Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “physicists”

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

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

At least 163 records · Page 9

MO-D-BRB-01: Pediatric Treatment Planning I: Overview of Planning Strategies and Challenges

Most Medical Physicists working in radiotherapy departments see few pediatric patients. This is because, fortunately, children get cancer at a rate nearly 100 times lower than adults. Children have not smoked, abused alcohol, or been exposed to environmental carcinogens for decades, and of course, have not fallen victim to the aging process. Children get very different cancers than adults. Breast or prostate cancers, typical in adults, are rarely seen in children but instead a variety of tumors occur in children that are rarely seen in adults; examples are germinomas, ependymomas and primitive neuroectodermal tumors, which require treatment of the child’s brain or neuroblastoma, requiring treatment in the abdomen. The treatment of children with cancer using radiation therapy is one of the most challenging planning and delivery problems facing the physicist. This is because bones, brain, breast tissue, and other organs are more sensitive to radiation in children than in adults. Because most therapy departments treat mostly adults, when the rare 8 year-old patient comes to the department for treatment, the physicist may not understand the clinical issues of his disease which drive the planning and delivery decisions. Additionally, children are more prone than adults to developing secondary cancers after radiation. For bilateral retinoblastoma for example, an irradiated child has a 40% chance of developing a second cancer by age 50. The dosimetric tradeoffs made during the planning process are complex and require careful consideration for children treated with radiotherapy. In the first presentation, an overview of childhood cancers and their corresponding treatment techniques will be given. These can be some of the most complex treatments that are delivered in the radiation therapy department. These cancers include leukemia treated with total body irradiation, medulloblastoma, treated with craniospinal irradiation plus a conformal boost to the posterior fossa, neuroblastoma, requiring focal abdominal irradiation to avoid kidney, liver, and vertebral body damage, retinoblastoma, requiring treatment to an eye while minimizing dose to surrounding tissues, and a variety of other tumors which occur anywhere in the body. Case studies will be presented showing the treatment technique and resulting dosimetry, highlighting the objectives for tumor coverage and organ-at-risk sparing. Practical issues that have to be faced when treating children will also be discussed such as daily sedation and immobilization. Late effects based on the current understanding of dose-volume response in normal tissues will be discussed. In the second presentation, specific focus will be on pediatric proton therapy. We will review literature publications on dosimetric comparison of proton versus photon plans, common pediatric tumors treated with protons, and available clinical outcomes. We will describe simulation technique, treatment planning, image guidance for setup verification, and proton beam delivery unique to pediatric and adolescent patients. Finally, we will discuss desired improvements, outlook, and opportunities for medical physicists in pediatric proton therapy. Learning Objectives: Improve understanding about childhood cancer and treatment with radiation Understand treatment planning and delivery issues and associated late effects specific to children Become aware of specific treatment methods for the most challenging pediatric cancers Know the current status, techniques, and desired improvements for pediatric proton therapy.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

MO-D-BRB-02: Pediatric Treatment Planning II: Applications of Proton Beams for Pediatric Treatment

Most Medical Physicists working in radiotherapy departments see few pediatric patients. This is because, fortunately, children get cancer at a rate nearly 100 times lower than adults. Children have not smoked, abused alcohol, or been exposed to environmental carcinogens for decades, and of course, have not fallen victim to the aging process. Children get very different cancers than adults. Breast or prostate cancers, typical in adults, are rarely seen in children but instead a variety of tumors occur in children that are rarely seen in adults; examples are germinomas, ependymomas and primitive neuroectodermal tumors, which require treatment of the child’s brain or neuroblastoma, requiring treatment in the abdomen. The treatment of children with cancer using radiation therapy is one of the most challenging planning and delivery problems facing the physicist. This is because bones, brain, breast tissue, and other organs are more sensitive to radiation in children than in adults. Because most therapy departments treat mostly adults, when the rare 8 year-old patient comes to the department for treatment, the physicist may not understand the clinical issues of his disease which drive the planning and delivery decisions. Additionally, children are more prone than adults to developing secondary cancers after radiation. For bilateral retinoblastoma for example, an irradiated child has a 40% chance of developing a second cancer by age 50. The dosimetric tradeoffs made during the planning process are complex and require careful consideration for children treated with radiotherapy. In the first presentation, an overview of childhood cancers and their corresponding treatment techniques will be given. These can be some of the most complex treatments that are delivered in the radiation therapy department. These cancers include leukemia treated with total body irradiation, medulloblastoma, treated with craniospinal irradiation plus a conformal boost to the posterior fossa, neuroblastoma, requiring focal abdominal irradiation to avoid kidney, liver, and vertebral body damage, retinoblastoma, requiring treatment to an eye while minimizing dose to surrounding tissues, and a variety of other tumors which occur anywhere in the body. Case studies will be presented showing the treatment technique and resulting dosimetry, highlighting the objectives for tumor coverage and organ-at-risk sparing. Practical issues that have to be faced when treating children will also be discussed such as daily sedation and immobilization. Late effects based on the current understanding of dose-volume response in normal tissues will be discussed. In the second presentation, specific focus will be on pediatric proton therapy. We will review literature publications on dosimetric comparison of proton versus photon plans, common pediatric tumors treated with protons, and available clinical outcomes. We will describe simulation technique, treatment planning, image guidance for setup verification, and proton beam delivery unique to pediatric and adolescent patients. Finally, we will discuss desired improvements, outlook, and opportunities for medical physicists in pediatric proton therapy. Learning Objectives: Improve understanding about childhood cancer and treatment with radiation Understand treatment planning and delivery issues and associated late effects specific to children Become aware of specific treatment methods for the most challenging pediatric cancers Know the current status, techniques, and desired improvements for pediatric proton therapy.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-EF-BRD-00: The Science of QA

