Survey Results concerning the 2nd GI-CORE Summer Schoolfor Medical Physics 201519 June, 2015
Global Station for Quantum Medical Science and Engineering
The 2nd GI-CoRE Summer School for Medial Physics accepted 15 participants in total, including
a technical assistant of Hokkaido University. In comparison to the participants in the last year, morediverse range of international students gathered from across the world for this year: China, HongKong, South Korea, Indonesia, New Zealand, the U.S and Japan. All of the participants successfullycompleted the course without any absence and were awarded a completion certificate on the last dayof the course. They provided us with positive feedback in general but at the same time there weresome areas for potential improvement with the summer school identified in the responses. Please findspecific details from the graphs and comments below.

1. Source of Information
How did you learn about that GI-CoRE Summer School was recruiting participants?

1

Supervisor at
my university

1

Researcher's
recommendatio
nMailing list

2
11Website

2．Lecture, Practical Training and Booklet

Contents of Lectures

Quality of Lectures

Very Difficult
1Difficult

4

6

Suitable11

EasyVery Easy

Very
Satisfactory

8Satisfactory
Fair
DisappointingPractical Trainings

BookletVery Useful

Very
Satisfactory
Satisfactory

1 151Fair

Useful

1858

Fair
Needs
improvement

Disappointing

Not veryuseful

3. Events and Summary

Free Discussion

Evening Session
Very Useful

UsefulUseful24

Very Useful

845

Fair
Needs
improvement

6Needsimprovement
Not veryusefulNot very usefulSummary Assessment of Summer School
Very Satisfactory
16

Fair

Satisfactory
8

Fair
Disappointing
Very Disappointing

4. Free Comments from the Participants(Requests, Advice to improve the seminar, Complaints etc.)
In general, I enjoy the summer school very much. All the staff here are very kind and helpful. Keep us
more connected outside the lectures and provide email and social network contacts.

I think the seminar is well-structured, but it would be better if the topic on brachytherapy is included
and reduce some topic on RTRT, which I find that there is a little over-lapping.

Most lecturers had very good English but I found the Practical Training Session for X-ray patient QA
hard to follow.

Microphone should be provided to the lectures because it is too hard to listen the presentation clearlyin some lectures.

(Handout): Handout itself is useful and helpful, But if slides have animation, the slides of handout has
only the condition the animations finished.
(Practical training): At practical training, especially photon, it may be better to divide two group(planning and QA) if possible, though speakers have to do the same lecture twice.

I wanted to do a planning, QA training by myself. I understand we don’t have much time, but I think it
will help us understand.

The only thing I notice to improve is in the training section. Hospital rooms were small, 16-17 members(including staff) made the environment little crowded and difficulty in learning.
As a suggestion, practical session could be arranged by dividing the students into two groups, i.e.
when one group (6-7) students goes to QA and treatment planning (x-ray) then other group goes toQA (proton) and vice-vasa.

Give the lecture’s email in the booklet. After the lecture, if someone has big interest in the teacher’s
project, one will want the chance to have a focused discussion after the class is over.

Perhaps you can give us the contact information of the professors and the doctors, then we candiscuss some problems with them after the lecture.

Some more discussion time between lecturers and students. Not sit in a classroom, maybe a hall or
the place where the welcome dinner happens is better.

I wanted scholarship to join this program as well as other international students. This is a good
opportunity to learn about particle therapy.

1) Short test after the class to know the understanding of each participants. 2) Short trip organized bycommittee on some famous are in Hokkaido.

More communication system (ex.) Facebook page.

5. Most Impressive Lecture“Introduction to radiomics” by Dr. Yi CUIThe site visit to the proton therapy facility is the most impressive one. It is the first time to see thatfacility. Thank you very much.

About the proton therapy and its practical trainings.

“Four-dimensional Radiation Oncology” by Dr. Shimizu was the best lecture for me. I could understandthe history of 4D radiation therapy and perspective of oncologist.
Overview by Prof. Shirato and Practical session for proton.

Chapter 1( by Prof. Shirato)“Introduction to Radiomics”: new concept to me. Boosting subfield. Research project hints



Sometimes, I did not understand, did not catch the fast speed that speaking teacher.



I was surprised at the size of the accelerator and gantry of the particle beam therapy.

I became very order to be able to hear a lecture on particle therapy.

“Overview of Radiation Therapy”, “ Four-dimensional Radiation Oncology” and “Introduction ofRadiomics”

The lecture of planning by Lei Xing and some of the lecture of RTRT by Dr. Matsuura was pretty
impressive.

Dr. Lijun Ma’s lecture: his lecture was interactive and interesting.

To be honest, I enjoyed the lecture delivered by Prof. Umegaki about Proton Treatment system. He
carried the lecture in an impressive way and in between also showed his experiences while developingthe system.

Principle and Practices of SRS and SBRT by Prof. Lijun Ma => very engaging lecture with gooddiscussion. I also enjoyed the proton therapy practical session, staff were very helpful and answeredquestions very well.

Because my academic background is medicine and molecular biology, treatment planningradiobiology is the most interesting to me.

Every lecture was good and useful but especially … cannot choose.. (Prof. Lei Xing, Prof. Kikuo
Umegaki, Prof. Lijun Ma and Dr. Ruud Vinke)