pathways inherent in a clinical process and then ranks them according to relative risk, typically before implementation, followed by the design of a new process or modification of the existing process. Appropriate controls are then put in place to ensure that failures are less likely to occur and, if they do, they will more likely be detected before they propagate through the process, compromising treatment outcome and causing harm to the patient. Such a prospective approach forms the basis of the work of Task Group 100 that has recently been approved by the AAPM. This session will be devoted to a discussion of these tools and practical examples of how these tools can be used in a given radiotherapy clinic to develop a risk based quality management program. Learning Objectives: Learn how to design a process map for a radiotherapy process Learn how to perform failure modes and effects analysis analysis for a given process Learn what fault trees are all about Learn how to design a quality management program based upon the information obtained from process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis and fault tree analysis. Dunscombe: Director, TreatSafely, LLC and Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences; Consultant to IAEA and Varian Thomadsen: President, Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences Palta: Vice President of the Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-BRD-02: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

Current quality assurance and quality management guidelines provided by various professional organizations are prescriptive in nature, focusing principally on performance characteristics of planning and delivery devices. However, published analyses of events in radiation therapy show that most events are often caused by flaws in clinical processes rather than by device failures. This suggests the need for the development of a quality management program that is based on integrated approaches to process and equipment quality assurance. Industrial engineers have developed various risk assessment tools that are used to identify and eliminate potential failures from a system or a process before a failure impacts a customer. These tools include, but are not limited to, process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis, fault tree analysis. Task Group 100 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine has developed these tools and used them to formulate an example risk-based quality management program for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. This is a prospective risk assessment approach that analyzes potential error pathways inherent in a clinical process and then ranks them according to relative risk, typically before implementation, followed by the design of a new process or modification of the existing process. Appropriate controls are then put in place to ensure that failures are less likely to occur and, if they do, they will more likely be detected before they propagate through the process, compromising treatment outcome and causing harm to the patient. Such a prospective approach forms the basis of the work of Task Group 100 that has recently been approved by the AAPM. This session will be devoted to a discussion of these tools and practical examples of how these tools can be used in a given radiotherapy clinic to develop a risk based quality management program. Learning Objectives: Learn how to design a process map for a radiotherapy process Learn how to perform failure modes and effects analysis analysis for a given process Learn what fault trees are all about Learn how to design a quality management program based upon the information obtained from process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis and fault tree analysis. Dunscombe: Director, TreatSafely, LLC and Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences; Consultant to IAEA and Varian Thomadsen: President, Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences Palta: Vice President of the Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-303-03: CBCT-Based On-Site Simulation, Planning, and Delivery (OSPD) for Whole Brain Radiotherapy

Purpose: To demonstrate the feasibility of a CBCT-based on-site simulation, planning, and delivery (OSPD) for whole brain radiotherapy, in which all steps from imaging, planning to treatment delivery are performed at the treatment unit in one appointment time slot. This work serves as the proof of concept for future OSPD single fraction radiation therapy. Methods: An integrated on-site imaging, planning and delivery workflow was developed and tested for whole brain radiotherapy. An automated two-opposed-oblique-beam plan is created by utilizing the treatment planning system scripting and simple field-in-field IMRT. The IMRT plan is designed with maximum 8 control points to cover the target volume consisting of the brain to C1/C2 of the spinal cord, with dose homogeneity criteria from −5% to +7% of the prescription dose. Due to inaccuracy of reconstructed Hounsfield unit numbers in CBCT images, the dose distribution is calculated with non-heterogeneity correction introducing only clinically insignificant dose discrepancy. A coherent and synchronized workflow was designed for a team of attending physician, physicist, therapists, and dosimetrist to work closely with the ability to quickly modify, approve, and implement the treatment. Results: Thirty-one patients have been treated with this OSPD treatment, without compromising the plan quality compared to our regular clinically used parallel apposed 2D plans. The average time for these procedures are 48.02 ±11.55 minutes from the time patient entered the treatment room until s/he exited, and 35.09 ±10.35 minutes from starting CBCT until last beam delivered. This time duration is comparable to the net time when individual tasks are summed up during our regular CT- based whole brain planning and delivery. Conclusions: The OSPD whole brain treatment has been tested to be clinically feasible. The next step is to further improve the efficiency and to streamline the workflow. Other disease sites will be also tested with this new technology.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-201-02: An Automated Treatment Plan Quality Assurance Program for Tandem and Ovoid High Dose-Rate Brachytherapy

