Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “school”

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 865 records · Page 48
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

TU-E-201-00: Eye Lens Dosimetry for Patients and Staff

Madan M. Rehani, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston Methods for Eye Lens Dosimetry and Studies On Lens Opacities with Interventionalists Radiation induced cataract is a major threat among staff working in interventional suites. Nearly 16 million interventional procedures are performed annually in USA. Recent studies by the principal investigator’s group, primarily among interventional cardiologists, on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency, show posterior subcapsular (PSC) changes in the eye lens in 38–53% of main operators and 21–45% of support staff. These changes have potential to lead to cataract in future years, as per information from A-Bomb survivors. The International Commission on Radiological Protection has reduced dose limit for staff by a factor of 7.5 (from 150 mSv/y to 20 mSv/y). With increasing emphasis on radiation induced cataracts and reduction in threshold dose for eye lens, there is a need to implement strategies for estimating eye lens dose. Unfortunately eye lens dosimetry is at infancy when it comes to routine application. Various approaches are being tried namely direct measurement using active or passive dosimeters kept close to eyes, retrospective estimations and lastly correlating patient dose in interventional procedures with staff eye dose. The talk will review all approaches available and ongoing active research in this area, as well as data from surveys done in Europe on status of eye dose monitoring in interventional radiology and nuclear medicine. The talk will provide update on how good is Hp(10) against Hp(3), estimations from CTDI values, Monte Carlo based simulations and current status of eye lens dosimetry in USA and Europe. The cataract risk among patients is in CT examinations of the head. Since radiation induced cataract predominantly occurs in posterior sub-capsular (PSC) region and is thus distinguishable from age or drug related cataracts and is also preventable, actions on awareness can lead to avoidance or even prevention. Learning Objectives: To understand recent changes in eye lens dose limits and thresholds for tissue reactions To understand different approaches to dose estimation for eye lens To learn about challenges in eye lens opacities among staff in interventional fluoroscopy Di Zhang, Toshiba America Medical Systems, Tustin, CA, USA Eye lens radiation dose from brain perfusion CT exams CT perfusion imaging requires repeatedly exposing one location of the head to monitor the uptake and washout of iodinated contrast. The accumulated radiation dose to the eye lens can be high, leading to concerns about potential radiation injury from these scans. CTDIvol assumes continuous z coverage and can overestimate eye lens dose in CT perfusion scans where the table do not increment. The radiation dose to the eye lens from clinical CT brain perfusion studies can be estimated using Monte Carlo simulation methods on voxelized patient models. MDCT scanners from four major manufacturers were simulated and the eye lens doses were estimated using the AAPM posted clinical protocols. They were also compared to CTDIvol values to evaluate the overestimation from CTDIvol. The efficacy of eye lens dose reduction techniques such as tilting the gantry and moving the scan location away from the eyelens were also investigated. Eye lens dose ranged from 81 mGy to 279 mGy, depending on the scanner and protocol used. It is between 59% and 63% of the CTDIvol values reported by the scanners. The eye lens dose is significantly reduced when the eye lenses were not directly irradiated. CTDIvol should not be interpreted as patient dose; this study has shown it to overestimate dose to the eye lens. These results may be used to provide more accurate estimates of actual dose to ensure that protocols are operated safely below thresholds. Tilting the gantry or moving the scanning region further away from the eyes are effective for reducing lens dose in clinical practice. These actions should be considered when they are consistent with the clinical task and patient anatomy. Learning Objectives: To become familiar with method of eye dose estimation for patient in specific situation of brain perfusion CT To become familiar with level of eye lens radiation doses in patients undergoing brain perfusion MDCT To understand methods for reducing eye lens dose to patient Jong Min Park, Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea Eye lens dosimetry in radiotherapy using contact lens-shaped applicator Dose calculation accuracy of commercial treatment planning systems is relatively low at shallow depths. Therefore, in-vivo measurements are often performed in the clinic to verify delivered doses to eye lens which are located at shallow depth. Current in-vivo dosimetry for eye lens during radiotherapy is generally performed with small in-vivo dosimeters on the surface of patient eyelid. Since this procedure potentially contains considerable uncertainty, a contact lens-shaped applicator made of acrylic (lens applicator) was developed for in-vivo measurements of eye lens dose during radiotherapy to reduce uncertainty. The lens applicator allows the insertion of commercially available metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeters. Computed tomography (CT) images of an anthropomorphic phantom with and without the lens applicator were acquired. A total of 20 VMAT plans were delivered to an anthropomorphic phantom and the doses with the lens applicator and the doses at the surface of the eyelid were measured using both micro and standard MOSFET dosimeters. The differences in measured dose at the surface of the eyelid from the calculated lens dose were acquired. The differences between the measured and the calculated doses at the lens applicator, as well as the differences between the measured and the calculated doses at the surface of the eyelid were acquired. The statistical significance of the differences was analyzed. The average difference between the measured and the calculated dose with the lens applicator was 16.8 % ± 10.4 % with a micro MOSFET dosimeter and 16.6 % ± 10.9% with a standard MOSFET dosimeter. The average difference without the lens applicator was 35.9% ± 41.5% with micro MOSFET dosimeter and 42.9% ± 52.2% with standard MOSFET dosimeter. The maximum difference with micro MOSFET dosimeter was 46% with the applicator and 188.4% without the applicator. For the standard MOSFET dosimeter, the maximum difference was 44.4% with the applicator and 246.4% without the applicator. The lens applicator allowed reduction of the differences between the calculated and the measured dose during in-vivo measurement for the eye lens as compared to in-vivo measurement at the surface of the eyelid. Learning Objectives: To understand limitations of dose calculation with commercial treatment planning system for eye lens during radiotherapy To learn about current in-vivo dosimetry methods for eye lens in the clinic To understand limitations of in-vivo dosimetry for eye lens during radiotherapy Di Zhang is an employee of Toshiba America Medical Systems.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-E-201-01: Methods for Eye Lens Dosimetry and Studies On Lens Opacities with Interventionists