Research related to quality and safety has been a staple of medical physics academic activities for a long time. From very early on, medical physicists have developed new radiation measurement equipment and analysis techniques, created ever increasingly accurate dose calculation models, and have vastly improved imaging, planning, and delivery techniques. These and other areas of interest have improved the quality and safety of radiotherapy for our patients. With the advent of TG-100, quality and safety is an area that will garner even more research interest in the future. As medical physicists pursue quality and safety research in greater numbers, it is worthwhile to consider what actually constitutes research on quality and safety. For example, should the development of algorithms for real-time EPID-based in-vivo dosimetry be defined as “quality and safety” research? How about the clinical implementation of such as system? Surely the application of failure modes and effects analysis to a clinical process would be considered quality and safety research, but is this type of research that should be included in the medical physics peer-reviewed literature? The answers to such questions are of critical importance to set researchers in a direction that will provide the greatest benefit to our field and the patients we serve. The purpose of this symposium is to consider what constitutes research in the arena of quality and safety and differentiate it from other research directions. The key distinction here is developing the tool itself (e.g. algorithms for EPID dosimetry) vs. studying the impact of the tool with some quantitative metric. Only the latter would I call quality and safety research. Issues of ‘basic’ versus ‘applied’ quality and safety research will be covered as well as how the research results should be structured to provide increasing levels of support that a quality and safety intervention is effective and sustainable. Examples from existing peer-reviewed research will be used to highlight the main points. Historical, medical physicists have leveraged many areas of applied physics, engineering and biology to improve radiotherapy. Research on quality and safety is another area where physicists can have an impact. The key to further progress is to clearly define what constitutes quality and safety research for those interested in doing such research and the reviewers of that research. Learning Objectives: List several tools of quality and safety with references to peer-reviewed literature. Describe effects of mental workload on performance. Outline research in quality and safety indicators and technique analysis. Understand what quality and safety research needs to be going forward. Understand the links between cooperative group trials and quality and safety research.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-EF-BRD-01: Topics in Quality and Safety Research and Level of Evidence

Research related to quality and safety has been a staple of medical physics academic activities for a long time. From very early on, medical physicists have developed new radiation measurement equipment and analysis techniques, created ever increasingly accurate dose calculation models, and have vastly improved imaging, planning, and delivery techniques. These and other areas of interest have improved the quality and safety of radiotherapy for our patients. With the advent of TG-100, quality and safety is an area that will garner even more research interest in the future. As medical physicists pursue quality and safety research in greater numbers, it is worthwhile to consider what actually constitutes research on quality and safety. For example, should the development of algorithms for real-time EPID-based in-vivo dosimetry be defined as “quality and safety” research? How about the clinical implementation of such as system? Surely the application of failure modes and effects analysis to a clinical process would be considered quality and safety research, but is this type of research that should be included in the medical physics peer-reviewed literature? The answers to such questions are of critical importance to set researchers in a direction that will provide the greatest benefit to our field and the patients we serve. The purpose of this symposium is to consider what constitutes research in the arena of quality and safety and differentiate it from other research directions. The key distinction here is developing the tool itself (e.g. algorithms for EPID dosimetry) vs. studying the impact of the tool with some quantitative metric. Only the latter would I call quality and safety research. Issues of ‘basic’ versus ‘applied’ quality and safety research will be covered as well as how the research results should be structured to provide increasing levels of support that a quality and safety intervention is effective and sustainable. Examples from existing peer-reviewed research will be used to highlight the main points. Historical, medical physicists have leveraged many areas of applied physics, engineering and biology to improve radiotherapy. Research on quality and safety is another area where physicists can have an impact. The key to further progress is to clearly define what constitutes quality and safety research for those interested in doing such research and the reviewers of that research. Learning Objectives: List several tools of quality and safety with references to peer-reviewed literature. Describe effects of mental workload on performance. Outline research in quality and safety indicators and technique analysis. Understand what quality and safety research needs to be going forward. Understand the links between cooperative group trials and quality and safety research.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-EF-BRD-02: Indicators and Technique Analysis