Purpose: For tandem and ovoid (T&O) HDR brachytherapy in our clinic, it is required that the planning physicist manually capture ∼10 images during planning, perform a secondary dose calculation and generate a report, combine them into a single PDF document, and upload it to a record- and-verify system to prove to an independent plan checker that the case was planned correctly. Not only does this slow down the already time-consuming clinical workflow, the PDF document also limits the number of parameters that can be checked. To solve these problems, we have developed a web-based automatic quality assurance (QA) program. Methods: We set up a QA server accessible through a web- interface. A T&O plan and CT images are exported as DICOMRT files and uploaded to the server. The software checks 13 geometric features, e.g. if the dwell positions are reasonable, and 10 dosimetric features, e.g. secondary dose calculations via TG43 formalism and D2cc to critical structures. A PDF report is automatically generated with errors and potential issues highlighted. It also contains images showing important geometric and dosimetric aspects to prove the plan was created following standard guidelines. Results: The program has been clinically implemented in our clinic. In each of the 58 T&O plans we tested, a 14- page QA report was automatically generated. It took ∼45 sec to export the plan and CT images and ∼30 sec to perform the QA tests and generate the report. In contrast, our manual QA document preparation tooks on average ∼7 minutes under optimal conditions and up to 20 minutes when mistakes were made during the document assembly. Conclusion: We have tested the efficiency and effectiveness of an automated process for treatment plan QA of HDR T&O cases. This software was shown to improve the workflow compared to our conventional manual approach.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-B-304-01: The Aftermath of TG-142

Although published in 2009, the AAPM TG-142 report on accelerator quality assurance still proves a challenge for full clinical implementation. The choice of methodologies to satisfy TG-142 requirements is critical to a successful application. Understanding the philosophy of TG-142 can help in creating an institution-specific QA practice that is both efficient and effective. The concept of maintaining commissioned beam profiles is still found confusing. The physicist must also consider technologies not covered by TG-142 (i.e. arc therapy techniques). On the horizon is TG-198 report on implementing TG-142. Although the community still lacks a final TG-100 report, performing a failure-mode -and-effects analysis and statistical process control analysis to determine the institution-specific clinical impact of each TG-142 test may be useful for identifying trends for pro-active surveillance. Learning Objectives: To better understand the confusing and controversial aspects of TG-142. To understand what is still missing from TG-142 and how to account for these tests in clinical practice To describe which QA tests in TG-142 yield the largest potential clinical result if not discovered.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-B-304-02: Quantitative FMEA of TG-142

Although published in 2009, the AAPM TG-142 report on accelerator quality assurance still proves a challenge for full clinical implementation. The choice of methodologies to satisfy TG-142 requirements is critical to a successful application. Understanding the philosophy of TG-142 can help in creating an institution-specific QA practice that is both efficient and effective. The concept of maintaining commissioned beam profiles is still found confusing. The physicist must also consider technologies not covered by TG-142 (i.e. arc therapy techniques). On the horizon is TG-198 report on implementing TG-142. Although the community still lacks a final TG-100 report, performing a failure-mode -and-effects analysis and statistical process control analysis to determine the institution-specific clinical impact of each TG-142 test may be useful for identifying trends for pro-active surveillance. Learning Objectives: To better understand the confusing and controversial aspects of TG-142. To understand what is still missing from TG-142 and how to account for these tests in clinical practice To describe which QA tests in TG-142 yield the largest potential clinical result if not discovered.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-B-304-00: The Aftermath of TG-142

