bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
MO‐B‐304‐02: Preparing a Manuscript for the JACMP
Authors: Starkschall G. 
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‐03: Systems Engineering Tools for Treatment Planning Process Optimization in Radiation Medicine
Authors: Kapur A. 
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‐213‐03: An Innovative Solution for Data Aggregation and Collection to Improve Quality of Peer Review Using a Cloud Based Platform Within a Large Oncology Network
Authors: Limmer J , De Jesus A , Henrich D , Henrich T , Kasturi T , Gogineni K 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:Introduce a cloud‐based platform in a large multi‐site Oncology network which allows for the capture of empirical data, in aggregate, across multiple sites for the purpose of process standardization and metrics reporting as a pathway for physician and physicist peer review.Methods:The cloud‐based system stores site profiles, technical elements, and patient specific clinical elements for each facility in the peer review process. A total of 137 sites across 17 states were added including basic site info, staffing, and equipment infrastructure in order to prepare the portal for peer review data collection. Evaluation elements specific to oncology peer review were determined at onset. Physician and Physicist quality team meetings were held to define and approve the quality elements used in the peer review portal based on professional society guidelines and best practices. A total of 407 evaluation elements were included for Physician and Physicist evaluation (129, 278 respectively). The combined evaluation elements were defined into 17 main categories and drilled down further to 106 sub categories.Results:13 Physician and Physicist Peer reviews were analyzed at 9 locations for purposes of this abstract. These included a mixture of overall program related and specific patient chart focused reviews. 1923 evaluation elements were answered by a total of 9 Physician and Physicist reviewers (3, 6 respectively). Recommendations were selected on a scaled approach. General recommendation, Minor Recommendation and Major Recommendation were documented on an indicator of severity while Commendation was used to document findings of exceptional attributes in care.Conclusion:Using a cloud‐based platform is a valuable solution to resolve the issues that have inundated peer review issues of the past. Technology combined with strategic vision will change the future of peer review to administer standardization and predictive analytics throughout an entire network to raise the level of quality patient care.
MO‐D‐213‐06: Quantitative Image Quality Metrics Are for Physicists, Not Radiologists: How to Communicate to Your Radiologists Using Their Language
Authors: Szczykutowicz T , Rubert N , Ranallo F 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:A framework for explaining differences in image quality to non‐technical audiences in medial imaging is needed. Currently, this task is something that is learned “on the job.” The lack of a formal methodology for communicating optimal acquisition parameters into the clinic effectively mitigates many technological advances. As a community, medical physicists need to be held responsible for not only advancing image science, but also for ensuring its proper use in the clinic. This work outlines a framework that bridges the gap between the results from quantitative image quality metrics like detectability, MTF, and NPS and their effect on specific anatomical structures present in diagnostic imaging tasks.Methods:Specific structures of clinical importance were identified for a body, an extremity, a chest, and a temporal bone protocol. Using these structures, quantitative metrics were used to identify the parameter space that should yield optimal image quality constrained within the confines of clinical logistics and dose considerations. The reading room workflow for presenting the proposed changes for imaging each of these structures is presented. The workflow consists of displaying images for physician review consisting of different combinations of acquisition parameters guided by quantitative metrics. Examples of using detectability index, MTF, NPS, noise and noise non‐uniformity are provided. During review, the physician was forced to judge the image quality solely on those features they need for diagnosis, not on the overall “look” of the image.Results:We found that in many cases, use of this framework settled mis‐agreements between physicians. Once forced to judge images on the ability to detect specific structures inter reader agreement was obtained.Conclusion:This framework will provide consulting, research/industrial, or in‐house physicists with clinically relevant imaging tasks to guide reading room image review. This framework avoids use of the overall “look” or “feel” to dictate acquisition parameter selection.Equipment grants GE Healthcare
MO‐D‐213‐08: Remote Dosimetric Credentialing for Clinical Trials with the Virtual EPID Standard Phantom Audit (VESPA)
Authors: Lehmann J , Miri N , Vial P , Hatton J , Zwan B , Craig A , Beenstock V , Molloy T , Sloan K , Greer P 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:Report on implementation of a Virtual EPID Standard Phantom Audit (VESPA) for IMRT to support credentialing of facilities for clinical trials. Data is acquired by local facility staff and transferred electronically. Analysis is performed centrally.Methods:VESPA is based on published methods and a clinically established IMRT QA procedure, here extended to multi‐vendor equipment. Facilities, provided with web‐based comprehensive instructions and CT datasets, create IMRT treatment plans. They deliver the treatments directly to their EPID without phantom or couch in the beam. They also deliver a set of simple calibration fields. Collected EPID images are uploaded electronically. In the analysis, the dose is projected back into a virtual phantom and 3D gamma analysis is performed. 2D dose planes and linear dose profiles can be analysed when needed for clarification.Results:Pilot facilities covering a range of planning and delivery systems have performed data acquisition and upload successfully. Analysis showed agreement comparable to local experience with the method. Advantages of VESPA are (1) fast turnaround mainly driven by the facility's capability to provide the requested EPID images, (2) the possibility for facilities performing the audit in parallel, as there is no need to wait for a phantom, (3) simple and efficient credentialing for international facilities, (4) a large set of data points, and (5) a reduced impact on resources and environment as there is no need to transport heavy phantoms or audit staff. Limitations of the current implementation of VESPA for trials credentialing are that it does not provide absolute dosimetry, therefore a Level 1 audit still required, and that it relies on correctly delivered open calibration fields, which are used for system calibration.Conclusion:The implemented EPID based IMRT audit system promises to dramatically improve credentialing efficiency for clinical trials and wider applications. VESPA for VMAT will follow soon.
