Field Of Medical Physics Research Articles

MO-F-201-01: Panel Member

The goal of this session is to provide guidance to medical physicists undergoing the American Board of Radiology certification process in therapeutic medical physics. This panel discussion will focus on parts 2 (computer-based) and 3 (oral) of the examination. Unlike the latter portions of the exam which are specialty-driven, part 1 is universal for all medical physics fields and will not be addressed. This session is structured into different topics that aim to guide the participants on how to successfully prepare for the board exams. The subjects of discussion will include timing and strategies for exam preparation, crucial differences in preparing for the clinical computer-based exam versus the oral exam, what study tools are currently available for each, etc. The panel discussion format will allow the speakers to collectively present their experience and advice relating to each topic and foment audience participation. Learning Objectives: 1. Know the main differences between what is expected for parts 2 and 3 2. Know different resources for test preparation 3. Know how to formulate a plan to best study for each part based on the specific skill set the two parts require 4. Know how to best present his/her answers during the oral examination – demeanor, answer structure, etc.

MO-F-201-03: Panel Member

The goal of this session is to provide guidance to medical physicists undergoing the American Board of Radiology certification process in therapeutic medical physics. This panel discussion will focus on parts 2 (computer-based) and 3 (oral) of the examination. Unlike the latter portions of the exam which are specialty-driven, part 1 is universal for all medical physics fields and will not be addressed. This session is structured into different topics that aim to guide the participants on how to successfully prepare for the board exams. The subjects of discussion will include timing and strategies for exam preparation, crucial differences in preparing for the clinical computer-based exam versus the oral exam, what study tools are currently available for each, etc. The panel discussion format will allow the speakers to collectively present their experience and advice relating to each topic and foment audience participation. Learning Objectives: 1.Know the main differences between what is expected for parts 2 and 3 2.Know different resources for test preparation 3.Know how to formulate a plan to best study for each part based on the specific skill set the two parts require 4.Know how to best present his/her answers during the oral examination – demeanor, answer structure, etc.

MO-F-201-02: Panel Member

The goal of this session is to provide guidance to medical physicists undergoing the American Board of Radiology certification process in therapeutic medical physics. This panel discussion will focus on parts 2 (computer-based) and 3 (oral) of the examination. Unlike the latter portions of the exam which are specialty-driven, part 1 is universal for all medical physics fields and will not be addressed. This session is structured into different topics that aim to guide the participants on how to successfully prepare for the board exams. The subjects of discussion will include timing and strategies for exam preparation, crucial differences in preparing for the clinical computer-based exam versus the oral exam, what study tools are currently available for each, etc. The panel discussion format will allow the speakers to collectively present their experience and advice relating to each topic and foment audience participation. Learning Objectives: 1.Know the main differences between what is expected for parts 2 and 3 2.Know different resources for test preparation 3.Know how to formulate a plan to best study for each part based on the specific skill set the two parts require 4.Know how to best present his/her answers during the oral examination – demeanor, answer structure, etc.

Medical physics in Europe following recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

BackgroundMedical physics is a health profession where principles of applied physics are mostly directed towards the application of ionizing radiation in medicine. The key role of the medical physics expert in safe and effective use of ionizing radiation in medicine was widely recognized in recent European reference documents like the European Union Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM (2014), and European Commission Radiation Protection No. 174, European Guidelines on Medical Physics Expert (2014). Also the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been outspoken in supporting and fostering the status of medical physics in radiation medicine through multiple initiatives as technical and cooperation projects and important documents like IAEA Human Health Series No. 25, Roles and Responsibilities, and Education and Training Requirements for Clinically Qualified Medical Physicists (2013) and the International Basic Safety Standards, General Safety Requirements Part 3 (2014). The significance of these documents and the recognition of the present insufficient fulfilment of the requirements and recommendations in many European countries have led the IAEA to organize in 2015 the Regional Meeting on Medical Physics in Europe, where major issues in medical physics in Europe were discussed. Most important outcomes of the meeting were the recommendations addressed to European member states and the survey on medical physics status in Europe conducted by the IAEA and European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics.ConclusionsPublished recommendations of IAEA Regional Meeting on Medical Physics in Europe shall be followed and enforced in all European states. Appropriate qualification framework including education, clinical specialization, certification and registration of medical physicists shall be established and international recommendation regarding staffing levels in the field of medical physics shall be fulfilled in particular. European states have clear legal and moral responsibility to effectively transpose Basic Safety Standards into national legislation in order to ensure high quality and safety in patient healthcare.