Although published in 2009, the AAPM TG-142 report on accelerator quality assurance still proves a challenge for full clinical implementation. The choice of methodologies to satisfy TG-142 requirements is critical to a successful application. Understanding the philosophy of TG-142 can help in creating an institution-specific QA practice that is both efficient and effective. The concept of maintaining commissioned beam profiles is still found confusing. The physicist must also consider technologies not covered by TG-142 (i.e. arc therapy techniques). On the horizon is TG-198 report on implementing TG-142. Although the community still lacks a final TG-100 report, performing a failure-mode -and-effects analysis and statistical process control analysis to determine the institution-specific clinical impact of each TG-142 test may be useful for identifying trends for pro-active surveillance. Learning Objectives: To better understand the confusing and controversial aspects of TG-142. To understand what is still missing from TG-142 and how to account for these tests in clinical practice To describe which QA tests in TG-142 yield the largest potential clinical result if not discovered.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-CD-303-00: In Memoriam of Warren Sinclair: Physics Applications for New Radiobiology

The Medical Physics and Radiation Protection communities lost one of their true pioneers in May, 2014 with the passing of Warren K. Sinclair, Ph.D. He received his Doctorate in Physics at the University of London, U.K. He was a fellow of the Institute of Physics and a Certified Health Physicist. After a number of posts at Hospitals and Universities in the U.K. and New Zealand, he became the Head, Physics Department at the M.D. Anderson Hospital, Houston, TX. He held a number of academic physics positions with the University of Texas, Austin at the main campus and at the Postgraduate School of Medicine, Houston. He later served as a Senior Biophysicist, Division Director, and then Associate Laboratory Director for Biomedical Division Director, and then Associate Laboratory Director for Biomedical and Environmental Research at the Argonne National Laboratory, IL. He had additional academic appointments at the University of California, Berkeley; Northern Illinois University; the University of Illinois (Chicago Circle Campus); and the University of Chicago. Warren was a charter member of the AAPM and a leader in many communities: President of the AAPM from 1960 to 1961 and the Journal Editor from 1964 to 1969, the 2nd President of the NCRP from 1977 to 1991, and the President of the Radiation Research Society from 1978 to 1979. His many awards included the William D. Coolidge Award in 1986. Even this barely scratches the surface of the many other organizations he served with and influenced including the ICRP, IOP, RSNA, SNM, and UNSCEAR. His research interests resulted in publications from 1948 to the 1990s in many aspects (physical and biological) of radiotherapy and the effects of ionizing radiation in general, leading to early definitions of RBE values for megavoltage radiotherapy as well as contributing to the development of the modern framework for radiation protection worldwide. Warren was not a retiring person and even after moving to NCRP President Emeritus status continued to provide advice and comments on publications and to mentor others until the time of his passing. Sadly, Warren’s long-time wife Joy passed away in December, 2014 but he is survived by his son Bruce and daughter Roslyn, 2 grandchildren and 4 great-grandchildren.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-CD-303-01: Memorial to Warren Sinclair - Memorial Lecturer

