Practical Radiation Oncology Research Articles

TU‐B‐16A‐01: To Which Journal Should I Submit My Paper

Research papers authored by Medical Physicists address a large spectrum of oncologic, imaging, or basic research problems; exploit a wide range of physical and engineering methodologies; and often describe the efforts of a multidisciplinary research team. Given the large number (about 100) competing journals accepting medical physics articles, it may not be clear to an individual author which journal is the best venue for disseminating their work to the scientific community. Relevant factors usually include the Journal’s audience and scientific impact, but also such factors as perceived acceptance rate, interest in their topic, and quality of service. The purpose of this symposium is to provide the medical physics community with an overview of scope, review processes, and article guidelines for the following journals: Medical Physics, International Journal of Radiation Biology and Physics, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, and Practical Radiation Oncology. The senior editors for each journal will provide details as to the journals review process, for example: single blind versus double blind reviews; the hierarchy of the review process in terms of editorial board structure; the reality of acceptance, in terms of acceptance rate; and the types of research the journal prefers to publish. The goal is to provide for authors guidance before they begin to write their papers, not only for proper formatting, but also that the readership is appropriate for the particular paper, hopefully increasing the likelihood of publication.Learning Objectives: To review each Journal’s submission and review process Guidance as to how to increase chances of acceptance To help decipher which journal is appropriate for a given work

Delegation of medical tasks in French radiation oncology departments: Current situation and impact on residents’ training

ObjectivesA national survey was conducted among the radiation oncology residents about their clinical activities and responsibilities. The aim was to evaluate the clinical workload and to assess how medical tasks are delegated and supervised. Materials and methodsA first questionnaire was administered to radiation oncology residents during a national course. A second questionnaire was mailed to 59 heads of departments. ResultsThe response rate was 62% for radiation oncology residents (99 questionnaires) and 51% for heads of department (30). Eighteen heads of department (64%) declared having written specifications describing the residents’ clinical tasks and roles, while only 31 radiation oncology residents (34%) knew about such a document (P=0.009). A majority of residents were satisfied with the amount of medical tasks that were delegated to them. Older residents complained about insufficient exposure to new patient's consultation, treatment planning and portal images validation. The variations observed between departments may induce heterogeneous trainings and should be addressed specifically. ConclusionNational specifications are necessary to reduce heterogeneities in training, and to insure that the residents’ training covers all the professional skills required to practice radiation oncology. A frame endorsed by academic and professional societies would also clarify the responsibilities of both residents and seniors.

MO-F-BRCD-02: SBRT (Part 2): Physics and Quality Assurance Updates.

The technical advantage of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is based upon the ability to deliver a hypofractionated course of heterogeneous dose to a well-defined volume with a rapid fall-off of dose outside the treatment volume. The overall goal is to deliver an ablative dose to the target while minimizing the effects of radiation on the surrounding normal tissue. The major advantage of SBRT is the greater biologically effective dose to the target than that permitted by less conformal, fractionated techniques. In this presentation the established recommendations for quality assurance and safety of SBRT from ACR, ASTRO, and AAPM will be reviewed. The recommendations include establishing an SBRT clinic, equipment and imaging considerations, overview of staffing and personnel qualifications, treatment planning considerations, training, acceptance and commissioning practices, and use of safety checklists. Additionally, a Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Delivery is presented.

TU‐E‐T‐6E‐02: ABR Perspective On the ABR Written Exam

Goals of the American Board of Radiology: One of the main purposes of the American Board of Radiology is to certify medical doctors to practice Radiation Oncology in North America. Certification is issued to candidates who meet training requirements and who demonstrate their knowledge and proficiency by successfully completing comprehensive computer‐based and oral examinations. The purpose of the computer‐based cognitive examination covering physics is to test the candidate's knowledge of the principles of physics underlying the practice of radiation oncology. Accomplishments: Since 1989 the ABR has awarded 2442 certificates in Radiation Oncology. Between 1934 and 1989, 10,843 certificates were awarded in Radiology, a grouping that included both Diagnostic Radiologists and Radiation Oncologists. Resources to help physicists know what to teach: The ABR provides information on the certification process at its website (http://www.theabr.org/). Included at this website is a study guide for the cognitive examination. The guide is in the form of a detailed outline of topics covered by the exam. Upcoming changes: The current study guide is undergoing review and revision. Changes in the content are influenced by a number of sources including changes in Radiation Oncology such as technological advances and obsolescence, training requirements established by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, reports and recommendations issued by professional societies and commissions, and federal and state regulations.

Pediatric Radiation Oncology, Third Edition, 1999Edited by HalperinEdward C., ConstineLois S., TarbellNancy J., KunLarry E.. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 227 East Washington Square, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA. Price: US$155.00. ISBN: 0-7817-1500-8.

Book ReviewsPediatric Radiation Oncology, Third Edition, 1999 Mohammed Al ShabanaMD Mohammed Al Shabana Consultant, Pediatric Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, MBC-64, King, Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, P.O. Box 3354, Riyadh 11211, Saudi Arabia Search for more papers by this author Published Online::1 Mar 2000https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2000.180aSectionsPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail AboutIntroductionThis book is specifically devoted to the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of childhood cancers. The authors are well-recognized authorities in the field of pediatric oncology. Pediatric Radiation Oncology, published in 1999, is the third edition of the book, but a major revision has clearly been made to each chapter, with the inclusion of up-to-date references. Also, most of the chapters have CT scans and MRI pictures appropriately placed to further explain the text.The book consists of 22 chapters, with the first chapter reviewing the problem of cancer in children. Subsequent chapters deal with the different types of tumors in children, again with emphasis on the role of radiation therapy and the overall management of each tumor category. Chapter 19 deals with the late effects of cancer treatment in general, and chapter 20 deals specifically with secondary malignant neoplasms in children treated for cancer. The following chapter is a new one that reviews issues related to the sedation of children, with emphasis on monitoring the anesthetized child in the radiation therapy suite, and dealing with the ideal anesthetic for pediatric therapy. The chapter also explores anesthetic options for radiotherapy and discusses the complications of the child's underlying disease that dictates the anesthetic choice. Chapter 22 deals with immobilization, which is a very important link in the chain of treatment, planning and implementation.In my opinion, each chapter reflects controversies in the management of pediatric tumors, with all the major sides of an issue presented so that readers can form their own opinion. At the same time, the authors offer their opinion on many controversial topics, but are fair to alternate views. The book will be very useful to all radiation oncologists who do not practice radiation oncology on a regular basis, and also to fellows and residents in radiation oncology and pediatric oncology training programs. Previous article Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 20, Issue 2March 2000 Metrics History Published online1 March 2000 InformationCopyright © 2000, Annals of Saudi MedicinePDF download

A One-Day Seminar on Practical Radiation Oncology

A One-Day Seminar on Practical Radiation Oncology