Madan M. Rehani, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston Methods for Eye Lens Dosimetry and Studies On Lens Opacities with Interventionalists Radiation induced cataract is a major threat among staff working in interventional suites. Nearly 16 million interventional procedures are performed annually in USA. Recent studies by the principal investigator’s group, primarily among interventional cardiologists, on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency, show posterior subcapsular (PSC) changes in the eye lens in 38–53% of main operators and 21–45% of support staff. These changes have potential to lead to cataract in future years, as per information from A-Bomb survivors. The International Commission on Radiological Protection has reduced dose limit for staff by a factor of 7.5 (from 150 mSv/y to 20 mSv/y). With increasing emphasis on radiation induced cataracts and reduction in threshold dose for eye lens, there is a need to implement strategies for estimating eye lens dose. Unfortunately eye lens dosimetry is at infancy when it comes to routine application. Various approaches are being tried namely direct measurement using active or passive dosimeters kept close to eyes, retrospective estimations and lastly correlating patient dose in interventional procedures with staff eye dose. The talk will review all approaches available and ongoing active research in this area, as well as data from surveys done in Europe on status of eye dose monitoring in interventional radiology and nuclear medicine. The talk will provide update on how good is Hp(10) against Hp(3), estimations from CTDI values, Monte Carlo based simulations and current status of eye lens dosimetry in USA and Europe. The cataract risk among patients is in CT examinations of the head. Since radiation induced cataract predominantly occurs in posterior sub-capsular (PSC) region and is thus distinguishable from age or drug related cataracts and is also preventable, actions on awareness can lead to avoidance or even prevention. Learning Objectives: To understand recent changes in eye lens dose limits and thresholds for tissue reactions To understand different approaches to dose estimation for eye lens To learn about challenges in eye lens opacities among staff in interventional fluoroscopy Di Zhang, Toshiba America Medical Systems, Tustin, CA, USA Eye lens radiation dose from brain perfusion CT exams CT perfusion imaging requires repeatedly exposing one location of the head to monitor the uptake and washout of iodinated contrast. The accumulated radiation dose to the eye lens can be high, leading to concerns about potential radiation injury from these scans. CTDIvol assumes continuous z coverage and can overestimate eye lens dose in CT perfusion scans where the table do not increment. The radiation dose to the eye lens from clinical CT brain perfusion studies can be estimated using Monte Carlo simulation methods on voxelized patient models. MDCT scanners from four major manufacturers were simulated and the eye lens doses were estimated using the AAPM posted clinical protocols. They were also compared to CTDIvol values to evaluate the overestimation from CTDIvol. The efficacy of eye lens dose reduction techniques such as tilting the gantry and moving the scan location away from the eyelens were also investigated. Eye lens dose ranged from 81 mGy to 279 mGy, depending on the scanner and protocol used. It is between 59% and 63% of the CTDIvol values reported by the scanners. The eye lens dose is significantly reduced when the eye lenses were not directly irradiated. CTDIvol should not be interpreted as patient dose; this study has shown it to overestimate dose to the eye lens. These results may be used to provide more accurate estimates of actual dose to ensure that protocols are operated safely below thresholds. Tilting the gantry or moving the scanning region further away from the eyes are effective for reducing lens dose in clinical practice. These actions should be considered when they are consistent with the clinical task and patient anatomy. Learning Objectives: To become familiar with method of eye dose estimation for patient in specific situation of brain perfusion CT To become familiar with level of eye lens radiation doses in patients undergoing brain perfusion MDCT To understand methods for reducing eye lens dose to patient Jong Min Park, Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea Eye lens dosimetry in radiotherapy using contact lens-shaped applicator Dose calculation accuracy of commercial treatment planning systems is relatively low at shallow depths. Therefore, in-vivo measurements are often performed in the clinic to verify delivered doses to eye lens which are located at shallow depth. Current in-vivo dosimetry for eye lens during radiotherapy is generally performed with small in-vivo dosimeters on the surface of patient eyelid. Since this procedure potentially contains considerable uncertainty, a contact lens-shaped applicator made of acrylic (lens applicator) was developed for in-vivo measurements of eye lens dose during radiotherapy to reduce uncertainty. The lens applicator allows the insertion of commercially available metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeters. Computed tomography (CT) images of an anthropomorphic phantom with and without the lens applicator were acquired. A total of 20 VMAT plans were delivered to an anthropomorphic phantom and the doses with the lens applicator and the doses at the surface of the eyelid were measured using both micro and standard MOSFET dosimeters. The differences in measured dose at the surface of the eyelid from the calculated lens dose were acquired. The differences between the measured and the calculated doses at the lens applicator, as well as the differences between the measured and the calculated doses at the surface of the eyelid were acquired. The statistical significance of the differences was analyzed. The average difference between the measured and the calculated dose with the lens applicator was 16.8 % ± 10.4 % with a micro MOSFET dosimeter and 16.6 % ± 10.9% with a standard MOSFET dosimeter. The average difference without the lens applicator was 35.9% ± 41.5% with micro MOSFET dosimeter and 42.9% ± 52.2% with standard MOSFET dosimeter. The maximum difference with micro MOSFET dosimeter was 46% with the applicator and 188.4% without the applicator. For the standard MOSFET dosimeter, the maximum difference was 44.4% with the applicator and 246.4% without the applicator. The lens applicator allowed reduction of the differences between the calculated and the measured dose during in-vivo measurement for the eye lens as compared to in-vivo measurement at the surface of the eyelid. Learning Objectives: To understand limitations of dose calculation with commercial treatment planning system for eye lens during radiotherapy To learn about current in-vivo dosimetry methods for eye lens in the clinic To understand limitations of in-vivo dosimetry for eye lens during radiotherapy Di Zhang is an employee of Toshiba America Medical Systems.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-E-201-02: Eye Lens Dosimetry From CT Perfusion Studies

Madan M. Rehani, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston Methods for Eye Lens Dosimetry and Studies On Lens Opacities with Interventionalists Radiation induced cataract is a major threat among staff working in interventional suites. Nearly 16 million interventional procedures are performed annually in USA. Recent studies by the principal investigator’s group, primarily among interventional cardiologists, on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency, show posterior subcapsular (PSC) changes in the eye lens in 38–53% of main operators and 21–45% of support staff. These changes have potential to lead to cataract in future years, as per information from A-Bomb survivors. The International Commission on Radiological Protection has reduced dose limit for staff by a factor of 7.5 (from 150 mSv/y to 20 mSv/y). With increasing emphasis on radiation induced cataracts and reduction in threshold dose for eye lens, there is a need to implement strategies for estimating eye lens dose. Unfortunately eye lens dosimetry is at infancy when it comes to routine application. Various approaches are being tried namely direct measurement using active or passive dosimeters kept close to eyes, retrospective estimations and lastly correlating patient dose in interventional procedures with staff eye dose. The talk will review all approaches available and ongoing active research in this area, as well as data from surveys done in Europe on status of eye dose monitoring in interventional radiology and nuclear medicine. The talk will provide update on how good is Hp(10) against Hp(3), estimations from CTDI values, Monte Carlo based simulations and current status of eye lens dosimetry in USA and Europe. The cataract risk among patients is in CT examinations of the head. Since radiation induced cataract predominantly occurs in posterior sub-capsular (PSC) region and is thus distinguishable from age or drug related cataracts and is also preventable, actions on awareness can lead to avoidance or even prevention. Learning Objectives: To understand recent changes in eye lens dose limits and thresholds for tissue reactions To understand different approaches to dose estimation for eye lens To learn about challenges in eye lens opacities among staff in interventional fluoroscopy Di Zhang, Toshiba America Medical Systems, Tustin, CA, USA Eye lens radiation dose from brain perfusion CT exams CT perfusion imaging requires repeatedly exposing one location of the head to monitor the uptake and washout of iodinated contrast. The accumulated radiation dose to the eye lens can be high, leading to concerns about potential radiation injury from these scans. CTDIvol assumes continuous z coverage and can overestimate eye lens dose in CT perfusion scans where the table do not increment. The radiation dose to the eye lens from clinical CT brain perfusion studies can be estimated using Monte Carlo simulation methods on voxelized patient models. MDCT scanners from four major manufacturers were simulated and the eye lens doses were estimated using the AAPM posted clinical protocols. They were also compared to CTDIvol values to evaluate the overestimation from CTDIvol. The efficacy of eye lens dose reduction techniques such as tilting the gantry and moving the scan location away from the eyelens were also investigated. Eye lens dose ranged from 81 mGy to 279 mGy, depending on the scanner and protocol used. It is between 59% and 63% of the CTDIvol values reported by the scanners. The eye lens dose is significantly reduced when the eye lenses were not directly irradiated. CTDIvol should not be interpreted as patient dose; this study has shown it to overestimate dose to the eye lens. These results may be used to provide more accurate estimates of actual dose to ensure that protocols are operated safely below thresholds. Tilting the gantry or moving the scanning region further away from the eyes are effective for reducing lens dose in clinical practice. These actions should be considered when they are consistent with the clinical task and patient anatomy. Learning Objectives: To become familiar with method of eye dose estimation for patient in specific situation of brain perfusion CT To become familiar with level of eye lens radiation doses in patients undergoing brain perfusion MDCT To understand methods for reducing eye lens dose to patient Jong Min Park, Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea Eye lens dosimetry in radiotherapy using contact lens-shaped applicator Dose calculation accuracy of commercial treatment planning systems is relatively low at shallow depths. Therefore, in-vivo measurements are often performed in the clinic to verify delivered doses to eye lens which are located at shallow depth. Current in-vivo dosimetry for eye lens during radiotherapy is generally performed with small in-vivo dosimeters on the surface of patient eyelid. Since this procedure potentially contains considerable uncertainty, a contact lens-shaped applicator made of acrylic (lens applicator) was developed for in-vivo measurements of eye lens dose during radiotherapy to reduce uncertainty. The lens applicator allows the insertion of commercially available metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeters. Computed tomography (CT) images of an anthropomorphic phantom with and without the lens applicator were acquired. A total of 20 VMAT plans were delivered to an anthropomorphic phantom and the doses with the lens applicator and the doses at the surface of the eyelid were measured using both micro and standard MOSFET dosimeters. The differences in measured dose at the surface of the eyelid from the calculated lens dose were acquired. The differences between the measured and the calculated doses at the lens applicator, as well as the differences between the measured and the calculated doses at the surface of the eyelid were acquired. The statistical significance of the differences was analyzed. The average difference between the measured and the calculated dose with the lens applicator was 16.8 % ± 10.4 % with a micro MOSFET dosimeter and 16.6 % ± 10.9% with a standard MOSFET dosimeter. The average difference without the lens applicator was 35.9% ± 41.5% with micro MOSFET dosimeter and 42.9% ± 52.2% with standard MOSFET dosimeter. The maximum difference with micro MOSFET dosimeter was 46% with the applicator and 188.4% without the applicator. For the standard MOSFET dosimeter, the maximum difference was 44.4% with the applicator and 246.4% without the applicator. The lens applicator allowed reduction of the differences between the calculated and the measured dose during in-vivo measurement for the eye lens as compared to in-vivo measurement at the surface of the eyelid. Learning Objectives: To understand limitations of dose calculation with commercial treatment planning system for eye lens during radiotherapy To learn about current in-vivo dosimetry methods for eye lens in the clinic To understand limitations of in-vivo dosimetry for eye lens during radiotherapy Di Zhang is an employee of Toshiba America Medical Systems.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-213-01: Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics

Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics – Perry Sprawls Wilhelm Roentgen is well known for his discovery of x-radiation. What is less known and appreciated is his intensive research following the discovery to determine the characteristics of the “new kind of radiation” and demonstrate its great value for medical purposes. In this presentation we will imagine ourselves in Roentgen’s mind and follow his thinking, including questions and doubts, as he designs and conducts a series of innovative experiments that provided the foundation for the rapid growth of medical physics. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the personal characteristics and work of Prof. Roentgen that establishes him as an inspiring model for the medical physics profession. Observe the thought process and experiments that determined and demonstrated the comprehensive characteristics of x-radiation. The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who were they and what did they do? – Lawrence N. Rothenberg William David Coolidge (1873–1975) William Coolidge was born in Hudson, NY in 1873. He obtained his BS at the Massacusetts Institute of Technology in 1896. Coolidge then went to the University of Leipzig, Germany for graduate study with physicists Paul Drude and Gustave Wiedemann and received a Ph.D. in 1899. While in Germany he met Wilhelm Roentgen. Coolidge returned to the US to teach at MIT where he was associated with Arthur A. Noyes of the Chemistry Department, working on the electrical conductivity of aqueous solutions. Willis R. Whitney, under whom Coolidge had worked before going to Germany, became head of the newly formed General Electric Research Laboratory and he invited Coolidge to work with him. In 1905, Coolidge joined the staff of the GE laboratory and was associated with it for the remainder of his life. He developed ductile tungsten filaments to replace fragile carbon filaments as the material for electric light bulb filaments. Until that innovation light bulbs had a notoriously short life. He later incorporated the ductile tungsten as a filament material for a hot cathode, fully evacuated x-ray tube, first described in 1912, which allowed higher current and x-ray output, and greater reliability than had previously been possible. These “Coolidge x-ray tubes” were far superior to the cold cathode, partial pressure gas x-ray tubes that had been in use since Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays in 1895. The Coolidge tube with incremental developments is now the key component for x-ray production in all of our modern x-ray imaging devices, such as CT scanners, interventional radiology systems, and mammography units. Coolidge was also involved in the development of sectional x-ray tubes for research and treatment that were initially designed to reach 800 kV. Additional improvements led to 1 MV and 2 MV devices. In 1932 Coolidge became director of the General Electric Research Laboratory, and in 1940, was made Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1945 he retired and was named Director Emeritus of the laboratory. Coolidge held 83 patents and was recognized for these and many other achievements by election to the National Academy of Engineers, a place in the Engineering Hall of Fame and the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The AAPM’s highest honor, the Coolidge Award, was named after him. He accepted Honorary Membership in the AAPM and was the first recipient of the AAPM Coolidge Award, which was presented to him in a special ceremony in Schenectady, NY in 1972 when he was 100 years old. Edith Hinckley Quimby (1891–1982) Edith Quimby was born in Rockford, IL in 1891. She graduated from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA with a B.S. in 1913, and then obtained a masters degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Later in her career, after many significant achievements, Quimby was awarded honorary doctorates by Whitman College and Rutgers University. Edith Quimby was hired by Giacchino Failla as a radiation physicist at Memorial Hospital for Cancer in New York City. Failla had studied with Madame Curie and obtained his doctoral degree in her laboratory. After many groundbreaking medical physics studies from 1919 until 1942, they both moved to Columbia University. Dr. Quimby developed a widely employed dosimetry system for single plane implants with radium and radon seeds, and a dosimetry methodology for internal radionuclides. She was author of more than 75 scientific publications, and of significant textbooks including the first comprehensive physics textbook for radiologists “Physical Foundations of Radiology”, which was co-authored with Otto Glasser, Lauriston Taylor and James Weatherwax in the first edition, with Russell Morgan added for the second edition and Paul Goodwin for the fourth edition. With Sergei Feitelberg, M.D. she published two editions of “Radioactive Isotopes in Medicine and Biology: Basic Physics and Instrumentation”. Quimby became a renowned examiner for the American Board of Radiology when the third ABR examination, given in 1936, added physics. She served as President of the American Radium Society, received the RSNA Gold Medal, and also numerous prestigious awards given to women in science. Edith Quimby was a Charter Member of AAPM. The AAPM Lifetime Achievement Award was renamed the Edith H. Quimby Lifetime Achievement Award in her honor in 2011. Marvin Martin Dixon Williams (1902–1981) Marvin Williams was born in Walla Walla, WA in 1902, and attended the same college as Edith Quimby, graduating from Whitman College in 1926. He was greatly influenced to go into medical physics by her accomplishments. During his early career, Williams worked with James Weatherwax in Philadelphia while he was working toward an M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1931 Williams was awarded a Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Minnesota, with the work actually performed at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of the University. While completing his Ph.D. studies, Marvin met Dr. Paul Hodges who had returned from the Peiping Union Medical College in Peiping (now Beijing), China. Hodges suggested that a physicist be sent to Peiping to install x-ray therapy equipment and a radon plant. Williams accepted the position and, in 1931, he and his wife Orpha left for China. Before going to China, Williams had spent time with the physics group at Memorial Hospital to learn about the operation of a radon plant. In China, he constructed the radon plant, employing 0.25 g of radium, and also installed the x-ray therapy unit. Williams and his wife returned to the US in 1935, and he accepted a research position at the Mayo Clinic. In 1950, he became Professor of Biophysics at Mayo, where he taught physics and biophysics until his retirement in 1967. Williams was also very active in the American Board of Radiology where, from 1944 through 1977, he examined over 3000 radiologists and 250 physicists. Marvin Williams was a Charter member of AAPM, served as the fourth President of AAPM in 1963, and was the fourth recipient the AAPM Coolidge Award in 1975. The Marvin Williams Award was originally established as the highest award of the American College of Medical Physics. When various functions of the ACMP were absorbed into the AAPM in 2012, the Marvin M D Williams Professional Achievement Award became one of the AAPM’s highest honors. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the persons in whose honor the three major AAPM Award are named Learn about the achievements and activities which influenced the AAPM to name these awards in their honor.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-213-00: History Symposium: Radiological Physics Pioneers: Roentgen and the AAPM Award Eponyms - William Coolidge, Edith Quimby, and Marvin Williams - Who Were They and What Did They Do?

Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics – Perry Sprawls Wilhelm Roentgen is well known for his discovery of x-radiation. What is less known and appreciated is his intensive research following the discovery to determine the characteristics of the “new kind of radiation” and demonstrate its great value for medical purposes. In this presentation we will imagine ourselves in Roentgen’s mind and follow his thinking, including questions and doubts, as he designs and conducts a series of innovative experiments that provided the foundation for the rapid growth of medical physics. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the personal characteristics and work of Prof. Roentgen that establishes him as an inspiring model for the medical physics profession. Observe the thought process and experiments that determined and demonstrated the comprehensive characteristics of x-radiation. The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who were they and what did they do? – Lawrence N. Rothenberg William David Coolidge (1873–1975) William Coolidge was born in Hudson, NY in 1873. He obtained his BS at the Massacusetts Institute of Technology in 1896. Coolidge then went to the University of Leipzig, Germany for graduate study with physicists Paul Drude and Gustave Wiedemann and received a Ph.D. in 1899. While in Germany he met Wilhelm Roentgen. Coolidge returned to the US to teach at MIT where he was associated with Arthur A. Noyes of the Chemistry Department, working on the electrical conductivity of aqueous solutions. Willis R. Whitney, under whom Coolidge had worked before going to Germany, became head of the newly formed General Electric Research Laboratory and he invited Coolidge to work with him. In 1905, Coolidge joined the staff of the GE laboratory and was associated with it for the remainder of his life. He developed ductile tungsten filaments to replace fragile carbon filaments as the material for electric light bulb filaments. Until that innovation light bulbs had a notoriously short life. He later incorporated the ductile tungsten as a filament material for a hot cathode, fully evacuated x-ray tube, first described in 1912, which allowed higher current and x-ray output, and greater reliability than had previously been possible. These “Coolidge x-ray tubes” were far superior to the cold cathode, partial pressure gas x-ray tubes that had been in use since Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays in 1895. The Coolidge tube with incremental developments is now the key component for x-ray production in all of our modern x-ray imaging devices, such as CT scanners, interventional radiology systems, and mammography units. Coolidge was also involved in the development of sectional x-ray tubes for research and treatment that were initially designed to reach 800 kV. Additional improvements led to 1 MV and 2 MV devices. In 1932 Coolidge became director of the General Electric Research Laboratory, and in 1940, was made Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1945 he retired and was named Director Emeritus of the laboratory. Coolidge held 83 patents and was recognized for these and many other achievements by election to the National Academy of Engineers, a place in the Engineering Hall of Fame and the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The AAPM’s highest honor, the Coolidge Award, was named after him. He accepted Honorary Membership in the AAPM and was the first recipient of the AAPM Coolidge Award, which was presented to him in a special ceremony in Schenectady, NY in 1972 when he was 100 years old. Edith Hinckley Quimby (1891–1982) Edith Quimby was born in Rockford, IL in 1891. She graduated from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA with a B.S. in 1913, and then obtained a masters degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Later in her career, after many significant achievements, Quimby was awarded honorary doctorates by Whitman College and Rutgers University. Edith Quimby was hired by Giacchino Failla as a radiation physicist at Memorial Hospital for Cancer in New York City. Failla had studied with Madame Curie and obtained his doctoral degree in her laboratory. After many groundbreaking medical physics studies from 1919 until 1942, they both moved to Columbia University. Dr. Quimby developed a widely employed dosimetry system for single plane implants with radium and radon seeds, and a dosimetry methodology for internal radionuclides. She was author of more than 75 scientific publications, and of significant textbooks including the first comprehensive physics textbook for radiologists “Physical Foundations of Radiology”, which was co-authored with Otto Glasser, Lauriston Taylor and James Weatherwax in the first edition, with Russell Morgan added for the second edition and Paul Goodwin for the fourth edition. With Sergei Feitelberg, M.D. she published two editions of “Radioactive Isotopes in Medicine and Biology: Basic Physics and Instrumentation”. Quimby became a renowned examiner for the American Board of Radiology when the third ABR examination, given in 1936, added physics. She served as President of the American Radium Society, received the RSNA Gold Medal, and also numerous prestigious awards given to women in science. Edith Quimby was a Charter Member of AAPM. The AAPM Lifetime Achievement Award was renamed the Edith H. Quimby Lifetime Achievement Award in her honor in 2011. Marvin Martin Dixon Williams (1902–1981) Marvin Williams was born in Walla Walla, WA in 1902, and attended the same college as Edith Quimby, graduating from Whitman College in 1926. He was greatly influenced to go into medical physics by her accomplishments. During his early career, Williams worked with James Weatherwax in Philadelphia while he was working toward an M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1931 Williams was awarded a Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Minnesota, with the work actually performed at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of the University. While completing his Ph.D. studies, Marvin met Dr. Paul Hodges who had returned from the Peiping Union Medical College in Peiping (now Beijing), China. Hodges suggested that a physicist be sent to Peiping to install x-ray therapy equipment and a radon plant. Williams accepted the position and, in 1931, he and his wife Orpha left for China. Before going to China, Williams had spent time with the physics group at Memorial Hospital to learn about the operation of a radon plant. In China, he constructed the radon plant, employing 0.25 g of radium, and also installed the x-ray therapy unit. Williams and his wife returned to the US in 1935, and he accepted a research position at the Mayo Clinic. In 1950, he became Professor of Biophysics at Mayo, where he taught physics and biophysics until his retirement in 1967. Williams was also very active in the American Board of Radiology where, from 1944 through 1977, he examined over 3000 radiologists and 250 physicists. Marvin Williams was a Charter member of AAPM, served as the fourth President of AAPM in 1963, and was the fourth recipient the AAPM Coolidge Award in 1975. The Marvin Williams Award was originally established as the highest award of the American College of Medical Physics. When various functions of the ACMP were absorbed into the AAPM in 2012, the Marvin M D Williams Professional Achievement Award became one of the AAPM’s highest honors. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the persons in whose honor the three major AAPM Award are named Learn about the achievements and activities which influenced the AAPM to name these awards in their honor.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-G-213-02: The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who Were They and What Did They Do?

