bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
MO‐AB‐201‐00: Radiation Safety Officer Update
Authors: Kroger Linda 
Published: June 2015

The role of the Radiation Safety Officer at a medical facility can be complicated. The complexity of the position is based on the breadth of services provided at the institution and the nature of the radioactive materials license. Medical practices are constantly changing and the use of ionizing radiation continues to rise in this area. Some of the newer medical applications involving radiation have unique regulatory and safety issues that must be addressed. Oversight of the uses of radiation start at the local level (radiation safety officer, radiation safety committee) and are heavily impacted by outside agencies (i.e. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, State Radiologic Health, The Joint Commission (TJC), etc).This session will provide both an overview of regulatory oversight and essential compliance practices as well as practical ways to assess and introduce some of the new applications utilizing radioactive materials into your medical facility.Learning Objectives:Regulatory Compliance and Safety with New Radiotherapies: Spheres and Ra‐223 (Lance Phillips)

Understand the radioactive materials license amendment process to add new radiotherapies (i.e., SIR‐Spheres, Therasphere, Xofigo).
Understand the AU approval process for microspheres and Xofigo.
Examine the training and handling requirements for new procedures.
Understand the process involved with protocol development, SOP in order to define roles and responsibilities.
The RSO and The RSC: Challenges and Opportunities (Colin Dimock)

Understand how to form an effective Committee.
Examine what the Committee does for the Program and the RSO.
Understand the importance of Committee engagement.
Discuss the balance of the complimentary roles of the RSO and the Committee.
The Alphabet Soup of Regulatory Compliance: Being Prepared for Inspections (Linda Kroger)

Recognize the various regulatory bodies and organizations with oversight or impact in Nuclear Medicine, Radiology and Radiation Oncology.
Examine 10CFR35 requirements as they relate to the everyday practice of Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Oncology.
Understand the nature of available guidance documents (e.g., NUREG 1556).
Examine the commonalities between TJC and CMS preparedness.
MO‐AB‐201‐02: The RSO and The RSC: Challenges and Opportunities
Authors: Dimock C. 
Published: June 2015

The role of the Radiation Safety Officer at a medical facility can be complicated. The complexity of the position is based on the breadth of services provided at the institution and the nature of the radioactive materials license. Medical practices are constantly changing and the use of ionizing radiation continues to rise in this area. Some of the newer medical applications involving radiation have unique regulatory and safety issues that must be addressed. Oversight of the uses of radiation start at the local level (radiation safety officer, radiation safety committee) and are heavily impacted by outside agencies (i.e. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, State Radiologic Health, The Joint Commission (TJC), etc).This session will provide both an overview of regulatory oversight and essential compliance practices as well as practical ways to assess and introduce some of the new applications utilizing radioactive materials into your medical facility.Learning Objectives:Regulatory Compliance and Safety with New Radiotherapies: Spheres and Ra‐223 (Lance Phillips)

Understand the radioactive materials license amendment process to add new radiotherapies (i.e., SIR‐Spheres, Therasphere, Xofigo).
Understand the AU approval process for microspheres and Xofigo.
Examine the training and handling requirements for new procedures.
Understand the process involved with protocol development, SOP in order to define roles and responsibilities.
The RSO and The RSC: Challenges and Opportunities (Colin Dimock)

Understand how to form an effective Committee.
Examine what the Committee does for the Program and the RSO.
Understand the importance of Committee engagement.
Discuss the balance of the complimentary roles of the RSO and the Committee.
The Alphabet Soup of Regulatory Compliance: Being Prepared for Inspections (Linda Kroger)

Recognize the various regulatory bodies and organizations with oversight or impact in Nuclear Medicine, Radiology and Radiation Oncology.
Examine 10CFR35 requirements as they relate to the everyday practice of Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Oncology.
Understand the nature of available guidance documents (e.g., NUREG 1556).
Examine the commonalities between TJC and CMS preparedness.
MO‐B‐213‐02: History and Future Outlook for the AAPM Professional Liability Insurance Program
Authors: Fuller G. 
Published: June 2015

