bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
SU‐F‐BRB‐03: Quantifying Patient Motion During Deep‐Inspiration Breath‐Hold Using the ABC System with Simultaneous Surface Photogrammetry
Authors: Cheung Y , Rahimi A , Sawant A 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:Active breathing control (ABC) has been used to reduce treatment margin due to respiratory organ motion by enforcing temporary breath‐holds. However, in practice, even if the ABC device indicates constant lung volume during breath‐hold, the patient may still exhibit minor chest motion. Consequently, therapists are given a false sense of security that the patient is immobilized. This study aims at quantifying such motion during ABC breath‐holds by monitoring the patient chest motion using a surface photogrammetry system, VisionRT.Methods:A female patient with breast cancer was selected to evaluate chest motion during ABC breath‐holds. During the entire course of treatment, the patient's chest surface was monitored by a surface photogrammetry system, VisionRT. Specifically, a user‐defined region‐of‐interest (ROI) on the chest surface was selected for the system to track at a rate of ∼3Hz. The surface motion was estimated by rigid image registration between the current ROI image captured and a reference image. The translational and rotational displacements computed were saved in a log file.Results:A total of 20 fractions of radiation treatment were monitored by VisionRT. After removing noisy data, we obtained chest motion of 79 breath‐hold sessions. Mean chest motion in AP direction during breath‐holds is 1.31mm with 0.62mm standard deviation. Of the 79 sessions, the patient exhibited motion ranging from 0–1 mm (30 sessions), 1–2 mm (37 sessions), 2–3 mm (11 sessions) and >3 mm (1 session).Conclusion:Contrary to popular assumptions, the patient is not completely still during ABC breath‐hold sessions. In this particular case studied, the patient exhibited chest motion over 2mm in 14 out of 79 breath‐holds. Underestimating treatment margin for radiation therapy with ABC could reduce treatment effectiveness due to geometric miss or overdose of critical organs.The senior author receives research funding from NIH, VisionRT, Varian Medical Systems and Elekta
SU‐F‐BRB‐07: A Plan Comparison Tool to Ensure Robustness and Deliverability in Online‐Adaptive Radiotherapy
Authors: Hill P , Labby Z , Bayliss R A , Geurts M , Bayouth J 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:To develop a plan comparison tool that will ensure robustness and deliverability through analysis of baseline and online‐adaptive radiotherapy plans using similarity metrics.Methods:The ViewRay MRIdian treatment planning system allows export of a plan file that contains plan and delivery information. A software tool was developed to read and compare two plans, providing information and metrics to assess their similarity. In addition to performing direct comparisons (e.g. demographics, ROI volumes, number of segments, total beam‐on time), the tool computes and presents histograms of derived metrics (e.g. step‐and‐shoot segment field sizes, segment average leaf gaps). Such metrics were investigated for their ability to predict that an online‐adapted plan reasonably similar to a baseline plan where deliverability has already been established.Results:In the realm of online‐adaptive planning, comparing ROI volumes offers a sanity check to verify observations found during contouring. Beyond ROI analysis, it has been found that simply editing contours and re‐optimizing to adapt treatment can produce a delivery that is substantially different than the baseline plan (e.g. number of segments increased by 31%), with no changes in optimization parameters and only minor changes in anatomy. Currently the tool can quickly identify large omissions or deviations from baseline expectations. As our online‐adaptive patient population increases, we will continue to develop and refine quantitative acceptance criteria for adapted plans and relate them historical delivery QA measurements.Conclusion:The plan comparison tool is in clinical use and reports a wide range of comparison metrics, illustrating key differences between two plans. This independent check is accomplished in seconds and can be performed in parallel to other tasks in the online‐adaptive workflow. Current use prevents large planning or delivery errors from occurring, and ongoing refinements will lead to increased assurance of plan quality.
SU‐F‐BRB‐08: How Many Parameters Are Required to Characterize DVHs in Clinical Circumstance?
Authors: Chen Z , Wang J , Hu W 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:The aim of this study is to assess how many parameters are required to characterize the DVH curves by principal component analysis (PCA) in two tumors sites.Methods:Two tumor sites including nasopharyngeal cancer and lung cancer were enrolled in this study. Each tumor site contains 5 patients. Multiple criteria optimization (MCO) algorithm was used to generate the plan database to cover all the possible optimization solution in RayStation (RaySearch Laboratories AB, Sweden). The constraints and trade‐off objectives setting were based on the QUANTEC research and planning experience. The target and normal tissue DVHs were export to MATLAB. Each DVH on plans were resampled into 101 points for principal component analysis. A threshold of 95% was used to decide how many components should be selected to characterize DVH curves. Finally, we evaluate the accuracy of the data extraction by regenerating DVH from the selected principal components (PCs). The D95 of PTV, max‐dose of spinal cord and brainstem, mean dose of parotid and other related organs at risk in nasopharyngeal cancer; and the D95 of PTV, the V20Gy of lung‐PTV, and mean dose of heart in lung cancer were analyzed.Results:The PCs used to characterize DVH were 1–3 in nasopharyngeal cancer, 2–3 in lung cancer. The regenerated DVHs were coincided with the original DVHs in both cancers. The mean dose differences of all clinical points between the regenerated and the original were 0, and the maximize deviation is less than 100cGy except some parameters in the nasopharynx cancer, which has the maximal dose difference of 177cGy in spinal cord and 608cGy in brainstem.Conclusion:It is feasible to characterize the DVH curves by no more than 3 principal independent variables in nasopharyngeal cancer and lung cancer.
SU‐F‐BRB‐11: An Integrated Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers for Treatment Planning Optimization
Authors: Zarepisheh M , Ye Y , Xing L 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:To propose a new parallel‐friendly optimization algorithm, based on alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM), for solving optimization problems emerging in treatment planning and imagingMethods:ADMM, emerging as a powerful tool for distributed optimization, is employed here for IMRT treatment planning. We modify the existing ADMM by integrating that with two optimization techniques known as Barzilai‐Borwein gradient method and line search. We apply original and integrated ADMM, with various penalty parameter values, on three IMRT treatment planning cases and we compare their performance. Each algorithm terminates once it found a solution within the relative error of 1E‐4 from the optimal solution. We also compare the performance of original and integrated ADMM against the commercial optimization software CPLEX.Results:Our experiments on three different cancer sites (prostate, head and neck, and GYN) indicate that integrated ADMM is much faster than original ADMM (5.8 times faster on average). Moreover, while the performance of original ADMM heavily depends on the selected penalty parameter, integrated ADMM performs very robust against the penalty parameter. Compared to the commercial software CPLEX, integrated ADMM turns out to be around 4–7 times faster.Conclusion:Integrated ADMM is a very efficient optimization algorithm to cope with the large‐scale optimization problems. It is a parallel‐friendly optimization algorithm and provides an idea platform for cloud‐based treatment planning and imaging.
MO‐A‐BRB‐00: Electronic Charting in EBRT and Brachytherapy
Authors: Mechalakos James 
Published: June 2015