The Medical Physics and Radiation Protection communities lost one of their true pioneers in May, 2014 with the passing of Warren K. Sinclair, Ph.D. He received his Doctorate in Physics at the University of London, U.K. He was a fellow of the Institute of Physics and a Certified Health Physicist. After a number of posts at Hospitals and Universities in the U.K. and New Zealand, he became the Head, Physics Department at the M.D. Anderson Hospital, Houston, TX. He held a number of academic physics positions with the University of Texas, Austin at the main campus and at the Postgraduate School of Medicine, Houston. He later served as a Senior Biophysicist, Division Director, and then Associate Laboratory Director for Biomedical Division Director, and then Associate Laboratory Director for Biomedical and Environmental Research at the Argonne National Laboratory, IL. He had additional academic appointments at the University of California, Berkeley; Northern Illinois University; the University of Illinois (Chicago Circle Campus); and the University of Chicago. Warren was a charter member of the AAPM and a leader in many communities: President of the AAPM from 1960 to 1961 and the Journal Editor from 1964 to 1969, the 2nd President of the NCRP from 1977 to 1991, and the President of the Radiation Research Society from 1978 to 1979. His many awards included the William D. Coolidge Award in 1986. Even this barely scratches the surface of the many other organizations he served with and influenced including the ICRP, IOP, RSNA, SNM, and UNSCEAR. His research interests resulted in publications from 1948 to the 1990s in many aspects (physical and biological) of radiotherapy and the effects of ionizing radiation in general, leading to early definitions of RBE values for megavoltage radiotherapy as well as contributing to the development of the modern framework for radiation protection worldwide. Warren was not a retiring person and even after moving to NCRP President Emeritus status continued to provide advice and comments on publications and to mentor others until the time of his passing. Sadly, Warren’s long-time wife Joy passed away in December, 2014 but he is survived by his son Bruce and daughter Roslyn, 2 grandchildren and 4 great-grandchildren.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-CD-303-02: Beyond Radiation Induced Double Strand Breaks - a New Horizon for Radiation Therapy Research

Recent advances in cancer research have shed new light on the complex processes of how therapeutic radiation initiates changes at cellular, tissue, and system levels that may lead to clinical effects. These new advances may transform the way we use radiation to combat certain types of cancers. For the past two decades many technological advancements in radiation therapy have been largely based on the hypothesis that direct radiation-induced DNA double strand breaks cause cell death and thus tumor control and normal tissue damage. However, new insights have elucidated that in addition to causing cellular DNA damage, localized therapeutic radiation also initiates cascades of complex downstream biological responses in tissue that extend far beyond where therapeutic radiation dose is directly deposited. For instance, studies show that irradiated dying tumor cells release tumor antigens that can lead the immune system to a systemic anti-cancer attack throughout the body of cancer patient; targeted irradiation to solid tumor also increases the migration of tumor cells already in bloodstream, the seeds of potential metastasis. Some of the new insights may explain the long ago discovered but still unexplained non-localized radiation effects (bystander effect and abscopal effect) and the efficacy of spatially fractionated radiation therapy (microbeam radiation therapy and GRID therapy) where many “hot” and “cold” spots are intentionally created throughout the treatment volume. Better understanding of the mechanisms behind the non-localized radiation effects creates tremendous opportunities to develop new and integrated cancer treatment strategies that are based on radiotherapy, immunology, and chemotherapy. However, in the multidisciplinary effort to advance new radiobiology, there are also tremendous challenges including a lack of multidisciplinary researchers and imaging technologies for the microscopic radiation-induced responses. A better grasp of the essence of these advances in cancer biology research will give medical physicists a new perspective in daily clinical physics practice and in future radiation therapy technological development. Furthermore, academic medical physics should continue to be an integral part of the multidisciplinary cancer research community, harnessing our newly acquired understanding of radiation effects, and developing novel cost-effective treatment strategies to better combat cancer. Learning Objectives: Understand that localized radiation can lead to non-localized secondary effects such as radiation-induced immune response, bystander effect, and abscopal effect. Understand that the non-localized radiation effects may be harnessed to improve cancer treatment. Learn examples of physics participation in multidisciplinary research to advance cancer biology. Recognize the challenges and possibilities of physics applications in cancer research. Chang: NIH 5RC2CA148487-02 and 1U54CA151652-01 Graves: IDEA award (19IB-0106) from the California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP), and by NIH P01 CA67166.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-CD-303-03: Localized Radiation Can Induce Systemic Anti-Cancer Immune and Non-Immune Responses and How We Might Utilize It