Research related to quality and safety has been a staple of medical physics academic activities for a long time. From very early on, medical physicists have developed new radiation measurement equipment and analysis techniques, created ever increasingly accurate dose calculation models, and have vastly improved imaging, planning, and delivery techniques. These and other areas of interest have improved the quality and safety of radiotherapy for our patients. With the advent of TG-100, quality and safety is an area that will garner even more research interest in the future. As medical physicists pursue quality and safety research in greater numbers, it is worthwhile to consider what actually constitutes research on quality and safety. For example, should the development of algorithms for real-time EPID-based in-vivo dosimetry be defined as “quality and safety” research? How about the clinical implementation of such as system? Surely the application of failure modes and effects analysis to a clinical process would be considered quality and safety research, but is this type of research that should be included in the medical physics peer-reviewed literature? The answers to such questions are of critical importance to set researchers in a direction that will provide the greatest benefit to our field and the patients we serve. The purpose of this symposium is to consider what constitutes research in the arena of quality and safety and differentiate it from other research directions. The key distinction here is developing the tool itself (e.g. algorithms for EPID dosimetry) vs. studying the impact of the tool with some quantitative metric. Only the latter would I call quality and safety research. Issues of ‘basic’ versus ‘applied’ quality and safety research will be covered as well as how the research results should be structured to provide increasing levels of support that a quality and safety intervention is effective and sustainable. Examples from existing peer-reviewed research will be used to highlight the main points. Historical, medical physicists have leveraged many areas of applied physics, engineering and biology to improve radiotherapy. Research on quality and safety is another area where physicists can have an impact. The key to further progress is to clearly define what constitutes quality and safety research for those interested in doing such research and the reviewers of that research. Learning Objectives: List several tools of quality and safety with references to peer-reviewed literature. Describe effects of mental workload on performance. Outline research in quality and safety indicators and technique analysis. Understand what quality and safety research needs to be going forward. Understand the links between cooperative group trials and quality and safety research.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-EF-BRD-03: Mental Workload and Performance

Research related to quality and safety has been a staple of medical physics academic activities for a long time. From very early on, medical physicists have developed new radiation measurement equipment and analysis techniques, created ever increasingly accurate dose calculation models, and have vastly improved imaging, planning, and delivery techniques. These and other areas of interest have improved the quality and safety of radiotherapy for our patients. With the advent of TG-100, quality and safety is an area that will garner even more research interest in the future. As medical physicists pursue quality and safety research in greater numbers, it is worthwhile to consider what actually constitutes research on quality and safety. For example, should the development of algorithms for real-time EPID-based in-vivo dosimetry be defined as “quality and safety” research? How about the clinical implementation of such as system? Surely the application of failure modes and effects analysis to a clinical process would be considered quality and safety research, but is this type of research that should be included in the medical physics peer-reviewed literature? The answers to such questions are of critical importance to set researchers in a direction that will provide the greatest benefit to our field and the patients we serve. The purpose of this symposium is to consider what constitutes research in the arena of quality and safety and differentiate it from other research directions. The key distinction here is developing the tool itself (e.g. algorithms for EPID dosimetry) vs. studying the impact of the tool with some quantitative metric. Only the latter would I call quality and safety research. Issues of ‘basic’ versus ‘applied’ quality and safety research will be covered as well as how the research results should be structured to provide increasing levels of support that a quality and safety intervention is effective and sustainable. Examples from existing peer-reviewed research will be used to highlight the main points. Historical, medical physicists have leveraged many areas of applied physics, engineering and biology to improve radiotherapy. Research on quality and safety is another area where physicists can have an impact. The key to further progress is to clearly define what constitutes quality and safety research for those interested in doing such research and the reviewers of that research. Learning Objectives: List several tools of quality and safety with references to peer-reviewed literature. Describe effects of mental workload on performance. Outline research in quality and safety indicators and technique analysis. Understand what quality and safety research needs to be going forward. Understand the links between cooperative group trials and quality and safety research.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-EF-BRD-04: Summing It Up: The Future of Quality and Safety Research