Outcome Prediction after Radiotherapy with Medical Big Data.

Data science is becoming more important in many fields. In medical physics field, we are facing huge data every day. Treatment outcomes after radiation therapy are determined by complex interactions between clinical, biological, and dosimetrical factors. A key concept of recent radiation oncology research is to predict the outcome based on medical big data for personalized medicine. Here, some reports, which are analyzing medical databases with machine learning techniques, were reviewed and feasibility of outcome prediction after radiation therapy was discussed. In addition, some strategies for saving manual labors to analyze huge data in medical physics were discussed.

Determination of lead ion removal from a flowing electrolyte in the presence of a magnetic field using Raman spectroscopy.

The authors report on the development of a new, noninvasive method to efficiently remove metal ions in aqueous solution flowing in a tube and to quantify the concentrations of those ions. Such a technique could be used to remove toxic ions in the interiors of arteries and veins in patients intoxicated by the ingestion of metal ions. A magnetic field is applied to an aqueous electrolyte flowing in a specially designed rectangular cell in order to deflect the ion trajectories and concentrate them at one side of a cell. Once the ions are concentrated, they can be removed. Raman spectroscopy is used to promptly determine the concentration of the removed lead ions. It is possible to increase, on one side of the cell, the ion concentration by more than 80% with respect to the average concentration; the removed ions were taken from this high concentration region. This approach is a rapid, efficient, and noninvasive method for the removal of ions in aqueous solution. Raman spectroscopy was found to be a suitable technique to determine the amount of removed ions. The results indicate that the ion concentration can be increased more than 80% in a region where they can be removed. The increment in the ion concentration produced by the deflection due to the magnetic field, together with the use of Raman spectroscopy, allows for a rapid analysis of the removed ions without any previous preparation. The proposed method is a potentially useful method for metal ion separation of interest in the medical physics field.

Aspects of dosimetry and clinical practice of skin brachytherapy: The American Brachytherapy Society working group report.

Nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are the most common type of human malignancy. Although surgical techniques are the standard treatment, radiation therapy using photons, electrons, and brachytherapy (BT) (radionuclide-based and electronic) has been an important mode of treatment in specific clinical situations. The purpose of this work is to provide a clinical and dosimetric summary of the use of BT for the treatment of NMSC and to describe the different BT approaches used in treating cutaneous malignancies. A group of experts from the fields of radiation oncology, medical physics, and dermatology, who specialize in managing cutaneous malignancies reviewed the literature and compiled their clinical experience regarding the clinical and dosimetric aspects of skin BT. A dosimetric and clinical review of both high dose rate ((192)Ir) and electronic BT treatment including surface, interstitial, and custom mold applicators is given. Patient evaluation tools such as staging, imaging, and patient selection criteria are discussed. Guidelines for clinical and dosimetric planning, appropriate margin delineation, and applicator selection are suggested. Dose prescription and dose fractionation schedules, as well as prescription depth are discussed. Commissioning and quality assurance requirements are also outlined. Given the limited published data for skin BT, this article is a summary of the limited literature and best practices currently in use for the treatment of NMSC.

Ethical principles and standards for the conduct of biomedical research and publication

Clear and widely acceptable values and principles should be involved in scientific investigations. Scientific honesty is a fundamental aspect which leads to the overall quality of a study while misconduct involving cheating and plagiarism could cause controversy and could eventually lead to a tragedy. The aim of this letter is to promote principles and correct values to all scientists especially in research involving humans. In the field of biomedical engineering and medical physics, investigators, in many cases, initiate research related to living subjects and data. Protection of volunteers and their privacy becomes a primary and significant concern, and so conducting the research with good ethics inevitably becomes an important element for a successful study leading to valuable medical science publications. New ideas, inventions,methods, discoveries and evidence are the core contributions of research to a society. Significant contributions of research are based on the quality and impact to the society. Carrying out a good research study with integrity helps to maintain the accuracy and reliability, which is managed by quality control and assurance. Quality assurance involves the establishment of standards, the execution of procedures, verification of data and improvement of any aspect in a research. The overall quality of a research could be improved if investigators follow the standard, commit to the protocol, monitor and audit all data and financial issues. One might not find an exact definition of research integrity, butwhen your research is conducted using high moral standard in common and core values and beliefs, strict principles and guidelines,with good quality control and assurance, investigators will be on the right track. This Letter will provide specific details on the principles of research integrity and good writing mannerism.

