Results for “Directors” — Page 53

DOE OSTI2015

MO-C-BRB-06: Translating NIH / NIBIB funding to clinical reality in quantitative diagnostic imaging

Diagnostic radiology and radiation oncology are arguably two of the most technologically advanced specialties in medicine. The imaging and radiation medicine technologies in clinical use today have been continuously improved through new advances made in the commercial and academic research arenas. This symposium explores the translational path from research through clinical implementation. Dr. Pettigrew will start this discussion by sharing his perspectives as director of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). The NIBIB has focused on promoting research that is technological in nature and has high clinical impact. We are in the age of precision medicine, and the technological innovations and quantitative tools developed by engineers and physicists working with physicians are providing innovative tools that increase precision and improve outcomes in health care. NIBIB funded grants lead to a very high patenting rate (per grant dollar), and these patents have higher citation rates by other patents, suggesting greater clinical impact, as well. Two examples of clinical translation resulting from NIH-funded research will be presented, in radiation therapy and diagnostic imaging. Dr. Yu will describe a stereotactic radiotherapy device developed in his laboratory that is designed for treating breast cancer with the patient in the prone position. It uses 36 rotating Cobalt-60 sources positioned in an annular geometry to focus the radiation beam at the system’s isocenter. The radiation dose is delivered throughout the target volume in the breast by constantly moving the patient in a planned trajectory relative to the fixed isocenter. With this technique, the focal spot dynamically paints the dose distribution throughout the target volume in three dimensions. Dr. Jackson will conclude this symposium by describing the RSNA Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA), which is funded in part by NIBIB and is a synergistic collaboration between medical physicists, radiologists, oncologists, industry representatives, and other stakeholders. The mission of QIBA is to improve the accuracy and practicality of quantitative image-based biomarkers by increasing precision across devices, patients, and time, an essential step in incorporating quantitative imaging biomarkers into radiology practice. Validated quantitative imaging biomarkers are necessary to support precision medicine initiatives, multimodality / multiparametric applications in medicine, treatment planning and response assessment, and radiogenomics applications. Current applications in the QIBA portfolio extend to cancer diagnosis and treatment, pulmonary diseases, and neurological disorders. The overall goal of this symposium is to illustrate the bidirectional exchange between medical research and clinical practice. Revitalizing scientific excellence in clinical medical physics challenges practitioners to identify clinical limitations, which then drive research innovation; research funded by the NIH and other agencies develops technological solutions to these limitations, which are translated to the care environment to ultimately improve clinical practice in radiology and radiation oncology.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-BRD-03: Fault Tree 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-BRD-04: Development of Quality Management Program

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-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-CD-BRD-00: Incident Learning / RO-ILS

It has long been standard practice in radiation oncology to report internally when a patient’s treatment has not gone as planned and to report events to regulatory agencies when legally required. Most potential errors are caught early and never affect the patient. Quality assurance steps routinely prevent errors from reaching the patient, and these “near misses” are much more frequent than treatment errors. A growing number of radiation oncology facilities have implemented incident learning systems to report and analyze both errors and near misses. Using the term “incident learning” instead of “event reporting” emphasizes the need to use these experiences to change the practice and make future errors less likely and promote an educational, non-punitive environment. There are challenges in making such a system practical and effective. Speakers from institutions of different sizes and practice environments will share their experiences on how to make such a system work and what benefits their clinics have accrued. Questions that will be addressed include: How to create a system that is easy for front line staff to access How to motivate staff to report How to promote the system as positive and educational and not punitive or demeaning How to organize the team for reviewing and responding to reports How to prioritize which reports to discuss in depth How not to dismiss the rest How to identify underlying causes How to design corrective actions and implement change How to develop useful statistics and analysis tools How to coordinate a departmental system with a larger risk management system How to do this without a dedicated quality manager Some speakers’ experience is with in-house systems and some will share experience with the AAPM/ASTRO national Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). Reports intended to be of value nationally need to be comprehensible to outsiders; examples of useful reports will be shown. There will be ample time set aside for audience members to contribute to the discussion. Learning Objectives: Learn how to promote the use of an incident learning system in a clinic. Learn how to convert “event reporting” into “incident learning”. See examples of practice changes that have come out of learning systems. Learn how the RO-ILS system can be used as a primary internal learning system. Learn how to create succinct, meaningful reports useful to outside readers. Gary Ezzell chairs the AAPM committee overseeing RO-ILS and has received an honorarium from ASTRO for working on the committee reviewing RO-ILS reports. Derek Brown is a director of http://TreatSafely.org . Brett Miller has previously received travel expenses and an honorarium from Varian. Phillip Beron has nothing to report.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-CD-BRD-01: Making Incident Learning Practical and Useful: Challenges and Previous Experiences