Roentgen and the Birth of Modern Medical Physics – Perry Sprawls Wilhelm Roentgen is well known for his discovery of x-radiation. What is less known and appreciated is his intensive research following the discovery to determine the characteristics of the “new kind of radiation” and demonstrate its great value for medical purposes. In this presentation we will imagine ourselves in Roentgen’s mind and follow his thinking, including questions and doubts, as he designs and conducts a series of innovative experiments that provided the foundation for the rapid growth of medical physics. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the personal characteristics and work of Prof. Roentgen that establishes him as an inspiring model for the medical physics profession. Observe the thought process and experiments that determined and demonstrated the comprehensive characteristics of x-radiation. The AAPM Award Eponyms: William D. Coolidge, Edith H. Quimby, and Marvin M.D. Williams - Who were they and what did they do? – Lawrence N. Rothenberg William David Coolidge (1873–1975) William Coolidge was born in Hudson, NY in 1873. He obtained his BS at the Massacusetts Institute of Technology in 1896. Coolidge then went to the University of Leipzig, Germany for graduate study with physicists Paul Drude and Gustave Wiedemann and received a Ph.D. in 1899. While in Germany he met Wilhelm Roentgen. Coolidge returned to the US to teach at MIT where he was associated with Arthur A. Noyes of the Chemistry Department, working on the electrical conductivity of aqueous solutions. Willis R. Whitney, under whom Coolidge had worked before going to Germany, became head of the newly formed General Electric Research Laboratory and he invited Coolidge to work with him. In 1905, Coolidge joined the staff of the GE laboratory and was associated with it for the remainder of his life. He developed ductile tungsten filaments to replace fragile carbon filaments as the material for electric light bulb filaments. Until that innovation light bulbs had a notoriously short life. He later incorporated the ductile tungsten as a filament material for a hot cathode, fully evacuated x-ray tube, first described in 1912, which allowed higher current and x-ray output, and greater reliability than had previously been possible. These “Coolidge x-ray tubes” were far superior to the cold cathode, partial pressure gas x-ray tubes that had been in use since Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays in 1895. The Coolidge tube with incremental developments is now the key component for x-ray production in all of our modern x-ray imaging devices, such as CT scanners, interventional radiology systems, and mammography units. Coolidge was also involved in the development of sectional x-ray tubes for research and treatment that were initially designed to reach 800 kV. Additional improvements led to 1 MV and 2 MV devices. In 1932 Coolidge became director of the General Electric Research Laboratory, and in 1940, was made Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1945 he retired and was named Director Emeritus of the laboratory. Coolidge held 83 patents and was recognized for these and many other achievements by election to the National Academy of Engineers, a place in the Engineering Hall of Fame and the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The AAPM’s highest honor, the Coolidge Award, was named after him. He accepted Honorary Membership in the AAPM and was the first recipient of the AAPM Coolidge Award, which was presented to him in a special ceremony in Schenectady, NY in 1972 when he was 100 years old. Edith Hinckley Quimby (1891–1982) Edith Quimby was born in Rockford, IL in 1891. She graduated from Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA with a B.S. in 1913, and then obtained a masters degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Later in her career, after many significant achievements, Quimby was awarded honorary doctorates by Whitman College and Rutgers University. Edith Quimby was hired by Giacchino Failla as a radiation physicist at Memorial Hospital for Cancer in New York City. Failla had studied with Madame Curie and obtained his doctoral degree in her laboratory. After many groundbreaking medical physics studies from 1919 until 1942, they both moved to Columbia University. Dr. Quimby developed a widely employed dosimetry system for single plane implants with radium and radon seeds, and a dosimetry methodology for internal radionuclides. She was author of more than 75 scientific publications, and of significant textbooks including the first comprehensive physics textbook for radiologists “Physical Foundations of Radiology”, which was co-authored with Otto Glasser, Lauriston Taylor and James Weatherwax in the first edition, with Russell Morgan added for the second edition and Paul Goodwin for the fourth edition. With Sergei Feitelberg, M.D. she published two editions of “Radioactive Isotopes in Medicine and Biology: Basic Physics and Instrumentation”. Quimby became a renowned examiner for the American Board of Radiology when the third ABR examination, given in 1936, added physics. She served as President of the American Radium Society, received the RSNA Gold Medal, and also numerous prestigious awards given to women in science. Edith Quimby was a Charter Member of AAPM. The AAPM Lifetime Achievement Award was renamed the Edith H. Quimby Lifetime Achievement Award in her honor in 2011. Marvin Martin Dixon Williams (1902–1981) Marvin Williams was born in Walla Walla, WA in 1902, and attended the same college as Edith Quimby, graduating from Whitman College in 1926. He was greatly influenced to go into medical physics by her accomplishments. During his early career, Williams worked with James Weatherwax in Philadelphia while he was working toward an M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1931 Williams was awarded a Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Minnesota, with the work actually performed at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of the University. While completing his Ph.D. studies, Marvin met Dr. Paul Hodges who had returned from the Peiping Union Medical College in Peiping (now Beijing), China. Hodges suggested that a physicist be sent to Peiping to install x-ray therapy equipment and a radon plant. Williams accepted the position and, in 1931, he and his wife Orpha left for China. Before going to China, Williams had spent time with the physics group at Memorial Hospital to learn about the operation of a radon plant. In China, he constructed the radon plant, employing 0.25 g of radium, and also installed the x-ray therapy unit. Williams and his wife returned to the US in 1935, and he accepted a research position at the Mayo Clinic. In 1950, he became Professor of Biophysics at Mayo, where he taught physics and biophysics until his retirement in 1967. Williams was also very active in the American Board of Radiology where, from 1944 through 1977, he examined over 3000 radiologists and 250 physicists. Marvin Williams was a Charter member of AAPM, served as the fourth President of AAPM in 1963, and was the fourth recipient the AAPM Coolidge Award in 1975. The Marvin Williams Award was originally established as the highest award of the American College of Medical Physics. When various functions of the ACMP were absorbed into the AAPM in 2012, the Marvin M D Williams Professional Achievement Award became one of the AAPM’s highest honors. Learning Objectives: Become familiar with the persons in whose honor the three major AAPM Award are named Learn about the achievements and activities which influenced the AAPM to name these awards in their honor.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-A-BRA-01: Introduction

Vic Montemayor - No one has been more passionate about improving the quality and effectiveness of the teaching of Medical Physics than Bill Hendee. It was in August of 2008 that the first AAPM Workshop on Becoming a Better Teacher of Medical Physics was held, organized and run by Bill Hendee. This was followed up in July of 2010 with a summer school on the same topic, again organized by Bill. There has been continued interest in alternate approaches to teaching medical physics since those initial gatherings. The momentum established by these workshops is made clear each year in the annual Innovation in Medical Physics Education session, which highlights work being done in all forms of medical physics education, from one-on-one residencies or classroom presentations to large-scale program revisions and on-line resources for international audiences. This symposium, presented on behalf of the Education Council, highlights the work of three finalists from past Innovation in Education sessions. Each will be presenting their approaches to and innovations in teaching medical physics. It is hoped that audience members interested in trying something new in their teaching of medical physics will find some of these ideas and approaches readily applicable to their own classrooms. Rebecca Howell - The presentation will discuss ways to maximize classroom learning, i.e., increasing the amount of material covered while also enhancing students’ understanding of the broader implications of the course topics. Specifically, the presentation will focus on two teaching methodologies, project based learning and flip learning. These teaching methods will be illustrated using an example of graduate medical physics course where both are used in conjunction with traditional lectures. Additionally, the presentation will focus on our experience implementing these methods including challenges that were overcome. Jay Burmeister - My presentation will discuss the incorporation of active learning techniques into a traditional medical physics classroom course. I will describe these techniques and how they were implemented as well as student performance before and after implementation. Student feedback indicated that these course changes improved their ability to actively assimilate the course content, thus improving their understanding of the material. Shahid Naqvi - My talk will focus on ways to help students visualize crucial concepts that lie at the core of radiation physics. Although particle tracks generated by Monte Carlo simulations have served as an indispensable visualization tool, students often struggle to resolve the underlying physics from a simultaneous jumble of tracks. We can clarify the physics by “coding” the tracks, e.g., by coloring the tracks according to their “starting” or “crossing” regions. The regionally-coded tracks when overlaid with dose distributions help the students see the elusive connection between dose, kerma and electronic disequilibrium. Tracks coded according to local energy or energy-loss rate can illustrate the need for stopping power corrections in electron beams and explain the Bragg peak in a proton beam. Coding tracks according to parent interaction type and order can clarify the often misunderstood distinction between primary and scatter dose. The students can thus see the “whole” simultaneously with the “sum of the parts,” which enhances their physical insight and creates a sustainable foundation for further learning. After the presentations the speakers and moderator will be open to questions and discussion with the audience members. Learning Objectives: Be able to explain Project-Based Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain Flipped Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain active-learning strategies for the teaching of Medical Physics. Be able to explain how Monte Carlo simulations can be used to deepen a student’s understanding of radiation physics and dosimetry.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-A-BRA-02: Making the Most of a One Hour Lecture with Alternative Teaching Methodologies: Implementing Project-Based and Flipped Learning

Vic Montemayor - No one has been more passionate about improving the quality and effectiveness of the teaching of Medical Physics than Bill Hendee. It was in August of 2008 that the first AAPM Workshop on Becoming a Better Teacher of Medical Physics was held, organized and run by Bill Hendee. This was followed up in July of 2010 with a summer school on the same topic, again organized by Bill. There has been continued interest in alternate approaches to teaching medical physics since those initial gatherings. The momentum established by these workshops is made clear each year in the annual Innovation in Medical Physics Education session, which highlights work being done in all forms of medical physics education, from one-on-one residencies or classroom presentations to large-scale program revisions and on-line resources for international audiences. This symposium, presented on behalf of the Education Council, highlights the work of three finalists from past Innovation in Education sessions. Each will be presenting their approaches to and innovations in teaching medical physics. It is hoped that audience members interested in trying something new in their teaching of medical physics will find some of these ideas and approaches readily applicable to their own classrooms. Rebecca Howell - The presentation will discuss ways to maximize classroom learning, i.e., increasing the amount of material covered while also enhancing students’ understanding of the broader implications of the course topics. Specifically, the presentation will focus on two teaching methodologies, project based learning and flip learning. These teaching methods will be illustrated using an example of graduate medical physics course where both are used in conjunction with traditional lectures. Additionally, the presentation will focus on our experience implementing these methods including challenges that were overcome. Jay Burmeister - My presentation will discuss the incorporation of active learning techniques into a traditional medical physics classroom course. I will describe these techniques and how they were implemented as well as student performance before and after implementation. Student feedback indicated that these course changes improved their ability to actively assimilate the course content, thus improving their understanding of the material. Shahid Naqvi - My talk will focus on ways to help students visualize crucial concepts that lie at the core of radiation physics. Although particle tracks generated by Monte Carlo simulations have served as an indispensable visualization tool, students often struggle to resolve the underlying physics from a simultaneous jumble of tracks. We can clarify the physics by “coding” the tracks, e.g., by coloring the tracks according to their “starting” or “crossing” regions. The regionally-coded tracks when overlaid with dose distributions help the students see the elusive connection between dose, kerma and electronic disequilibrium. Tracks coded according to local energy or energy-loss rate can illustrate the need for stopping power corrections in electron beams and explain the Bragg peak in a proton beam. Coding tracks according to parent interaction type and order can clarify the often misunderstood distinction between primary and scatter dose. The students can thus see the “whole” simultaneously with the “sum of the parts,” which enhances their physical insight and creates a sustainable foundation for further learning. After the presentations the speakers and moderator will be open to questions and discussion with the audience members. Learning Objectives: Be able to explain Project-Based Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain Flipped Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain active-learning strategies for the teaching of Medical Physics. Be able to explain how Monte Carlo simulations can be used to deepen a student’s understanding of radiation physics and dosimetry.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-A-BRA-03: Creative Stimulation: A Flexible Hands-On Approach to Building a Deeper Understanding of Critical Concepts in Radiation Physics