The process of converting to an electronic chart for radiation therapy can be daunting. It requires a dedicated committee to first research and choose appropriate software, to review the entire documentation policy and flow of the clinic, to convert this system to electronic form or if necessary, redesign the system to more easily conform to the electronic process. Those making the conversion and those who already use electronic charting would benefit from the shared experience of those who have been through the process in the past. Therefore TG262 was convened to provide guidance on electronic charting for external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy.This course will present the results of an internal survey of task group members on EMR practices in External Beam Radiation Therapy as well as discuss important issues in EMR development and structure for both EBRT and brachytherapy.Learning Objectives:

Be familiarized with common practices and pitfalls in development and maintenance of an electronic chart in Radiation Oncology
Be familiarized with important issues related to electronic charting in External Beam Radiation Therapy
Be familiarized with important issues related to electronic charting in Brachytherapy
MO‐AB‐BRA‐03: Calorimetry‐Based Absorbed Dose to Water Measurements Using Interferometry
Authors: Flores‐Martinez E , Malin M , DeWerd L 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:Interferometry‐based calorimetry is a novel technique to measure radiation‐induced temperature changes allowing the measurement of absorbed dose to water (ADW). There are no mechanical components in the field. This technique also has the possibility of obtaining 2D dose distributions. The goal of this investigation is to calorimetrically‐measure doses between 2.5 and 5 Gy over a single projection in a photon beam using interferometry and compare the results with doses calculated using the TG‐51 linac calibration.Methods:ADW was determined by measuring radiation‐induced phase shifts (PSs) of light passing through water irradiated with a 6 MV photon beam. A 9×9×9 cm3 glass phantom filled with water and placed in an arm of a Michelson interferometer was irradiated with 300, 400, 500 and 600 monitor units. The whole system was thermally insulated to achieve sufficient passive temperature control. The depth of measurement was 4.5 cm with a field size of 7×7 cm2. The intensity of the fringe pattern was monitored with a photodiode and used to calculate the time‐dependent PS curve. Data was acquired 60 s before and after the irradiation. The radiation‐induced PS was calculated by taking the difference in the pre‐ and post‐irradiation drifts extrapolated to the midpoint of the irradiation. Results were compared to computed doses.Results:Average comparison of calculated ADW values with interferometry‐measured values showed an agreement to within 9.5%. k=1 uncertainties were 4.3% for calculations and 14.7% for measurements. The dominant source of uncertainty for the measurements was a temperature drift of about 30 µK/s caused by heat conduction from the interferometer's surroundings.Conclusion:This work presented the first absolute ADW measurements using interferometry in the dose range of linac‐based radiotherapy. Future work to improve measurements’ reproducibility includes the implementation of active thermal control techniques.
MO‐AB‐207‐00: ACR Update in MR, CT, Nuclear Medicine, and Mammography
Authors: Kofler James 
Published: June 2015