Recent advances in cancer research have shed new light on the complex processes of how therapeutic radiation initiates changes at cellular, tissue, and system levels that may lead to clinical effects. These new advances may transform the way we use radiation to combat certain types of cancers. For the past two decades many technological advancements in radiation therapy have been largely based on the hypothesis that direct radiation-induced DNA double strand breaks cause cell death and thus tumor control and normal tissue damage. However, new insights have elucidated that in addition to causing cellular DNA damage, localized therapeutic radiation also initiates cascades of complex downstream biological responses in tissue that extend far beyond where therapeutic radiation dose is directly deposited. For instance, studies show that irradiated dying tumor cells release tumor antigens that can lead the immune system to a systemic anti-cancer attack throughout the body of cancer patient; targeted irradiation to solid tumor also increases the migration of tumor cells already in bloodstream, the seeds of potential metastasis. Some of the new insights may explain the long ago discovered but still unexplained non-localized radiation effects (bystander effect and abscopal effect) and the efficacy of spatially fractionated radiation therapy (microbeam radiation therapy and GRID therapy) where many “hot” and “cold” spots are intentionally created throughout the treatment volume. Better understanding of the mechanisms behind the non-localized radiation effects creates tremendous opportunities to develop new and integrated cancer treatment strategies that are based on radiotherapy, immunology, and chemotherapy. However, in the multidisciplinary effort to advance new radiobiology, there are also tremendous challenges including a lack of multidisciplinary researchers and imaging technologies for the microscopic radiation-induced responses. A better grasp of the essence of these advances in cancer biology research will give medical physicists a new perspective in daily clinical physics practice and in future radiation therapy technological development. Furthermore, academic medical physics should continue to be an integral part of the multidisciplinary cancer research community, harnessing our newly acquired understanding of radiation effects, and developing novel cost-effective treatment strategies to better combat cancer. Learning Objectives: Understand that localized radiation can lead to non-localized secondary effects such as radiation-induced immune response, bystander effect, and abscopal effect. Understand that the non-localized radiation effects may be harnessed to improve cancer treatment. Learn examples of physics participation in multidisciplinary research to advance cancer biology. Recognize the challenges and possibilities of physics applications in cancer research. Chang: NIH 5RC2CA148487-02 and 1U54CA151652-01 Graves: IDEA award (19IB-0106) from the California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP), and by NIH P01 CA67166.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-CD-303-04: Radiation-Induced Long Distance Tumor Cell Migration Into and Out of the Radiation Field and Its Clinical Implication

Recent advances in cancer research have shed new light on the complex processes of how therapeutic radiation initiates changes at cellular, tissue, and system levels that may lead to clinical effects. These new advances may transform the way we use radiation to combat certain types of cancers. For the past two decades many technological advancements in radiation therapy have been largely based on the hypothesis that direct radiation-induced DNA double strand breaks cause cell death and thus tumor control and normal tissue damage. However, new insights have elucidated that in addition to causing cellular DNA damage, localized therapeutic radiation also initiates cascades of complex downstream biological responses in tissue that extend far beyond where therapeutic radiation dose is directly deposited. For instance, studies show that irradiated dying tumor cells release tumor antigens that can lead the immune system to a systemic anti-cancer attack throughout the body of cancer patient; targeted irradiation to solid tumor also increases the migration of tumor cells already in bloodstream, the seeds of potential metastasis. Some of the new insights may explain the long ago discovered but still unexplained non-localized radiation effects (bystander effect and abscopal effect) and the efficacy of spatially fractionated radiation therapy (microbeam radiation therapy and GRID therapy) where many “hot” and “cold” spots are intentionally created throughout the treatment volume. Better understanding of the mechanisms behind the non-localized radiation effects creates tremendous opportunities to develop new and integrated cancer treatment strategies that are based on radiotherapy, immunology, and chemotherapy. However, in the multidisciplinary effort to advance new radiobiology, there are also tremendous challenges including a lack of multidisciplinary researchers and imaging technologies for the microscopic radiation-induced responses. A better grasp of the essence of these advances in cancer biology research will give medical physicists a new perspective in daily clinical physics practice and in future radiation therapy technological development. Furthermore, academic medical physics should continue to be an integral part of the multidisciplinary cancer research community, harnessing our newly acquired understanding of radiation effects, and developing novel cost-effective treatment strategies to better combat cancer. Learning Objectives: Understand that localized radiation can lead to non-localized secondary effects such as radiation-induced immune response, bystander effect, and abscopal effect. Understand that the non-localized radiation effects may be harnessed to improve cancer treatment. Learn examples of physics participation in multidisciplinary research to advance cancer biology. Recognize the challenges and possibilities of physics applications in cancer research. Chang: NIH 5RC2CA148487-02 and 1U54CA151652-01 Graves: IDEA award (19IB-0106) from the California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP), and by NIH P01 CA67166.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-CD-303-05: Unveiling Tumor Heterogeneity by Molecular Imaging