Vic Montemayor - No one has been more passionate about improving the quality and effectiveness of the teaching of Medical Physics than Bill Hendee. It was in August of 2008 that the first AAPM Workshop on Becoming a Better Teacher of Medical Physics was held, organized and run by Bill Hendee. This was followed up in July of 2010 with a summer school on the same topic, again organized by Bill. There has been continued interest in alternate approaches to teaching medical physics since those initial gatherings. The momentum established by these workshops is made clear each year in the annual Innovation in Medical Physics Education session, which highlights work being done in all forms of medical physics education, from one-on-one residencies or classroom presentations to large-scale program revisions and on-line resources for international audiences. This symposium, presented on behalf of the Education Council, highlights the work of three finalists from past Innovation in Education sessions. Each will be presenting their approaches to and innovations in teaching medical physics. It is hoped that audience members interested in trying something new in their teaching of medical physics will find some of these ideas and approaches readily applicable to their own classrooms. Rebecca Howell - The presentation will discuss ways to maximize classroom learning, i.e., increasing the amount of material covered while also enhancing students’ understanding of the broader implications of the course topics. Specifically, the presentation will focus on two teaching methodologies, project based learning and flip learning. These teaching methods will be illustrated using an example of graduate medical physics course where both are used in conjunction with traditional lectures. Additionally, the presentation will focus on our experience implementing these methods including challenges that were overcome. Jay Burmeister - My presentation will discuss the incorporation of active learning techniques into a traditional medical physics classroom course. I will describe these techniques and how they were implemented as well as student performance before and after implementation. Student feedback indicated that these course changes improved their ability to actively assimilate the course content, thus improving their understanding of the material. Shahid Naqvi - My talk will focus on ways to help students visualize crucial concepts that lie at the core of radiation physics. Although particle tracks generated by Monte Carlo simulations have served as an indispensable visualization tool, students often struggle to resolve the underlying physics from a simultaneous jumble of tracks. We can clarify the physics by “coding” the tracks, e.g., by coloring the tracks according to their “starting” or “crossing” regions. The regionally-coded tracks when overlaid with dose distributions help the students see the elusive connection between dose, kerma and electronic disequilibrium. Tracks coded according to local energy or energy-loss rate can illustrate the need for stopping power corrections in electron beams and explain the Bragg peak in a proton beam. Coding tracks according to parent interaction type and order can clarify the often misunderstood distinction between primary and scatter dose. The students can thus see the “whole” simultaneously with the “sum of the parts,” which enhances their physical insight and creates a sustainable foundation for further learning. After the presentations the speakers and moderator will be open to questions and discussion with the audience members. Learning Objectives: Be able to explain Project-Based Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain Flipped Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain active-learning strategies for the teaching of Medical Physics. Be able to explain how Monte Carlo simulations can be used to deepen a student’s understanding of radiation physics and dosimetry.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-A-BRA-04: Incorporating Active Learning Into Medical Physics Education

Vic Montemayor - No one has been more passionate about improving the quality and effectiveness of the teaching of Medical Physics than Bill Hendee. It was in August of 2008 that the first AAPM Workshop on Becoming a Better Teacher of Medical Physics was held, organized and run by Bill Hendee. This was followed up in July of 2010 with a summer school on the same topic, again organized by Bill. There has been continued interest in alternate approaches to teaching medical physics since those initial gatherings. The momentum established by these workshops is made clear each year in the annual Innovation in Medical Physics Education session, which highlights work being done in all forms of medical physics education, from one-on-one residencies or classroom presentations to large-scale program revisions and on-line resources for international audiences. This symposium, presented on behalf of the Education Council, highlights the work of three finalists from past Innovation in Education sessions. Each will be presenting their approaches to and innovations in teaching medical physics. It is hoped that audience members interested in trying something new in their teaching of medical physics will find some of these ideas and approaches readily applicable to their own classrooms. Rebecca Howell - The presentation will discuss ways to maximize classroom learning, i.e., increasing the amount of material covered while also enhancing students’ understanding of the broader implications of the course topics. Specifically, the presentation will focus on two teaching methodologies, project based learning and flip learning. These teaching methods will be illustrated using an example of graduate medical physics course where both are used in conjunction with traditional lectures. Additionally, the presentation will focus on our experience implementing these methods including challenges that were overcome. Jay Burmeister - My presentation will discuss the incorporation of active learning techniques into a traditional medical physics classroom course. I will describe these techniques and how they were implemented as well as student performance before and after implementation. Student feedback indicated that these course changes improved their ability to actively assimilate the course content, thus improving their understanding of the material. Shahid Naqvi - My talk will focus on ways to help students visualize crucial concepts that lie at the core of radiation physics. Although particle tracks generated by Monte Carlo simulations have served as an indispensable visualization tool, students often struggle to resolve the underlying physics from a simultaneous jumble of tracks. We can clarify the physics by “coding” the tracks, e.g., by coloring the tracks according to their “starting” or “crossing” regions. The regionally-coded tracks when overlaid with dose distributions help the students see the elusive connection between dose, kerma and electronic disequilibrium. Tracks coded according to local energy or energy-loss rate can illustrate the need for stopping power corrections in electron beams and explain the Bragg peak in a proton beam. Coding tracks according to parent interaction type and order can clarify the often misunderstood distinction between primary and scatter dose. The students can thus see the “whole” simultaneously with the “sum of the parts,” which enhances their physical insight and creates a sustainable foundation for further learning. After the presentations the speakers and moderator will be open to questions and discussion with the audience members. Learning Objectives: Be able to explain Project-Based Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain Flipped Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain active-learning strategies for the teaching of Medical Physics. Be able to explain how Monte Carlo simulations can be used to deepen a student’s understanding of radiation physics and dosimetry.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-A-BRA-05: Panel Discussion