It has long been standard practice in radiation oncology to report internally when a patient’s treatment has not gone as planned and to report events to regulatory agencies when legally required. Most potential errors are caught early and never affect the patient. Quality assurance steps routinely prevent errors from reaching the patient, and these “near misses” are much more frequent than treatment errors. A growing number of radiation oncology facilities have implemented incident learning systems to report and analyze both errors and near misses. Using the term “incident learning” instead of “event reporting” emphasizes the need to use these experiences to change the practice and make future errors less likely and promote an educational, non-punitive environment. There are challenges in making such a system practical and effective. Speakers from institutions of different sizes and practice environments will share their experiences on how to make such a system work and what benefits their clinics have accrued. Questions that will be addressed include: How to create a system that is easy for front line staff to access How to motivate staff to report How to promote the system as positive and educational and not punitive or demeaning How to organize the team for reviewing and responding to reports How to prioritize which reports to discuss in depth How not to dismiss the rest How to identify underlying causes How to design corrective actions and implement change How to develop useful statistics and analysis tools How to coordinate a departmental system with a larger risk management system How to do this without a dedicated quality manager Some speakers’ experience is with in-house systems and some will share experience with the AAPM/ASTRO national Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). Reports intended to be of value nationally need to be comprehensible to outsiders; examples of useful reports will be shown. There will be ample time set aside for audience members to contribute to the discussion. Learning Objectives: Learn how to promote the use of an incident learning system in a clinic. Learn how to convert “event reporting” into “incident learning”. See examples of practice changes that have come out of learning systems. Learn how the RO-ILS system can be used as a primary internal learning system. Learn how to create succinct, meaningful reports useful to outside readers. Gary Ezzell chairs the AAPM committee overseeing RO-ILS and has received an honorarium from ASTRO for working on the committee reviewing RO-ILS reports. Derek Brown is a director of http://TreatSafely.org . Brett Miller has previously received travel expenses and an honorarium from Varian. Phillip Beron has nothing to report.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-CD-BRD-02: Henry Ford Hospital System Experience, with Focus On Motivating and Reviewing

It has long been standard practice in radiation oncology to report internally when a patient’s treatment has not gone as planned and to report events to regulatory agencies when legally required. Most potential errors are caught early and never affect the patient. Quality assurance steps routinely prevent errors from reaching the patient, and these “near misses” are much more frequent than treatment errors. A growing number of radiation oncology facilities have implemented incident learning systems to report and analyze both errors and near misses. Using the term “incident learning” instead of “event reporting” emphasizes the need to use these experiences to change the practice and make future errors less likely and promote an educational, non-punitive environment. There are challenges in making such a system practical and effective. Speakers from institutions of different sizes and practice environments will share their experiences on how to make such a system work and what benefits their clinics have accrued. Questions that will be addressed include: How to create a system that is easy for front line staff to access How to motivate staff to report How to promote the system as positive and educational and not punitive or demeaning How to organize the team for reviewing and responding to reports How to prioritize which reports to discuss in depth How not to dismiss the rest How to identify underlying causes How to design corrective actions and implement change How to develop useful statistics and analysis tools How to coordinate a departmental system with a larger risk management system How to do this without a dedicated quality manager Some speakers’ experience is with in-house systems and some will share experience with the AAPM/ASTRO national Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). Reports intended to be of value nationally need to be comprehensible to outsiders; examples of useful reports will be shown. There will be ample time set aside for audience members to contribute to the discussion. Learning Objectives: Learn how to promote the use of an incident learning system in a clinic. Learn how to convert “event reporting” into “incident learning”. See examples of practice changes that have come out of learning systems. Learn how the RO-ILS system can be used as a primary internal learning system. Learn how to create succinct, meaningful reports useful to outside readers. Gary Ezzell chairs the AAPM committee overseeing RO-ILS and has received an honorarium from ASTRO for working on the committee reviewing RO-ILS reports. Derek Brown is a director of http://TreatSafely.org . Brett Miller has previously received travel expenses and an honorarium from Varian. Phillip Beron has nothing to report.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-CD-BRD-03: UCSD Experience, with Focus On Implementing Change