Pediatric personalized CT-dosimetry Monte Carlo simulations, using computational phantoms

The last 40 years Monte Carlo (MC) simulations serve as a “gold standard” tool for a wide range of applications in the field of medical physics and tend to be essential in daily clinical practice. Regarding diagnostic imaging applications, such as computed tomography (CT), the assessment of deposited energy is of high interest, so as to better analyze the risks and the benefits of the procedure. The last few years a big effort is done towards personalized dosimetry, especially in pediatric applications. In the present study the GATE toolkit was used and computational pediatric phantoms have been modeled for the assessment of CT examinations dosimetry. The pediatric models used come from the XCAT and IT'IS series. The X-ray spectrum of a Brightspeed CT scanner was simulated and validated with experimental data. Specifically, a DCT-10 ionization chamber was irradiated twice using 120 kVp with 100 mAs and 200 mAs, for 1 sec in 1 central axial slice (thickness = 10mm). The absorbed dose was measured in air resulting in differences lower than 4% between the experimental and simulated data. The simulations were acquired using ∼1010 number of primaries in order to achieve low statistical uncertainties. Dose maps were also saved for quantification of the absorbed dose in several children critical organs during CT acquisition.

SU‐E‐P‐23: What Can the Medical Physics Field Learn From the Open Source Hardware Community?

Purpose:To introduce the Medical Physics community to the up‐and‐coming open hardware movement, and discuss what lessons can be learned from it and how it could be useful to our field.Methods:By definition, open source hardware is “hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design”. Arduino microcontroller boards and the evolution in 3d printing technologies are among the most successful open hardware examples. These examples showed that both collaboration and competition are factors facilitating and accelerating innovations. They also help universalizing research by decreasing costs and enabling higher‐level manufacturing. Participation in open source projects in academia has also shown to have multiple advantages. The project gets massively peer reviewed through its online publication, and the comments generally lead to improvement of the design and better performance. It also increases the visibility of the work, therefore increasing the chance for citations and funding.Results:The development in‐house of a motorized detector positioning device that can be mounted to a water tank will be open‐sourced and presented as an example of open source project that could be useful to others in the Medical Physics field, whether it is for research or clinical work. The common aspects to share when open‐sourcing a project will be discussed. A device for regulating the temperature inside a water phantom will also be presented and open‐sourced to the community. Finally, the development of a project‐sharing web platform specially designed for the Medical Physics community will be discussed.Conclusion:The open source hardware movement is gaining in popularity and the Medical Physics field could benefit from a similar collaborative open‐framework. It would definitely help driving and accelerating innovations in the field as well as decreasing some of the associated costs.Part of this research was supported by the Odyssey Program at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

WE-AB-213-00: Developments in International Medical Physics Collaborations in Africa and Latin America

WE-AB-213-00: Developments in International Medical Physics Collaborations in Africa and Latin America

WE-AB-213-05: Closing Remarks

WE-AB-213-05: Closing Remarks

WE-AB-213-02: Status of Medical Physics Collaborations, and Projects in Latin America

WE-AB-213-02: Status of Medical Physics Collaborations, and Projects in Latin America

WE-AB-213-04: IAEA Support to Medical Physics in Africa and Latin America: Achievements and Challenges

WE-AB-213-04: IAEA Support to Medical Physics in Africa and Latin America: Achievements and Challenges

WE-AB-213-03: Challenges and Opportunities

WE-AB-213-03: Challenges and Opportunities

WE-AB-213-01: AAPM Projects and Collaborations in Africa

WE-AB-213-01: AAPM Projects and Collaborations in Africa

WE-A-207-00: In Memoriam of Jacques Ovadia - Reinvigorating Scientific Excellence: Electron Beam Therapy - Past, Present and Future