Recent advances in cancer research have shed new light on the complex processes of how therapeutic radiation initiates changes at cellular, tissue, and system levels that may lead to clinical effects. These new advances may transform the way we use radiation to combat certain types of cancers. For the past two decades many technological advancements in radiation therapy have been largely based on the hypothesis that direct radiation-induced DNA double strand breaks cause cell death and thus tumor control and normal tissue damage. However, new insights have elucidated that in addition to causing cellular DNA damage, localized therapeutic radiation also initiates cascades of complex downstream biological responses in tissue that extend far beyond where therapeutic radiation dose is directly deposited. For instance, studies show that irradiated dying tumor cells release tumor antigens that can lead the immune system to a systemic anti-cancer attack throughout the body of cancer patient; targeted irradiation to solid tumor also increases the migration of tumor cells already in bloodstream, the seeds of potential metastasis. Some of the new insights may explain the long ago discovered but still unexplained non-localized radiation effects (bystander effect and abscopal effect) and the efficacy of spatially fractionated radiation therapy (microbeam radiation therapy and GRID therapy) where many “hot” and “cold” spots are intentionally created throughout the treatment volume. Better understanding of the mechanisms behind the non-localized radiation effects creates tremendous opportunities to develop new and integrated cancer treatment strategies that are based on radiotherapy, immunology, and chemotherapy. However, in the multidisciplinary effort to advance new radiobiology, there are also tremendous challenges including a lack of multidisciplinary researchers and imaging technologies for the microscopic radiation-induced responses. A better grasp of the essence of these advances in cancer biology research will give medical physicists a new perspective in daily clinical physics practice and in future radiation therapy technological development. Furthermore, academic medical physics should continue to be an integral part of the multidisciplinary cancer research community, harnessing our newly acquired understanding of radiation effects, and developing novel cost-effective treatment strategies to better combat cancer. Learning Objectives: Understand that localized radiation can lead to non-localized secondary effects such as radiation-induced immune response, bystander effect, and abscopal effect. Understand that the non-localized radiation effects may be harnessed to improve cancer treatment. Learn examples of physics participation in multidisciplinary research to advance cancer biology. Recognize the challenges and possibilities of physics applications in cancer research. Chang: NIH 5RC2CA148487-02 and 1U54CA151652-01 Graves: IDEA award (19IB-0106) from the California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP), and by NIH P01 CA67166.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-C-201-00: Clinical Implementation of HDR Brachytherapy