It has long been standard practice in radiation oncology to report internally when a patient’s treatment has not gone as planned and to report events to regulatory agencies when legally required. Most potential errors are caught early and never affect the patient. Quality assurance steps routinely prevent errors from reaching the patient, and these “near misses” are much more frequent than treatment errors. A growing number of radiation oncology facilities have implemented incident learning systems to report and analyze both errors and near misses. Using the term “incident learning” instead of “event reporting” emphasizes the need to use these experiences to change the practice and make future errors less likely and promote an educational, non-punitive environment. There are challenges in making such a system practical and effective. Speakers from institutions of different sizes and practice environments will share their experiences on how to make such a system work and what benefits their clinics have accrued. Questions that will be addressed include: How to create a system that is easy for front line staff to access How to motivate staff to report How to promote the system as positive and educational and not punitive or demeaning How to organize the team for reviewing and responding to reports How to prioritize which reports to discuss in depth How not to dismiss the rest How to identify underlying causes How to design corrective actions and implement change How to develop useful statistics and analysis tools How to coordinate a departmental system with a larger risk management system How to do this without a dedicated quality manager Some speakers’ experience is with in-house systems and some will share experience with the AAPM/ASTRO national Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). Reports intended to be of value nationally need to be comprehensible to outsiders; examples of useful reports will be shown. There will be ample time set aside for audience members to contribute to the discussion. Learning Objectives: Learn how to promote the use of an incident learning system in a clinic. Learn how to convert “event reporting” into “incident learning”. See examples of practice changes that have come out of learning systems. Learn how the RO-ILS system can be used as a primary internal learning system. Learn how to create succinct, meaningful reports useful to outside readers. Gary Ezzell chairs the AAPM committee overseeing RO-ILS and has received an honorarium from ASTRO for working on the committee reviewing RO-ILS reports. Derek Brown is a director of http://TreatSafely.org . Brett Miller has previously received travel expenses and an honorarium from Varian. Phillip Beron has nothing to report.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-CD-BRD-04: UCLA Experience, with Focus On Developing Metrics and Using RO-ILS

It has long been standard practice in radiation oncology to report internally when a patient’s treatment has not gone as planned and to report events to regulatory agencies when legally required. Most potential errors are caught early and never affect the patient. Quality assurance steps routinely prevent errors from reaching the patient, and these “near misses” are much more frequent than treatment errors. A growing number of radiation oncology facilities have implemented incident learning systems to report and analyze both errors and near misses. Using the term “incident learning” instead of “event reporting” emphasizes the need to use these experiences to change the practice and make future errors less likely and promote an educational, non-punitive environment. There are challenges in making such a system practical and effective. Speakers from institutions of different sizes and practice environments will share their experiences on how to make such a system work and what benefits their clinics have accrued. Questions that will be addressed include: How to create a system that is easy for front line staff to access How to motivate staff to report How to promote the system as positive and educational and not punitive or demeaning How to organize the team for reviewing and responding to reports How to prioritize which reports to discuss in depth How not to dismiss the rest How to identify underlying causes How to design corrective actions and implement change How to develop useful statistics and analysis tools How to coordinate a departmental system with a larger risk management system How to do this without a dedicated quality manager Some speakers’ experience is with in-house systems and some will share experience with the AAPM/ASTRO national Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). Reports intended to be of value nationally need to be comprehensible to outsiders; examples of useful reports will be shown. There will be ample time set aside for audience members to contribute to the discussion. Learning Objectives: Learn how to promote the use of an incident learning system in a clinic. Learn how to convert “event reporting” into “incident learning”. See examples of practice changes that have come out of learning systems. Learn how the RO-ILS system can be used as a primary internal learning system. Learn how to create succinct, meaningful reports useful to outside readers. Gary Ezzell chairs the AAPM committee overseeing RO-ILS and has received an honorarium from ASTRO for working on the committee reviewing RO-ILS reports. Derek Brown is a director of http://TreatSafely.org . Brett Miller has previously received travel expenses and an honorarium from Varian. Phillip Beron has nothing to report.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-FG-BRB-09: Thermoacoustic Range Verification with Perfect Co-Registered Overlay of Bragg Peak onto Ultrasound Image