Research related to quality and safety has been a staple of medical physics academic activities for a long time. From very early on, medical physicists have developed new radiation measurement equipment and analysis techniques, created ever increasingly accurate dose calculation models, and have vastly improved imaging, planning, and delivery techniques. These and other areas of interest have improved the quality and safety of radiotherapy for our patients. With the advent of TG-100, quality and safety is an area that will garner even more research interest in the future. As medical physicists pursue quality and safety research in greater numbers, it is worthwhile to consider what actually constitutes research on quality and safety. For example, should the development of algorithms for real-time EPID-based in-vivo dosimetry be defined as “quality and safety” research? How about the clinical implementation of such as system? Surely the application of failure modes and effects analysis to a clinical process would be considered quality and safety research, but is this type of research that should be included in the medical physics peer-reviewed literature? The answers to such questions are of critical importance to set researchers in a direction that will provide the greatest benefit to our field and the patients we serve. The purpose of this symposium is to consider what constitutes research in the arena of quality and safety and differentiate it from other research directions. The key distinction here is developing the tool itself (e.g. algorithms for EPID dosimetry) vs. studying the impact of the tool with some quantitative metric. Only the latter would I call quality and safety research. Issues of ‘basic’ versus ‘applied’ quality and safety research will be covered as well as how the research results should be structured to provide increasing levels of support that a quality and safety intervention is effective and sustainable. Examples from existing peer-reviewed research will be used to highlight the main points. Historical, medical physicists have leveraged many areas of applied physics, engineering and biology to improve radiotherapy. Research on quality and safety is another area where physicists can have an impact. The key to further progress is to clearly define what constitutes quality and safety research for those interested in doing such research and the reviewers of that research. Learning Objectives: List several tools of quality and safety with references to peer-reviewed literature. Describe effects of mental workload on performance. Outline research in quality and safety indicators and technique analysis. Understand what quality and safety research needs to be going forward. Understand the links between cooperative group trials and quality and safety research.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-E-201-01: Use and Abuse of Common Statistics in Radiological Physics

Physicists are often expected to have a solid grounding in experimental design and statistical analysis, sometimes filling in when biostatisticians or other experts are not available for consultation. Unfortunately, graduate education on these topics is seldom emphasized and few opportunities for continuing education exist. Clinical physicists incorporate new technology and methods into their practice based on published literature. A poor understanding of experimental design and analysis could Result in inappropriate use of new techniques. Clinical physicists also improve current practice through quality initiatives that require sound experimental design and analysis. Academic physicists with a poor understanding of design and analysis may produce ambiguous (or misleading) results. This can Result in unnecessary rewrites, publication rejection, and experimental redesign (wasting time, money, and effort). This symposium will provide a practical review of error and uncertainty, common study designs, and statistical tests. Instruction will primarily focus on practical implementation through examples and answer questions such as: where would you typically apply the test/design and where is the test/design typically misapplied (i.e., common pitfalls)? An analysis of error and uncertainty will also be explored using biological studies and associated modeling as a specific use case. Learning Objectives: Understand common experimental testing and clinical trial designs, what questions they can answer, and how to interpret the results Determine where specific statistical tests are appropriate and identify common pitfalls Understand the how uncertainty and error are addressed in biological testing and associated biological modeling.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

Ongoing quality control in digital radiography: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 151

Quality control (QC) in medical imaging is an ongoing process and not just a series of infrequent evaluations of medical imaging equipment. The QC process involves designing and implementing a QC program, collecting and analyzing data, investigating results that are outside the acceptance levels for the QC program, and taking corrective action to bring these results back to an acceptable level. The QC process involves key personnel in the imaging department, including the radiologist, radiologic technologist, and the qualified medical physicist (QMP). The QMP performs detailed equipment evaluations and helps with oversight of the QC program, the radiologic technologist is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the QC program. The continued need for ongoing QC in digital radiography has been highlighted in the scientific literature. The charge of this task group was to recommend consistency tests designed to be performed by a medical physicist or a radiologic technologist under the direction of a medical physicist to identify problems with an imaging system that need further evaluation by a medical physicist, including a fault tree to define actions that need to be taken when certain fault conditions are identified. The focus of this final report is the ongoing QC process, including rejected image analysis, exposure analysis, and artifact identification. These QC tasks are vital for the optimal operation of a department performing digital radiography.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