A goal of an imaging accreditation program is to ensure adequate image quality, verify appropriate staff qualifications, and to assure patient and personnel safety. Currently, more than 35,000 facilities in 10 modalities have been accredited by the American College of Radiology (ACR), making the ACR program one of the most prolific accreditation options in the U.S. In addition, ACR is one of the accepted accreditations required by some state laws, CMS/MIPPA insurance and others. Familiarity with the ACR accreditation process is therefore essential to clinical diagnostic medical physicists. Maintaining sufficient knowledge of the ACR program must include keeping up‐to‐date as the various modality requirements are refined to better serve the goals of the program and to accommodate newer technologies and practices. This session consists of presentations from authorities in four ACR accreditation modality programs, including magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, nuclear medicine, and mammography. Each speaker will discuss the general components of the modality program and address any recent changes to the requirements.Learning Objectives:

To understand the requirements of the ACR MR Accreditation program. The discussion will include accreditation of whole‐body general purpose magnets, dedicated extremity systems well as breast MRI accreditation. Anticipated updates to the ACR MRI Quality Control Manual will also be reviewed.
To understand the requirements of the ACR CT accreditation program, including updates to the QC manual as well as updates through the FAQ process.
To understand the requirements of the ACR nuclear medicine accreditation program, and the role of the physicist in annual equipment surveys and the set up and supervision of the routine QC program.
To understand the current ACR MAP Accreditation requirement and present the concepts and structure of the forthcoming ACR Digital Mammography QC Manual and Program.
MO‐AB‐207‐02: ACR Update in MR
Authors: Price R. 
Published: June 2015

A goal of an imaging accreditation program is to ensure adequate image quality, verify appropriate staff qualifications, and to assure patient and personnel safety. Currently, more than 35,000 facilities in 10 modalities have been accredited by the American College of Radiology (ACR), making the ACR program one of the most prolific accreditation options in the U.S. In addition, ACR is one of the accepted accreditations required by some state laws, CMS/MIPPA insurance and others. Familiarity with the ACR accreditation process is therefore essential to clinical diagnostic medical physicists. Maintaining sufficient knowledge of the ACR program must include keeping up‐to‐date as the various modality requirements are refined to better serve the goals of the program and to accommodate newer technologies and practices. This session consists of presentations from authorities in four ACR accreditation modality programs, including magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, nuclear medicine, and mammography. Each speaker will discuss the general components of the modality program and address any recent changes to the requirements.Learning Objectives:

To understand the requirements of the ACR MR Accreditation program. The discussion will include accreditation of whole‐body general purpose magnets, dedicated extremity systems well as breast MRI accreditation. Anticipated updates to the ACR MRI Quality Control Manual will also be reviewed.
To understand the requirements of the ACR CT accreditation program, including updates to the QC manual as well as updates through the FAQ process.
To understand the requirements of the ACR nuclear medicine accreditation program, and the role of the physicist in annual equipment surveys and the set up and supervision of the routine QC program.
To understand the current ACR MAP Accreditation requirement and present the concepts and structure of the forthcoming ACR Digital Mammography QC Manual and Program.
MO‐AB‐201‐03: The Alphabet Soup of Regulatory Compliance: Being Prepared for Inspections
Authors: Kroger L. 
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‐210‐03: Workshop
Authors: Lu Z. 
Published: June 2015

The goal of this ultrasound hands‐on workshop is to demonstrate advancements in high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and to demonstrate quality control (QC) testing in diagnostic ultrasound.HIFU is a therapeutic modality that uses ultrasound waves as carriers of energy. HIFU is used to focus a beam of ultrasound energy into a small volume at specific target locations within the body. The focused beam causes localized high temperatures and produces a well‐defined regions of necrosis. This completely non‐invasive technology has great potential for tumor ablation and targeted drug delivery. At the workshop, attendees will see configurations, applications, and hands‐on demonstrations with on‐site instructors at separate stations.The involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic ultrasound imaging service is increasing due to QC and accreditation requirements. At the workshop, an array of ultrasound testing phantoms and ultrasound scanners will be provided for attendees to learn diagnostic ultrasound QC in a hands‐on environment with live demonstrations of the techniques.Target audience: Medical physicists and other medical professionals in diagnostic imaging and radiation oncology with interest in high‐intensity focused ultrasound and in diagnostic ultrasound QC.Learning Objectives:

Learn ultrasound physics and safety for HIFU applications through live demonstrations
Get an overview of the state‐of‐the art in HIFU technologies and equipment
Gain familiarity with common elements of a quality control program for diagnostic ultrasound imaging
Identify QC tools available for testing diagnostic ultrasound systems and learn how to use these tools
List of supporting vendors for HIFU and diagnostic ultrasound QC hands‐on workshop:

Philips Healthcare
Alpinion Medical Systems
Verasonics, Inc
Zonare Medical Systems, Inc
Computerized Imaging Reference Systems (CIRS), Inc.
GAMMEX, Inc.,
Cablon Medical BV
Steffen Sammet: NIH/NCI grant 5R25CA132822, NIH/NINDS grant 5R25NS080949 and Philips Healthcare research grant C32
MO‐B‐213‐00: AAPM Professional Liability Insurance Update
Authors: Jordan David 
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‐213‐01: New Coverage Options in the AAPM Professional Liability Insurance Program
Authors: Orfali A. 
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.