Purpose: The potential of particle therapy has not yet been fully realized due to inaccuracies in range verification. The purpose of this work was to correlate the Bragg peak location with target structure, by overlaying thermoacoustic localization of the Bragg peak onto an ultrasound image. Methods: Pulsed delivery of 50 MeV protons was accomplished by a fast chopper installed between the ion source and the inflector of the 88″ cyclotron at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. 2 Gy were delivered in 2 µs by a beam with peak current of 2 µA. Thermoacoustic emissions were detected by a cardiac array and Verasonics V1 ultrasound system, which also generated a grayscale ultrasound image. 1024 thermoacoustic pulses were averaged before filtering and one-way beamforming focused signal onto the Bragg peak location with perfect co-registration to the ultrasound images. Data was collected in a room temperature water bath and gelatin phantom with a cavity designed to mimic the intestine, in which gas pockets can displace the Bragg peak. Experiments were performed with the cavity both empty and filled with olive oil. Results: In the waterbath overlays of the Bragg peak agreed with Monte Carlo simulations to within 800±170 µm. Agreement within 1.3 ± 0.2 mm was achieved in the gelatin phantom, although relative stopping powers were estimated only to first order from CT scans. Protoacoustic signals were detected after travel from the Bragg peak through 29 mm and 65 mm of phantom material when the cavity was empty and full of olive oil, respectively. Conclusion: Protoacoustic range verification is feasible with a commercial clinical ultrasound array, but at doses exceeding the clinical realm. Further optimization of both transducer array and injection line chopper is required to enable range verification within a 2 Gy dose limit, which would enable online adaptive treatment. This work was supported in part by a UWM Intramural Instrumentation Grant and by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. YMQ was supported by a UWM-OUR summer fellowship.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-A-201-00: Anne and Donald Herbert Distinguished Lectureship On Modern Statistical Modeling

Chris Marshall: Memorial Introduction Donald Edmonds Herbert Jr., or Don to his colleagues and friends, exemplified the “big tent” vision of medical physics, specializing in Applied Statistics and Dynamical Systems theory. He saw, more clearly than most, that “Making models is the difference between doing science and just fooling around [ref Woodworth, 2004]”. Don developed an interest in chemistry at school by “reading a book” - a recurring theme in his story. He was awarded a Westinghouse Science scholarship and attended the Carnegie Institute of Technology (later Carnegie Mellon University) where his interest turned to physics and led to a BS in Physics after transfer to Northwestern University. After (voluntary) service in the Navy he earned his MS in Physics from the University of Oklahoma, which led him to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore to pursue a PhD. The early death of his wife led him to take a salaried position in the Physics Department of Colorado College in Colorado Springs so as to better care for their young daughter. There, a chance invitation from Dr. Juan del Regato to teach physics to residents at the Penrose Cancer Hospital introduced him to Medical Physics, and he decided to enter the field. He received his PhD from the University of London (UK) under Prof. Joseph Rotblat, where I first met him, and where he taught himself statistics. He returned to Penrose as a clinical medical physicist, also largely self-taught. In 1975 he formalized an evolving interest in statistical analysis as Professor of Radiology and Head of the Division of Physics and Statistics at the College of Medicine of the University of South Alabama in Mobile, AL where he remained for the rest of his career. He also served as the first Director of their Bio-Statistics and Epidemiology Core Unit working in part on a sickle-cell disease. After retirement he remained active as Professor Emeritus. Don served for several years as a consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and may be remembered for his critique of the National Academy of Sciences BEIR III report (stating that their methodology “imposes a Delphic quality to the .. risk estimates”.) This led to his appointment as a member of the BEIR V committee. Don presented refresher courses at the AAPM, ASTRO and RSNA meetings and was active in the AAPM as a member or chair of several committees. He was the principal author of AAPM Report 43, which is essentially a critique of established clinical studies prior to 1992. He was co-editor of the Proceedings of many symposia on Time, Dose and Fractionation held in Madison, Wisconsin. He received the AAPM lifetime Achievement award in 2004. Don’s second wife of 46 years, Ann, predeceased him and he is survived by daughters Hillary and Emily, son John and two grandsons. Don was a true gentleman with a unique and erudite writing style illuminated by pithy quotations. If he had a fault it was, perhaps, that he did not realize how much smarter he was than the rest of us. This presentation draws heavily on a biography and video interview in the History and Heritage section of the AAPM website. The quote is his own. Andrzej Niemierko: Statistical modeling plays an essential role in modern medicine for quantitative evaluation of the effect of treatment. This session will feature an overview of statistical modeling techniques used for analyzing the many types of research data and an exploration of recent advances in new statistical modeling methodologies. Learning Objectives: To learn basics of statistical modeling methodology. To discuss statistical models that are frequently used in radiation oncology To discuss advanced modern statistical modeling methods and applications.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-A-201-01: Memorial Introduction