Recent use of HDR has increased while planning has become more complex often necessitating 3D image-based planning. While many guidelines for the use of HDR exist, they have not kept pace with the increased complexity of 3D image-based planning. Furthermore, no comprehensive document exists to describe the wide variety of current HDR clinical indications. This educational session aims to summarize existing national and international guidelines for the safe implementation of an HDR program. A summary of HDR afterloaders available on the market and their existing applicators will be provided, with guidance on how to select the best fit for each institution’s needs. Finally, the use of checklists will be discussed as a means to implement a safe and efficient HDR program and as a method by which to verify the quality of an existing HDR program. This session will provide the perspective of expert HDR physicists as well as the perspective of a new HDR user. Learning Objectives: Summarize national and international safety and staffing guidelines for HDR implementation Discuss the process of afterloader and applicator selection for gynecologic, prostate, breast, interstitial, surface treatments Learn about the use of an audit checklist tool to measure of quality control of a new or existing HDR program Describe the evolving use of checklists within an HDR program.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-C-201-01: Clinical Implementation of HDR: A New User’s Perspective

Recent use of HDR has increased while planning has become more complex often necessitating 3D image-based planning. While many guidelines for the use of HDR exist, they have not kept pace with the increased complexity of 3D image-based planning. Furthermore, no comprehensive document exists to describe the wide variety of current HDR clinical indications. This educational session aims to summarize existing national and international guidelines for the safe implementation of an HDR program. A summary of HDR afterloaders available on the market and their existing applicators will be provided, with guidance on how to select the best fit for each institution’s needs. Finally, the use of checklists will be discussed as a means to implement a safe and efficient HDR program and as a method by which to verify the quality of an existing HDR program. This session will provide the perspective of expert HDR physicists as well as the perspective of a new HDR user. Learning Objectives: Summarize national and international safety and staffing guidelines for HDR implementation Discuss the process of afterloader and applicator selection for gynecologic, prostate, breast, interstitial, surface treatments Learn about the use of an audit checklist tool to measure of quality control of a new or existing HDR program Describe the evolving use of checklists within an HDR program.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-C-201-02: Clinical Implementation of HDR: Afterloader and Applicator Selection

Recent use of HDR has increased while planning has become more complex often necessitating 3D image-based planning. While many guidelines for the use of HDR exist, they have not kept pace with the increased complexity of 3D image-based planning. Furthermore, no comprehensive document exists to describe the wide variety of current HDR clinical indications. This educational session aims to summarize existing national and international guidelines for the safe implementation of an HDR program. A summary of HDR afterloaders available on the market and their existing applicators will be provided, with guidance on how to select the best fit for each institution’s needs. Finally, the use of checklists will be discussed as a means to implement a safe and efficient HDR program and as a method by which to verify the quality of an existing HDR program. This session will provide the perspective of expert HDR physicists as well as the perspective of a new HDR user. Learning Objectives: Summarize national and international safety and staffing guidelines for HDR implementation Discuss the process of afterloader and applicator selection for gynecologic, prostate, breast, interstitial, surface treatments Learn about the use of an audit checklist tool to measure of quality control of a new or existing HDR program Describe the evolving use of checklists within an HDR program.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-C-201-03: The Use of Checklists and Audit Tools for Safety and QA

Recent use of HDR has increased while planning has become more complex often necessitating 3D image-based planning. While many guidelines for the use of HDR exist, they have not kept pace with the increased complexity of 3D image-based planning. Furthermore, no comprehensive document exists to describe the wide variety of current HDR clinical indications. This educational session aims to summarize existing national and international guidelines for the safe implementation of an HDR program. A summary of HDR afterloaders available on the market and their existing applicators will be provided, with guidance on how to select the best fit for each institution’s needs. Finally, the use of checklists will be discussed as a means to implement a safe and efficient HDR program and as a method by which to verify the quality of an existing HDR program. This session will provide the perspective of expert HDR physicists as well as the perspective of a new HDR user. Learning Objectives: Summarize national and international safety and staffing guidelines for HDR implementation Discuss the process of afterloader and applicator selection for gynecologic, prostate, breast, interstitial, surface treatments Learn about the use of an audit checklist tool to measure of quality control of a new or existing HDR program Describe the evolving use of checklists within an HDR program.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