Vic Montemayor - No one has been more passionate about improving the quality and effectiveness of the teaching of Medical Physics than Bill Hendee. It was in August of 2008 that the first AAPM Workshop on Becoming a Better Teacher of Medical Physics was held, organized and run by Bill Hendee. This was followed up in July of 2010 with a summer school on the same topic, again organized by Bill. There has been continued interest in alternate approaches to teaching medical physics since those initial gatherings. The momentum established by these workshops is made clear each year in the annual Innovation in Medical Physics Education session, which highlights work being done in all forms of medical physics education, from one-on-one residencies or classroom presentations to large-scale program revisions and on-line resources for international audiences. This symposium, presented on behalf of the Education Council, highlights the work of three finalists from past Innovation in Education sessions. Each will be presenting their approaches to and innovations in teaching medical physics. It is hoped that audience members interested in trying something new in their teaching of medical physics will find some of these ideas and approaches readily applicable to their own classrooms. Rebecca Howell - The presentation will discuss ways to maximize classroom learning, i.e., increasing the amount of material covered while also enhancing students’ understanding of the broader implications of the course topics. Specifically, the presentation will focus on two teaching methodologies, project based learning and flip learning. These teaching methods will be illustrated using an example of graduate medical physics course where both are used in conjunction with traditional lectures. Additionally, the presentation will focus on our experience implementing these methods including challenges that were overcome. Jay Burmeister - My presentation will discuss the incorporation of active learning techniques into a traditional medical physics classroom course. I will describe these techniques and how they were implemented as well as student performance before and after implementation. Student feedback indicated that these course changes improved their ability to actively assimilate the course content, thus improving their understanding of the material. Shahid Naqvi - My talk will focus on ways to help students visualize crucial concepts that lie at the core of radiation physics. Although particle tracks generated by Monte Carlo simulations have served as an indispensable visualization tool, students often struggle to resolve the underlying physics from a simultaneous jumble of tracks. We can clarify the physics by “coding” the tracks, e.g., by coloring the tracks according to their “starting” or “crossing” regions. The regionally-coded tracks when overlaid with dose distributions help the students see the elusive connection between dose, kerma and electronic disequilibrium. Tracks coded according to local energy or energy-loss rate can illustrate the need for stopping power corrections in electron beams and explain the Bragg peak in a proton beam. Coding tracks according to parent interaction type and order can clarify the often misunderstood distinction between primary and scatter dose. The students can thus see the “whole” simultaneously with the “sum of the parts,” which enhances their physical insight and creates a sustainable foundation for further learning. After the presentations the speakers and moderator will be open to questions and discussion with the audience members. Learning Objectives: Be able to explain Project-Based Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain Flipped Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain active-learning strategies for the teaching of Medical Physics. Be able to explain how Monte Carlo simulations can be used to deepen a student’s understanding of radiation physics and dosimetry.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-A-BRA-00: Education Council Symposium: Revitalizing Your Medical Physics Classroom: Some Examples and Thoughts from the Trenches

Vic Montemayor - No one has been more passionate about improving the quality and effectiveness of the teaching of Medical Physics than Bill Hendee. It was in August of 2008 that the first AAPM Workshop on Becoming a Better Teacher of Medical Physics was held, organized and run by Bill Hendee. This was followed up in July of 2010 with a summer school on the same topic, again organized by Bill. There has been continued interest in alternate approaches to teaching medical physics since those initial gatherings. The momentum established by these workshops is made clear each year in the annual Innovation in Medical Physics Education session, which highlights work being done in all forms of medical physics education, from one-on-one residencies or classroom presentations to large-scale program revisions and on-line resources for international audiences. This symposium, presented on behalf of the Education Council, highlights the work of three finalists from past Innovation in Education sessions. Each will be presenting their approaches to and innovations in teaching medical physics. It is hoped that audience members interested in trying something new in their teaching of medical physics will find some of these ideas and approaches readily applicable to their own classrooms. Rebecca Howell - The presentation will discuss ways to maximize classroom learning, i.e., increasing the amount of material covered while also enhancing students’ understanding of the broader implications of the course topics. Specifically, the presentation will focus on two teaching methodologies, project based learning and flip learning. These teaching methods will be illustrated using an example of graduate medical physics course where both are used in conjunction with traditional lectures. Additionally, the presentation will focus on our experience implementing these methods including challenges that were overcome. Jay Burmeister - My presentation will discuss the incorporation of active learning techniques into a traditional medical physics classroom course. I will describe these techniques and how they were implemented as well as student performance before and after implementation. Student feedback indicated that these course changes improved their ability to actively assimilate the course content, thus improving their understanding of the material. Shahid Naqvi - My talk will focus on ways to help students visualize crucial concepts that lie at the core of radiation physics. Although particle tracks generated by Monte Carlo simulations have served as an indispensable visualization tool, students often struggle to resolve the underlying physics from a simultaneous jumble of tracks. We can clarify the physics by “coding” the tracks, e.g., by coloring the tracks according to their “starting” or “crossing” regions. The regionally-coded tracks when overlaid with dose distributions help the students see the elusive connection between dose, kerma and electronic disequilibrium. Tracks coded according to local energy or energy-loss rate can illustrate the need for stopping power corrections in electron beams and explain the Bragg peak in a proton beam. Coding tracks according to parent interaction type and order can clarify the often misunderstood distinction between primary and scatter dose. The students can thus see the “whole” simultaneously with the “sum of the parts,” which enhances their physical insight and creates a sustainable foundation for further learning. After the presentations the speakers and moderator will be open to questions and discussion with the audience members. Learning Objectives: Be able to explain Project-Based Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain Flipped Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain active-learning strategies for the teaching of Medical Physics. Be able to explain how Monte Carlo simulations can be used to deepen a student’s understanding of radiation physics and dosimetry.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-C-BRB-06: Dosimetric Impact of Breast Contour Reconstruction Errors in GammaPod Stereotactic Radiotherapy

Purpose: The first GammaPod™ unit, a dedicated prone stereotactic treatment device for early stage breast cancer, has been installed and commissioned at University of Maryland School of Medicine. The objective of this study was to investigate potential dosimetric impact of inaccurate breast contour. Methods: In GammaPod treatments, patient’s beast is immobilized by a breast cup device (BCID) throughout the entire same-day imaging and treatment procedure. 28 different BICD sizes are available to accommodate patients with varying breast sizes. A mild suction helps breast tissue to conform to the shape of the cup with selected size. In treatment planning, dose calculation utilizes previously calculated dose distributions for available cup geometry rather than the breast shape from CT image. Patient CT images with breast cups indicate minor geometric discrepancy between the matched shape of the cup and the breast contour, i.e., the contour size is larger or smaller. In order to investigate the dosimetric impact of these discrepancies, we simulated such discrepancies and reassessed the dose to target as well as skin. Results: In vicinity of skin, hot/cold spots were found when matched cup size was smaller/larger than patient’s breast after comparing the corrected dose profiles from Monte Carlo simulation with the planned dose from TPS. The overdosing/underdosing of target could yield point dose differences as large as 5% due to these setup errors (D95 changes within 2.5%). Maximal skin dose was overestimated/underestimated up to 25%/45% when matched cup size was larger/smaller than real breast contour. Conclusion: The dosimetric evaluation suggests substantial underdosing/overdosing with inaccurate cup geometry during planning, which is acceptable for current clinical trial. Further studies are needed to evaluate such impact to treating small volume close to skin.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-D-206-07: CBCT Scatter Correction Based On Rotating Collimator

Purpose: Scatter correction in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has obvious effect on the removal of image noise, the cup artifact and the increase of image contrast. Several methods using a beam blocker for the estimation and subtraction of scatter have been proposed. However, the inconvenience of mechanics and propensity to residual artifacts limited the further evolution of basic and clinical research. Here, we propose a rotating collimator-based approach, in conjunction with reconstruction based on a discrete Radon transform and Tchebichef moments algorithm, to correct scatter-induced artifacts. Methods: A rotating-collimator, comprising round tungsten alloy strips, was mounted on a linear actuator. The rotating-collimator is divided into 6 portions equally. The round strips space is evenly spaced on each portion but staggered between different portions. A step motor connected to the rotating collimator drove the blocker to around x-ray source during the CBCT acquisition. The CBCT reconstruction based on a discrete Radon transform and Tchebichef moments algorithm is performed. Experimental studies using water phantom and Catphan504 were carried out to evaluate the performance of the proposed scheme. Results: The proposed algorithm was tested on both the Monte Carlo simulation and actual experiments with the Catphan504 phantom. From the simulation result, the mean square error of the reconstruction error decreases from 16% to 1.18%, the cupping (τcup) from 14.005% to 0.66%, and the peak signal-to-noise ratio increase from 16.9594 to 31.45. From the actual experiments, the induced visual artifacts are significantly reduced. Conclusion: We conducted an experiment on CBCT imaging system with a rotating collimator to develop and optimize x-ray scatter control and reduction technique. The proposed method is attractive in applications where a high CBCT image quality is critical, for example, dose calculation in adaptive radiation therapy. We want to thank Dr. Lei Xing and Dr. Yong Yang in the Stanford University School of Medicine for this work. This work was jointly supported by NSFC (61471226), Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of Shandong Province (JQ201516), and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2015T80739, 2014M551949).