Chris Marshall: Memorial Introduction Donald Edmonds Herbert Jr., or Don to his colleagues and friends, exemplified the “big tent” vision of medical physics, specializing in Applied Statistics and Dynamical Systems theory. He saw, more clearly than most, that “Making models is the difference between doing science and just fooling around [ref Woodworth, 2004]”. Don developed an interest in chemistry at school by “reading a book” - a recurring theme in his story. He was awarded a Westinghouse Science scholarship and attended the Carnegie Institute of Technology (later Carnegie Mellon University) where his interest turned to physics and led to a BS in Physics after transfer to Northwestern University. After (voluntary) service in the Navy he earned his MS in Physics from the University of Oklahoma, which led him to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore to pursue a PhD. The early death of his wife led him to take a salaried position in the Physics Department of Colorado College in Colorado Springs so as to better care for their young daughter. There, a chance invitation from Dr. Juan del Regato to teach physics to residents at the Penrose Cancer Hospital introduced him to Medical Physics, and he decided to enter the field. He received his PhD from the University of London (UK) under Prof. Joseph Rotblat, where I first met him, and where he taught himself statistics. He returned to Penrose as a clinical medical physicist, also largely self-taught. In 1975 he formalized an evolving interest in statistical analysis as Professor of Radiology and Head of the Division of Physics and Statistics at the College of Medicine of the University of South Alabama in Mobile, AL where he remained for the rest of his career. He also served as the first Director of their Bio-Statistics and Epidemiology Core Unit working in part on a sickle-cell disease. After retirement he remained active as Professor Emeritus. Don served for several years as a consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and may be remembered for his critique of the National Academy of Sciences BEIR III report (stating that their methodology “imposes a Delphic quality to the .. risk estimates”.) This led to his appointment as a member of the BEIR V committee. Don presented refresher courses at the AAPM, ASTRO and RSNA meetings and was active in the AAPM as a member or chair of several committees. He was the principal author of AAPM Report 43, which is essentially a critique of established clinical studies prior to 1992. He was co-editor of the Proceedings of many symposia on Time, Dose and Fractionation held in Madison, Wisconsin. He received the AAPM lifetime Achievement award in 2004. Don’s second wife of 46 years, Ann, predeceased him and he is survived by daughters Hillary and Emily, son John and two grandsons. Don was a true gentleman with a unique and erudite writing style illuminated by pithy quotations. If he had a fault it was, perhaps, that he did not realize how much smarter he was than the rest of us. This presentation draws heavily on a biography and video interview in the History and Heritage section of the AAPM website. The quote is his own. Andrzej Niemierko: Statistical modeling plays an essential role in modern medicine for quantitative evaluation of the effect of treatment. This session will feature an overview of statistical modeling techniques used for analyzing the many types of research data and an exploration of recent advances in new statistical modeling methodologies. Learning Objectives: To learn basics of statistical modeling methodology. To discuss statistical models that are frequently used in radiation oncology To discuss advanced modern statistical modeling methods and applications.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-A-201-02: Modern Statistical Modeling