The AAPM Professional Liability Insurance program provides a unique ability for medical physicists to obtain liability coverage for risks arising from the practice of medical physics. In 2015, the program introduces a new occurrence‐form coverage option which has important cost and functional differences from the existing claims‐made coverage. Since both forms will be offered to new and renewing policy holders, the details and implications of these two options will be explained. A brief history of the program will be given to review the collaboration between AAPM and its insurance company partners that established and maintains the program that is available today. The future outlook of the program will include an overview of threats and opportunities that affect AAPM members’ ability to obtain cost‐effective coverage in the future.Learning Objectives:

Gain understanding of the professional liability insurance program offered to AAPM members
Gain understanding of the difference between claims‐made form and occurrence form of coverage
Gain understanding of the role of AAPM in operating the professional liability insurance program
Graham Fuller is an employee of Mercer Consumer which is the broker and administrator of the AAPM Professional Liability Insurance program.
MO‐B‐304‐01: JACMP: An Innovation in Medical Physics Publishing
Authors: Mills M. 
Published: June 2015

The JACMP began publication in February, 2000 and is the world's oldest open‐access medical specialty journal. Today it publishes about 200 articles in six issues annually. The JACMP archive experiences about 400,000.pdf downloads annually and a typical JACMP.pdf article is downloaded about 600 or 700 times during the first year after publication. Anyone with web access can reach these articles, having wide distribution and benefiting as many patients as possible.Preparing a manuscript for publication in the JACMP (or any other journal) is a straightforward process. The primary purpose of a manuscript is to communicate knowledge and experience. A relatively fixed format has been developed to meet this goal; this format consists of an Abstract, Introduction, Methods and Materials, Results, and Conclusions. In addition to fitting your experience into that format, it is important to recognize your audience and direct your manuscript to that audience. Finally, it is important to write your manuscript in clear English, enlisting the aid of a copyeditor, if such an individual is available.Reviewing the articles submitted to JACMP is a rewarding yet difficult task. A reviewer must evaluate submitted articles critically, objectively, and express opinions diplomatically regarding work presented to the journal. A perspective from a JACMP section editor and experienced reviewer will describe the key points that progress a journal article to publication. As a reviewer, the difficulties experienced as a reviewer such as an incomplete or incorrect citations, incorrect formats, etc. will also be described.Learning Objectives:

Attendees will learn the history and philosophy behind the development of the Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics.
After attending this presentation, the participant will be able to prepare a well‐written manuscript suitable for publication in the JACMP or any other peer‐reviewed journal.
Attendees will learn what typical submission mistakes and difficulties are from the perspective of a section editor and experienced article reviewer.
MO‐B‐304‐03: Inside the Mind of a JACMP Reviewer
Authors: Richardson S. 
Published: June 2015

The JACMP began publication in February, 2000 and is the world's oldest open‐access medical specialty journal. Today it publishes about 200 articles in six issues annually. The JACMP archive experiences about 400,000.pdf downloads annually and a typical JACMP.pdf article is downloaded about 600 or 700 times during the first year after publication. Anyone with web access can reach these articles, having wide distribution and benefiting as many patients as possible.Preparing a manuscript for publication in the JACMP (or any other journal) is a straightforward process. The primary purpose of a manuscript is to communicate knowledge and experience. A relatively fixed format has been developed to meet this goal; this format consists of an Abstract, Introduction, Methods and Materials, Results, and Conclusions. In addition to fitting your experience into that format, it is important to recognize your audience and direct your manuscript to that audience. Finally, it is important to write your manuscript in clear English, enlisting the aid of a copyeditor, if such an individual is available.Reviewing the articles submitted to JACMP is a rewarding yet difficult task. A reviewer must evaluate submitted articles critically, objectively, and express opinions diplomatically regarding work presented to the journal. A perspective from a JACMP section editor and experienced reviewer will describe the key points that progress a journal article to publication. As a reviewer, the difficulties experienced as a reviewer such as an incomplete or incorrect citations, incorrect formats, etc. will also be described.Learning Objectives:

Attendees will learn the history and philosophy behind the development of the Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics.
After attending this presentation, the participant will be able to prepare a well‐written manuscript suitable for publication in the JACMP or any other peer‐reviewed journal.
Attendees will learn what typical submission mistakes and difficulties are from the perspective of a section editor and experienced article reviewer.
MO‐B‐BRB‐00: Optimizing the Treatment Planning Process
Authors: Feng Wenzheng 
Published: June 2015

The radiotherapy treatment planning process has evolved over the years with innovations in treatment planning, treatment delivery and imaging systems. Treatment modality and simulation technologies are also rapidly improving and affecting the planning process. For example, Image‐guided‐radiation‐therapy has been widely adopted for patient setup, leading to margin reduction and isocenter repositioning after simulation. Stereotactic Body radiation therapy (SBRT) and Radiosurgery (SRS) have gradually become the standard of care for many treatment sites, which demand a higher throughput for the treatment plans even if the number of treatments per day remains the same. Finally, simulation, planning and treatment are traditionally sequential events. However, with emerging adaptive radiotherapy, they are becoming more tightly intertwined, leading to iterative processes. Enhanced efficiency of planning is therefore becoming more critical and poses serious challenge to the treatment planning process; Lean Six Sigma approaches are being utilized increasingly to balance the competing needs for speed and quality.In this symposium we will discuss the treatment planning process and illustrate effective techniques for managing workflow. Topics will include:

Planning techniques: (a) beam placement, (b) dose optimization, (c) plan evaluation (d) export to RVS.
Planning workflow: (a) import images, (b) Image fusion, (c) contouring, (d) plan approval (e) plan check (f) chart check, (g) sequential and iterative process
Influence of upstream and downstream operations: (a) simulation, (b) immobilization, (c) motion management, (d) QA, (e) IGRT, (f) Treatment delivery, (g) SBRT/SRS (h) adaptive planning
Reduction of delay between planning steps with Lean systems due to (a) communication, (b) limited resource, (b) contour, (c) plan approval, (d) treatment.
Optimizing planning processes: (a) contour validation (b) consistent planning protocol, (c) protocol/template sharing, (d) semi‐automatic plan evaluation, (e) quality checklist for error prevention, (f) iterative process, (g) balance of speed and quality
Learning Objectives:

Gain familiarity with the workflow of modern treatment planning process.
Understand the scope and challenges of managing modern treatment planning processes.
Gain familiarity with Lean Six Sigma approaches and their implementation in the treatment planning workflow.
MO‐D‐213‐02: Quality Improvement Through a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis of Pediatric External Beam Radiotherapy
Authors: Gray J , Lukose R , Bronson J , Chandler B , Merchant T , Farr J 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:To conduct a failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) as per AAPM Task Group 100 on clinical processes associated with teletherapy, and the development of mitigations for processes with identified high risk.Methods:A FMEA was conducted on clinical processes relating to teletherapy treatment plan development and delivery. Nine major processes were identified for analysis. These steps included CT simulation, data transfer, image registration and segmentation, treatment planning, plan approval and preparation, and initial and subsequent treatments. Process tree mapping was utilized to identify the steps contained within each process. Failure modes (FM) were identified and evaluated with a scale of 1–10 based upon three metrics: the severity of the effect, the probability of occurrence, and the detectability of the cause. The analyzed metrics were scored as follows: severity – no harm = 1, lethal = 10; probability – not likely = 1, certainty = 10; detectability – always detected = 1, undetectable = 10. The three metrics were combined multiplicatively to determine the risk priority number (RPN) which defined the overall score for each FM and the order in which process modifications should be deployed.Results:Eighty‐nine procedural steps were identified with 186 FM accompanied by 193 failure effects with 213 potential causes. Eighty‐one of the FM were scored with a RPN > 10, and mitigations were developed for FM with RPN values exceeding ten. The initial treatment had the most FM (16) requiring mitigation development followed closely by treatment planning, segmentation, and plan preparation with fourteen each. The maximum RPN was 400 and involved target delineation.Conclusion:The FMEA process proved extremely useful in identifying previously unforeseen risks. New methods were developed and implemented for risk mitigation and error prevention. Similar to findings reported for adult patients, the process leading to the initial treatment has an associated high risk.
MO‐D‐213‐05: Sensitivity of Routine IMRT QA Metrics to Couch and Collimator Rotations
Authors: Alaei P 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:To assess the sensitivity of gamma index and other IMRT QA metrics to couch and collimator rotations.Methods:Two brain IMRT plans with couch and/or collimator rotations in one or more of the fields were evaluated using the IBA MatriXX ion chamber array and its associated software (OmniPro‐I'mRT). The plans were subjected to routine QA by 1) Creating a composite planar dose in the treatment planning system (TPS) with the couch/collimator rotations and 2) Creating the planar dose after “zeroing” the rotations. Plan deliveries to MatriXX were performed with all rotations set to zero on a Varian 21ex linear accelerator. This in effect created TPS‐created planar doses with an induced rotation error. Point dose measurements for the delivered plans were also performed in a solid water phantom.Results:The IMRT QA of the plans with couch and collimator rotations showed clear discrepancies in the planar dose and 2D dose profile overlays. The gamma analysis, however, did pass with the criteria of 3%/3mm (for 95% of the points), albeit with a lower percentage pass rate, when one or two of the fields had a rotation. Similar results were obtained with tighter criteria of 2%/2mm. Other QA metrics such as percentage difference or distance‐to‐agreement (DTA) histograms produced similar results. The point dose measurements did not obviously indicate the error due to location of dose measurement (on the central axis) and the size of the ion chamber used (0.6 cc).Conclusion:Relying on Gamma analysis, percentage difference, or DTA to determine the passing of an IMRT QA may miss critical errors in the plan delivery due to couch/collimator rotations. A combination of analyses for composite QA plans, or per‐beam analysis, would detect these errors.
MO‐DE‐304‐01: The Abt Study of Medical Physicist Work Values for Radiation Oncology Physics Services: Round IV
Authors: Mills M. 
Published: June 2015

The Abt study of medical physicist work values for radiation oncology physics services, Round IV is completed. It supersedes the Abt III study of 2008. The 2015 Abt study measured qualified medical physicist (QMP) work associated with routine radiation oncology procedures as well as some special procedures. As before, a work model was created to allow the medical physicist to defend QMP work based on both routine and special procedures service mix. The work model can be used to develop a cost justification report for setting charges for radiation oncology physics services. The Abt study Round IV was designed to empower the medical physicist to negotiate a service or employment contract with providers based on measured national QMP workforce and staffing data.For a variety of reasons, the diagnostic imaging contingent of AAPM has had a more difficult time trying estimate workforce requirements than their therapy counterparts. Over the past several years, the Diagnostic Work and Workforce Study Subcommittee (DWWSS) has collected survey data from AAPM members, but the data have been very difficult to interpret. The DWWSS has reached out to include more AAPM volunteers to create a more full and accurate representation of actual clinical practice models on the subcommittee. Though much work remains, through hours of discussion and brainstorming, the DWWSS has somewhat of a clear path forward. This talk will provide attendees with an update on the efforts of the subcommittee.Learning Objectives:

Understand the new information documented in the Abt studies.
Understand how to use the Abt studies to justify medical physicist staffing.
Learn relevant historical information on imaging physicist workforce.
Understand the process of the DWWSS in 2014.
Understand the intended path forward for the DWWSS.
MO‐D‐BRD‐01: Clinical Implementation of An Electronic Brachytherapy Program for the Skin
Authors: Ouhib Z. 
Published: June 2015