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-E-15: Initial Experience Implementing a Case Method Teaching Approach to Radiation Oncology Physics Residents, Graduate Students and Doctorate of Medical Physics Students

Purpose: Case Method Teaching approach is a teaching tool used commonly in business school to challenge students with real-world situations—i.e. cases. The students are placed in the role of the decision maker and have to provide a solution based on the multitude of information provided. Specifically, students must develop an ability to quickly make sense of a complex problem, provide a solution incorporating all of the objectives (at time conflicting) and constraints, and communicate that solution in a succinct, professional and effective manner. The validity of the solution is highly dependent on the auxiliary information provided in the case and the basic didactic knowledge of the student. A Case Method Teaching approach was developed and implemented into an on-going course focused on AAPM Task Group reports at UTHSCSA. Methods: A current course at UTHSCSA reviews and discusses 15 AAPM Task Group reports per semester. The course is structured into three topic modules: Imaging QA, Stereotactic Radiotherapy, and Special Patient Measurements—i.e. pacemakers, fetal dose. After a topic module is complete, the students are divided into groups (2–3 people) and are asked to review a case study related to the module topic. Students then provide a solution presented in an executive summary and class presentation. Results: Case studies were created to address each module topic. Through team work and whole-class discussion, a collaborative learning environment was established. Students additionally learned concepts such vendor relations, financial negotiations, capital project management, and competitive strategy. Conclusion: Case Method Teaching approach is an effective teaching tool to further enhance the learning experience of radiation oncology physics students by presenting them with though-provoking dilemmas that require students to distinguish pertinent from peripheral information, formulate strategies and recommendations for action, and confront obstacles to implementation.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-I-38: Patient Organ Specific Dose Assessment in Coronary CT Angiograph Using Voxellaized Volume Dose Index in Monte Carlo Simulation

Purpose: Clinical use of multi detector computed tomography(MDCT) in diagnosis of diseases due to high speed in data acquisition and high spatial resolution is significantly increased. Regarding to the high radiation dose in CT and necessity of patient specific radiation risk assessment, the adoption of new method in the calculation of organ dose is completely required and necessary. In this study by introducing a conversion factor, patient organ dose in thorax region based on CT image data using MC system was calculated. Methods: The geometry of x-ray tube, inherent filter, bow tie filter and collimator were designed using EGSnrc/BEAMnrc MC-system component modules according to GE-Light-speed 64-slices CT-scanner geometry. CT-scan image of patient thorax as a specific phantom was voxellised with 6.25mm3 in voxel and 64×64×20 matrix size. Dose to thorax organ include esophagus, lung, heart, breast, ribs, muscle, spine, spinal cord with imaging technical condition of prospectively-gated-coronary CT-Angiography(PGT) as a step and shoot method, were calculated. Irradiation of patient specific phantom was performed using a dedicated MC-code as DOSXYZnrc with PGT-irradiation model. The ratio of organ dose value calculated in MC-method to the volume CT dose index(CTDIvol) reported by CT-scanner machine according to PGT radiation technique has been introduced as conversion factor. Results: In PGT method, CTDIvol was 10.6mGy and Organ Dose/CTDIvol conversion factor for esophagus, lung, heart, breast, ribs, muscle, spine and spinal cord were obtained as; 0.96, 1.46, 1.2, 3.28. 6.68. 1.35, 3.41 and 0.93 respectively. Conclusion: The results showed while, underestimation of patient dose was found in dose calculation based on CTDIvol, also dose to breast is higher than the other studies. Therefore, the method in this study can be used to provide the actual patient organ dose in CT imaging based on CTDIvol in order to calculation of real effective dose(ED) based on organ dose. This work has been supported by the research chancellor of tehran university of medical sciences(tums), school of medicine, Tehran, Iran.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-J-66: Anatomy Deformation Based Comparison Between One-Step and Two-Step Optimization for Online ART

Purpose: This study investigated that how the quality of adapted plan was affected by inter-fractional anatomy deformation by using one-step and two-step optimization for on line adaptive radiotherapy (ART) procedure. Methods: 10 lung carcinoma patients were chosen randomly to produce IMRT plan by one-step and two-step algorithms respectively, and the prescribed dose was set as 60 Gy on the planning target volume (PTV) for all patients. To simulate inter-fractional target deformation, four specific cases were created by systematic anatomy variation; including target superior shift 0.5 cm, 0.3cm contraction, 0.3 cm expansion and 45-degree rotation. Based on these four anatomy deformation, adapted plan, regenerated plan and non-adapted plan were created to evaluate quality of adaptation. Adapted plans were generated automatically by using one-step and two-step algorithms respectively to optimize original plans, and regenerated plans were manually created by experience physicists. Non-adapted plans were produced by recalculating the dose distribution based on corresponding original plans. The deviations among these three plans were statistically analyzed by paired T-test. Results: In PTV superior shift case, adapted plans had significantly better PTV coverage by using two-step algorithm compared with one-step one, and meanwhile there was a significant difference of V95 by comparison with adapted and non-adapted plans (p=0.0025). In target contraction deformation, with almost same PTV coverage, the total lung received lower dose using one-step algorithm than two-step algorithm (p=0.0143,0.0126 for V20, Dmean respectively). In other two deformation cases, there were no significant differences observed by both two optimized algorithms. Conclusion: In geometry deformation such as target contraction, with comparable PTV coverage, one-step algorithm gave better OAR sparing than two-step algorithm. Reversely, the adaptation by using two-step algorithm had higher efficiency and accuracy as target occurred position displacement. We want to thank Dr. Lei Xing and Dr. Yong Yang in the Stanford University School of Medicine for this work. This work was jointly supported by NSFC (61471226), Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of Shandong Province (JQ201516), and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2015T80739, 2014M551949).

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-J-221: Adjusted Dose and Its Relation to Radiation Induced Liver Disease During Hepatocellular Carcinoma Radiotherapy

Purpose: Many patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) had hepatic anatomy variations as a result of inter-fraction deformation during fractionated radiotherapy, which may result in difference from the planned dose. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between adjusted dose and radiation induced liver disease (RILD) in HCC patients receiving three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). Methods: Twenty-three HCC patients received conventional fractionated 3DCRT were enrolled in this retrospective investigation. Among them, seven patients had been diagnosed of RILD post-radiotherapy, including 4 cases of grade 2, 3 cases of grade 3 according to the CTCAE Version 3.0. Daily cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans were acquired throughout the whole treatment course for each patient. To reconstruct the daily dose to a patient considering the interfraction anatomy variations, the planned beams from each patient’s treatment plan were firstly applied to each daily modified CBCT (mCBCT). The daily doses were then summed together with the help of deformable image registration (DIR) to obtain the adjusted dose (Dadjusted) of the patient. Finally, the dose changes in normal liver between planned dose (Dplan) and Dadjusted were evaluated by V20, V30, V40 and the mean dose to normal liver (MDTNL). Univariate analysis was performed to identify the significant dose changes. Results: Among the twenty-three patients, the adjusted liver V20, V30, V40 and MDTNL showed significant changes from the planned ones (p<0.05) and averagely increased by 4.1%, 4.7%, 4.5% and 3.9Gy, respectively. And the adjusted liver dose in twenty-one patients (91%) were higher than planned value, the adjusted dose of patients with RILD (6/7) exceeds to the hepatic radiation tolerance. Conclusion: The adjusted dose of all the studied patients significantly differs from planned dose, and mCBCT-based dose reconstruction can aid in evaluating the robustness of the planning solutions, and adjusted dose has the potential to reduce the risk of RILD. The author would like to express great thanks to Lei Xing, Daniel S Kapp and Yong Yang in the Stanford University School of Medicine for their valuable suggestions to this work.This work is supported by NSFC(61471226),China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2015T80739, 2014M551949) and research funding from Shandong Province(JQ201516).

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