Chris Marshall: Memorial Introduction Donald Edmonds Herbert Jr., or Don to his colleagues and friends, exemplified the “big tent” vision of medical physics, specializing in Applied Statistics and Dynamical Systems theory. He saw, more clearly than most, that “Making models is the difference between doing science and just fooling around [ref Woodworth, 2004]”. Don developed an interest in chemistry at school by “reading a book” - a recurring theme in his story. He was awarded a Westinghouse Science scholarship and attended the Carnegie Institute of Technology (later Carnegie Mellon University) where his interest turned to physics and led to a BS in Physics after transfer to Northwestern University. After (voluntary) service in the Navy he earned his MS in Physics from the University of Oklahoma, which led him to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore to pursue a PhD. The early death of his wife led him to take a salaried position in the Physics Department of Colorado College in Colorado Springs so as to better care for their young daughter. There, a chance invitation from Dr. Juan del Regato to teach physics to residents at the Penrose Cancer Hospital introduced him to Medical Physics, and he decided to enter the field. He received his PhD from the University of London (UK) under Prof. Joseph Rotblat, where I first met him, and where he taught himself statistics. He returned to Penrose as a clinical medical physicist, also largely self-taught. In 1975 he formalized an evolving interest in statistical analysis as Professor of Radiology and Head of the Division of Physics and Statistics at the College of Medicine of the University of South Alabama in Mobile, AL where he remained for the rest of his career. He also served as the first Director of their Bio-Statistics and Epidemiology Core Unit working in part on a sickle-cell disease. After retirement he remained active as Professor Emeritus. Don served for several years as a consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and may be remembered for his critique of the National Academy of Sciences BEIR III report (stating that their methodology “imposes a Delphic quality to the .. risk estimates”.) This led to his appointment as a member of the BEIR V committee. Don presented refresher courses at the AAPM, ASTRO and RSNA meetings and was active in the AAPM as a member or chair of several committees. He was the principal author of AAPM Report 43, which is essentially a critique of established clinical studies prior to 1992. He was co-editor of the Proceedings of many symposia on Time, Dose and Fractionation held in Madison, Wisconsin. He received the AAPM lifetime Achievement award in 2004. Don’s second wife of 46 years, Ann, predeceased him and he is survived by daughters Hillary and Emily, son John and two grandsons. Don was a true gentleman with a unique and erudite writing style illuminated by pithy quotations. If he had a fault it was, perhaps, that he did not realize how much smarter he was than the rest of us. This presentation draws heavily on a biography and video interview in the History and Heritage section of the AAPM website. The quote is his own. Andrzej Niemierko: Statistical modeling plays an essential role in modern medicine for quantitative evaluation of the effect of treatment. This session will feature an overview of statistical modeling techniques used for analyzing the many types of research data and an exploration of recent advances in new statistical modeling methodologies. Learning Objectives: To learn basics of statistical modeling methodology. To discuss statistical models that are frequently used in radiation oncology To discuss advanced modern statistical modeling methods and applications.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2019

Electrostatically controlled surface boundary conditions in nematic liquid crystals and colloids

Differing from isotropic fluids, liquid crystals exhibit highly anisotropic interactions with surfaces, which define boundary conditions for the alignment of constituent rod-like molecules at interfaces with colloidal inclusions and confining substrates. We show that surface alignment of the nematic molecules can be controlled by harnessing the competing aligning effects of surface functionalization and electric field arising from surface charging and bulk counterions. The control of ionic content in the bulk and at surfaces allows for tuning orientations of shape-anisotropic particles like platelets within an aligned nematic host and for changing the orientation of director relative to confining substrates. The ensuing anisotropic elastic and electrostatic interactions enable colloidal crystals with reconfigurable symmetries and orientations of inclusions.

75 CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND↗

DOE OSTI2020

Nematicity with a twist: Rotational symmetry breaking in a moiré superlattice

Motivated by recent reports of nematic order in twisted bilayer graphene (TBG), we investigate the impact of the triangular moiré superlattice degrees of freedom on nematicity. In TBG, the nematic order parameter is not Ising like, as in tetragonal crystals, but has a three-state Potts character related to the threefold rotational symmetry ( C 3 z ) of the moiré superlattice. We find that, even in the presence of static strain that explicitly breaks the C 3 z symmetry, the system can still undergo a nematic-flop phase transition that spontaneously breaks in-plane twofold rotations. Moreover, elastic fluctuations, manifested as acoustic phonons, mediate a nemato-orbital coupling that ties the nematic director orientation to certain soft directions in momentum space, rendering the Potts-nematic transition mean field and first order. In contrast to the case of rigid crystals, the Fermi surface hot spots associated with these soft directions are maximally coupled to low-energy nematic fluctuations in the moiré superlattice case.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2021

Transformation between elastic dipoles, quadrupoles, octupoles, and hexadecapoles driven by surfactant self-assembly in nematic emulsion

Emulsions comprising isotropic fluid drops within a nematic host are of interest for applications ranging from biodetection to smart windows, which rely on changes of molecular alignment structures around the drops in response to chemical, thermal, electric, and other stimuli. We show that absorption or desorption of trace amounts of common surfactants can drive continuous transformations of elastic multipoles induced by the droplets within the uniformly aligned nematic host. Out-of-equilibrium dynamics of director structures emerge from a controlled self-assembly or desorption of different surfactants at the drop-nematic interfaces, with ensuing forward and reverse transformations between elastic dipoles, quadrupoles, octupoles, and hexadecapoles. We characterize intertransformations of droplet-induced surface and bulk defects, probe elastic pair interactions, and discuss emergent prospects for fundamental science and applications of the reconfigurable nematic emulsions.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