SU-F-P-44: A Direct Estimate of Peak Skin Dose for Interventional Fluoroscopy Procedures

Purpose: There is an increasing demand for medical physicist to calculate peak skin dose (PSD) for interventional fluoroscopy procedures. The dose information (Dose-Area-Product and Air Kerma) displayed in the console cannot directly be used for this purpose. Our clinical experience shows that the use of the existing methods may overestimate or underestimate PSD. This study attempts to develop a direct estimate of PSD from the displayed dose metrics. Methods: An anthropomorphic torso phantom was used for dose measurements for a common fluoroscopic procedure. Entrance skin doses were measured with a Piranha solid state point detector placed on the table surface below the torso phantom. An initial “reference dose rate” (RE) measurement was conducted by comparing the displayed dose rate (mGy/min) to the dose rate measured. The distance from table top to focal spot was taken as the reference distance (RD at the RE. Table height was then adjusted. The displayed air kerma and DAP were recorded and sent to three physicists to estimate PSD. An inverse square correction was applied to correct displayed air kerma at various table heights. The PSD estimated by physicists and the PSD by the proposed method were then compared with the measurements. The estimated DAPs were compared to displayed DAP readings (mGycm2). Results: The difference between estimated PSD by the proposed method and direct measurements was less than 5%. For the same set of data, the estimated PSD by each of three physicists is different from measurements by ±52%. The DAP calculated by the proposed method and displayed DAP readings in the console is less than 20% at various table heights. Conclusion: PSD may be simply estimated from displayed air kerma or DAP if the distance between table top and tube focal spot or if x-ray beam area on table top is available.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

SU-F-P-53: RadShield: Semi-Automated Shielding Design for CT Using NCRP 147 and Isodose Curves

Purpose: Computed tomography (CT) exam rooms are shielded more quickly and accurately compared to manual calculations using RadShield, a semi-automated diagnostic shielding software package. Last year, we presented RadShield’s approach to shielding radiographic and fluoroscopic rooms calculating air kerma rate and barrier thickness at many points on the floor plan and reporting the maximum values for each barrier. RadShield has now been expanded to include CT shielding design using not only NCRP 147 methodology but also by overlaying vendor provided isodose curves onto the floor plan. Methods: The floor plan image is imported onto the RadShield workspace to serve as a template for drawing barriers, occupied regions and CT locations. SubGUIs are used to set design goals, occupancy factors, workload, and overlay isodose curve files. CTDI and DLP methods are solved following NCRP 147. RadShield’s isodose curve method employs radial scanning to extract data point sets to fit kerma to a generalized power law equation of the form K(r) = ar^b. RadShield’s semi-automated shielding recommendations were compared against a board certified medical physicist’s design using dose length product (DLP) and isodose curves. Results: The percentage error found between the physicist’s manual calculation and RadShield’s semi-automated calculation of lead barrier thickness was 3.42% and 21.17% for the DLP and isodose curve methods, respectively. The medical physicist’s selection of calculation points for recommending lead thickness was roughly the same as those found by RadShield for the DLP method but differed greatly using the isodose method. Conclusion: RadShield improves accuracy in calculating air-kerma rate and barrier thickness over manual calculations using isodose curves. Isodose curves were less intuitive and more prone to error for the physicist than inverse square methods. RadShield can now perform shielding design calculations for general scattering bodies for which isodose curves are provided.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

SU-G-206-17: RadShield: Semi-Automated Shielding Design for CT Using NCRP 147 and Isodose Curves

Purpose: Computed tomography (CT) exam rooms are shielded more quickly and accurately compared to manual calculations using RadShield, a semi-automated diagnostic shielding software package. Last year, we presented RadShield’s approach to shielding radiographic and fluoroscopic rooms calculating air kerma rate and barrier thickness at many points on the floor plan and reporting the maximum values for each barrier. RadShield has now been expanded to include CT shielding design using not only NCRP 147 methodology but also by overlaying vendor provided isodose curves onto the floor plan. Methods: The floor plan image is imported onto the RadShield workspace to serve as a template for drawing barriers, occupied regions and CT locations. SubGUIs are used to set design goals, occupancy factors, workload, and overlay isodose curve files. CTDI and DLP methods are solved following NCRP 147. RadShield’s isodose curve method employs radial scanning to extract data point sets to fit kerma to a generalized power law equation of the form K(r) = ar^b. RadShield’s semiautomated shielding recommendations were compared against a board certified medical physicist’s design using dose length product (DLP) and isodose curves. Results: The percentage error found between the physicist’s manual calculation and RadShield’s semi-automated calculation of lead barrier thickness was 3.42% and 21.17% for the DLP and isodose curve methods, respectively. The medical physicist’s selection of calculation points for recommending lead thickness was roughly the same as those found by RadShield for the DLP method but differed greatly using the isodose method. Conclusion: RadShield improves accuracy in calculating air-kerma rate and barrier thickness over manual calculations using isodose curves. Isodose curves were less intuitive and more prone to error for the physicist than inverse square methods. RadShield can now perform shielding design calculations for general scattering bodies for which isodose curves are provided.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