Electronic brachytherapy (eBT) has seen an insurgence of manufacturers entering the US market for use in radiation therapy. In addition to the established interstitial, intraluminary, and intracavitary applications of eBT, many centers are now using eBT to treat skin lesions. It is important for medical physicists working with electronic brachytherapy sources to understand the basic physics principles of the sources themselves as well as the variety of applications for which they are being used. The calibration of the sources is different from vendor to vendor and the traceability of calibrations has evolved as new sources came to market. In 2014, a new air‐kerma based standard was introduced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to measure the output of an eBT source. Eventually commercial treatment planning systems should accommodate this new standard and provide NIST traceability to the end user. The calibration and commissioning of an eBT system is unique to its application and typically entails a list of procedural recommendations by the manufacturer. Commissioning measurements are performed using a variety of methods, some of which are modifications of existing AAPM Task Group protocols. A medical physicist should be familiar with the different AAPM Task Group recommendations for applicability to eBT and how to properly adapt them to their needs. In addition to the physical characteristics of an eBT source, the photon energy is substantially lower than from HDR Ir‐192 sources. Consequently, tissue‐specific dosimetry and radiobiological considerations are necessary when comparing these brachytherapy modalities and when making clinical decisions as a radiation therapy team. In this session, the physical characteristics and calibration methodologies of eBt sources will be presented as well as radiobiology considerations and other important clinical considerations.Learning Objectives:

To understand the basic principles of electronic brachytherapy and the various applications for which it is being used.
To understand the physics of the calibration and commissioning for electronic brachytherapy sources
To understand the unique radiobiology and clinical implementation of electronic brachytherapy systems for skin and IORT techniques
Xoft, Inc. contributed funding toward development of the NIST electronic brachytherapy facility (Michael Mitch).The University of Wisconsin (Wesley Culberson) has received research support funding from Xoft, Inc. Zoubir Ouhib has received partial funding from Elekta Esteya.
MO‐D‐BRD‐04: NIST Air‐Kerma Standard for Electronic Brachytherapy Calibrations
Authors: Mitch M. 
Published: June 2015

Electronic brachytherapy (eBT) has seen an insurgence of manufacturers entering the US market for use in radiation therapy. In addition to the established interstitial, intraluminary, and intracavitary applications of eBT, many centers are now using eBT to treat skin lesions. It is important for medical physicists working with electronic brachytherapy sources to understand the basic physics principles of the sources themselves as well as the variety of applications for which they are being used. The calibration of the sources is different from vendor to vendor and the traceability of calibrations has evolved as new sources came to market. In 2014, a new air‐kerma based standard was introduced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to measure the output of an eBT source. Eventually commercial treatment planning systems should accommodate this new standard and provide NIST traceability to the end user. The calibration and commissioning of an eBT system is unique to its application and typically entails a list of procedural recommendations by the manufacturer. Commissioning measurements are performed using a variety of methods, some of which are modifications of existing AAPM Task Group protocols. A medical physicist should be familiar with the different AAPM Task Group recommendations for applicability to eBT and how to properly adapt them to their needs. In addition to the physical characteristics of an eBT source, the photon energy is substantially lower than from HDR Ir‐192 sources. Consequently, tissue‐specific dosimetry and radiobiological considerations are necessary when comparing these brachytherapy modalities and when making clinical decisions as a radiation therapy team. In this session, the physical characteristics and calibration methodologies of eBt sources will be presented as well as radiobiology considerations and other important clinical considerations.Learning Objectives:

To understand the basic principles of electronic brachytherapy and the various applications for which it is being used.
To understand the physics of the calibration and commissioning for electronic brachytherapy sources
To understand the unique radiobiology and clinical implementation of electronic brachytherapy systems for skin and IORT techniques
Xoft, Inc. contributed funding toward development of the NIST electronic brachytherapy facility (Michael Mitch).The University of Wisconsin (Wesley Culberson) has received research support funding from Xoft, Inc. Zoubir Ouhib has received partial funding from Elekta Esteya.