The Medical Physics community lost one of its early pioneers in radiation oncology physics, Jacques Ovadia, who passed away in April of 2014 at the age of 90. Jacques received his Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana in 1951. Subsequently, under the guidance of John Laughlin, he was introduced to the field of Medical Physics. When John moved to Memorial Sloan Kettering, Jacques followed him. There he gained clinical experience and expertise in the then cutting-edge field of high energy electron beam therapy. In 1956, Jacques joined Dr. Erich Uhlmann at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago where one of the country’s first high energy medical linear accelerators had just been installed. During his 35 year tenure, Dr. Ovadia built a strong Medical Physics department that merged in 1984 with that of the University of Chicago. Jacques pioneered the use of high energy electron beams to treat deep seated tumors, multiple-field chest wall irradiation with variable electron energies, and even anticipated the current interest in high energy electron beam grid-therapy. At an early stage, he introduced a simulator, computerized treatment planning and in-house developed record and verify software. He retired in 1990 as Professor emeritus in Radiation and Cellular Biology at the University of Chicago. Dr. Ovadia was an early and strong supporter of AAPM. He was present at the Chicago ROMPS meeting where the decision was made to form an independent professional society for medical physics. He served as AAPM president in 1976. Jacques Ovadia is survived by his wife of 58 years, Florence, their daughter Corinne Graefe and son Marc Ovadia, MD, as well as four grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Jacques’ dynamic and ever enthusiastic personality inspired all who collaborated with him. He will be greatly missed.

WE-A-207-01: Memorial Lecturer

The Medical Physics community lost one of its early pioneers in radiation oncology physics, Jacques Ovadia, who passed away in April of 2014 at the age of 90. Jacques received his Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana in 1951. Subsequently, under the guidance of John Laughlin, he was introduced to the field of Medical Physics. When John moved to Memorial Sloan Kettering, Jacques followed him. There he gained clinical experience and expertise in the then cutting-edge field of high energy electron beam therapy. In 1956, Jacques joined Dr. Erich Uhlmann at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago where one of the country’s first high energy medical linear accelerators had just been installed. During his 35 year tenure, Dr. Ovadia built a strong Medical Physics department that merged in 1984 with that of the University of Chicago. Jacques pioneered the use of high energy electron beams to treat deep seated tumors, multiple-field chest wall irradiation with variable electron energies, and even anticipated the current interest in high energy electron beam grid-therapy. At an early stage, he introduced a simulator, computerized treatment planning and in-house developed record and verify software. He retired in 1990 as Professor emeritus in Radiation and Cellular Biology at the University of Chicago. Dr. Ovadia was an early and strong supporter of AAPM. He was present at the Chicago ROMPS meeting where the decision was made to form an independent professional society for medical physics. He served as AAPM president in 1976. Jacques Ovadia is survived by his wife of 58 years, Florence, their daughter Corinne Graefe and son Marc Ovadia, MD, as well as four grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Jacques’ dynamic and ever enthusiastic personality inspired all who collaborated with him. He will be greatly missed.

A Life of Service: Lawrence Williams (Larry) Berkley.

The JACMP has lost a dear friend, Larry Berkley. Among his many other services to the medical physics community, Larry was the Chair of the JACMP Journal Business Management Committee for almost ten years, first under the ACMP, and then under the AAPM. He leaves a heritage of knowledge, integrity, and passion for open-access publishing. Larry and I go back to the 1969 summer “Rat Camp” at Georgia Tech. I have known him longer than any other medical physicist. I thank Joe Grant for this tribute to Larry’s life and legacy. – Michael D. Mills, Editor-in-Chief

Proton radiobiology.

In addition to the physical advantages (Bragg peak), the use of charged particles in cancer therapy can be associated with distinct biological effects compared to X-rays. While heavy ions (densely ionizing radiation) are known to have an energy- and charge-dependent increased Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE), protons should not be very different from sparsely ionizing photons. A slightly increased biological effectiveness is taken into account in proton treatment planning by assuming a fixed RBE of 1.1 for the whole radiation field. However, data emerging from recent studies suggest that, for several end points of clinical relevance, the biological response is differentially modulated by protons compared to photons. In parallel, research in the field of medical physics highlighted how variations in RBE that are currently neglected might actually result in deposition of significant doses in healthy organs. This seems to be relevant in particular for normal tissues in the entrance region and for organs at risk close behind the tumor. All these aspects will be considered and discussed in this review, highlighting how a re-discussion of the role of a variable RBE in proton therapy might be well-timed.