MO-DE-BRA-03: The Ottawa Medical Physics Institute (OMPI): A Practical Model for Academic Program Collaboration in a Multi-Centre City

Purpose: To build a world-class medical physics educational program that capitalizes on expertise distributed over several clinical, government, and academic centres. Few if any of these centres would have the critical mass to solely resource a program. Methods: In order to enable an academic program, stakeholders from five institutions made a proposal to Carleton University for a) a research network with defined membership requirements and a process for accepting new members, and b) a graduate specialization (MSc and PhD) in medical physics. Both proposals were accepted and the program has grown steadily. Our courses are taught by medical physicists from across the collaboration. Our students have access to physicists in: clinical radiotherapy (the Ottawa Cancer Centre treats 4500 new patients/y), radiology, cardiology and nuclear medicine, Canada’s primary standards dosimetry laboratory, radiobiology, and university-based medical physics research. Our graduate courses emphasize the foundational physics plus applied aspects of imaging, radiotherapy, and radiobiology. Active researchers in the city-wide volunteer-run network are appointed as adjunct professors by Physics, giving them access to national funding competitions and partial student funding through teaching assistantships while opening up facilities in their institutions for student thesis research. Results: The medical physics network has grown to ∼40 members from eight institutions and includes five full-time faculty in Physics and 17 adjunct research professors. The graduate student population is ∼20. Our graduates have proceeded to a spectrum of careers. Our alumni list includes a CCPM Past-President, the current COMP President, many clinical physicists, and the heads of at least three major clinical medical physics departments. Our PhD was Ontario’s first CAMPEP-accredited program. Conclusion: A self-governing volunteer network is the foundational element that enables an MSc/PhD medical physics program in a city with multiple physicist employers. It enriches graduate education with an unusually broad range of expertise.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Germany-US Nuclear Theory Exchange Program for QCD Studies of Hadrons & Nuclei 'GAUSTEQ'

GAUSTEQ was a Germany-U.S. exchange program in nuclear theory whose purpose was to focus research efforts on QCD studies of hadrons and nuclei, centered around the current and future research programs of Jefferson Lab and the Gesellschaft fur Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in Germany. GAUSTEQ provided travel support for theoretical physicists at US institutions conducting collaborative research with physicists in Germany. GSI (with its Darmstadt and Helmholtz Institute Mainz braches) served as the German “hub” for visits of U.S. physicists, while Jefferson Lab served as the corresponding “hub” for visits of German physicists visiting U.S. institutions through the reciprocal GUSTEHP (German-US Theory Exchange in Hadron Physics) program. GAUSTEQ was funded by the Office of Nuclear Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy, under Contract No.DE-SC0006758 and officially managed through Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. The program ran between 2011 and 2015.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

Transforming U.S. Particle Physics Education: A Snowmass 2021 Study

The pursuit of knowledge in particle physics requires constant learning. As new tools become available, new theories are developed, and physicists search for new answers with ever-evolving methods. However, it is the case that formal educational systems serve as the primary training grounds for particle physicists. Graduate school (and undergraduate school to a lesser extent) is where researchers learn most of the technical skills required for research, develop scientific problem-solving abilities, learn how to establish themselves in their field, and begin developing their career. It is unfortunate, then, that the skills gained by physicists during their formal education are often mismatched with the skills actually required for a successful career in physics. We performed a survey of the U.S. particle physics community to determine the missing elements of graduate and undergraduate education and to gauge how to bridge these gaps. In this contributed paper, part of the 2021-22 Snowmass Community Planning Exercise, we report the results of this survey. We also recommend several specific community actions to improve the quality of particle physics education; the "community" here refers to physics departments, national labs, professional societies, funding agencies, and individual physicists.

Bitter, O.↗