MO‐DE‐304‐02: Diagnostic Workforce Subcommittee Status and Direction
Authors: Gress D. 
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‐02: Radiological Physics and Surface Lesion Treatments with Electronic Brachytherapy
Authors: Fulkerson R. 
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‐DE‐BRA‐01: Enhancing Radiation Physics Instruction Through Gamification and E‐Learning
Authors: Driewer J , Burchell M , Fowler Z , Lei Y , Morgan B , Zheng D , Zhou S 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:This project sought to “gamify” the instruction of radiation interaction physics concepts for technology students. Gamification applies game mechanics and user interactions in active learning contexts. In one part of this project, a self‐guided eModule was developed for conceptual radiation interaction instruction. In a second part, a web‐based game, Particle Launch (http://particle‐launcher.ist.unomaha.edu), was created to challenge students to quickly apply radiation interaction concepts in a way that is stimulating and motivating.Methods:The eModule, focused on conceptual interaction physics, was designed in Adobe Captivate and incorporates animation, web videos, and assessment questions in order to generate student interest. Navigating the whole module takes 40 minutes for beginners. Assessments after three main sections are comprised of 3–4 questions randomly selected from a question pool. In collaboration with the University of Nebraska at Omaha's College of Information Science and Technology, the Particle Launch game was created with the Unity gaming engine and designed with a game‐play look and feel. The object of the game is to utilize different particles, energies, and directions to destroy a target given a limited number of resources and time to complete the task. A rewards system encourages accurate shots.Results:The eModule part of the project encourages a flipped classroom model in which class time is devoted to application of concepts rather than information‐based lectures. Currently, eModule assessments are not tracked but this feature could be incorporated to encourage participation. Furthermore, in a class of five technology students, the game was found to be fun and engaging and had the effect of reinforcing basic concepts from the eModule.Conclusion:Gamification has significant potential to alter medical physics instruction. Game‐play feedback is an important part of the learning process. Students found Particle Launch inviting and challenging and further research could help game design.This project was generously supported by the Office of the Vice‐Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the University of Nebraska Medical Center.
MO‐DE‐BRA‐06: MrRSCAL: A Radiological Simulation Tool for Resident Education
Authors: Parker W , Yanasak N 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:The goal of this project was to create a readily accessible, comprehensive‐yet‐flexible interactive MRI simulation tool for use in training and education of radiology residents in particular. This tool was developed to take the place of an MR scanner in laboratory activities, as magnet time has become scarce while hospitals are optimizing clinical scheduling for improved throughput.Methods:MrRSCAL (Magnetic resonance Resident Simulation Console for Active Learning) was programmed and coded using Matlab on a Mac workstation utilizing OS X platform. MR‐based brain images were obtained from one of the co‐authors and processed to generate parametric maps. Scanner sounds are also generated via mp3 convolution of a single MR gradient slew with a time‐profile of gradient waveforms.Results:MrRSCAL facilitates the simulation of multiple MR sequences with the ability to alter MR parameters via an intuitive GUI control panel. The application allows the user to gain real‐time understanding of image transformation when varying these said parameters by examining the resulting images. Lab procedures can be loaded and displayed for more directed study. The panel is also configurable, providing a simple interface for elementary labs or a full array of controls for the expert user.Conclusion:Our introduction of MrRSCAL, which is readily available to users with a current laptop or workstation, allows for individual or group study of MR image acquisition with immediate educational feedback as the MR parameters are manipulated. MrRSCAL can be used at any time and any place once installed, offering a new tool for reviewing relaxometric and artifact principles when studying for boards or investigating properties of a pulse sequence. This tool promises to be extremely useful in conveying traditionally difficult and abstract concepts involved with MR to the radiology resident and other medical professionals at large.
MO‐DE‐210‐03
Authors: Ding K. 
Published: June 2015

Ultrasound imaging is an attractive method for image guided radiation treatment (IGRT), by itself or to complement other imaging modalities. It is inexpensive, portable and provides good soft tissue contrast. For challenging soft tissue targets such as pancreatic cancer, ultrasound imaging can be used in combination with pre‐treatment MRI and/or CT to transfer important anatomical features for target localization at time of treatment. The non‐invasive and non‐ionizing nature of ultrasound imaging is particularly powerful for intra‐fraction localization and monitoring. Recognizing these advantages, efforts are being made to incorporate novel robotic approaches to position and manipulate the ultrasound probe during irradiation. These recent enabling developments hold potential to bring ultrasound imaging to a new level of IGRT applications. However, many challenges, not limited to image registration, robotic deployment, probe interference and image acquisition rate, need to be addressed to realize the full potential of IGRT with ultrasound imaging.Learning Objectives:

Understand the benefits and limitations in using ultrasound to augment MRI and/or CT for motion monitoring during radiation therapy delivery.
Understanding passive and active robotic approaches to implement ultrasound imaging for intra‐fraction monitoring.
Understand issues of probe interference with radiotherapy treatment.
Understand the critical clinical workflow for effective and reproducible IGRT using ultrasound guidance.
The work of X.L. is supported in part by Elekta; J.W. and K.D. is supported in part by a NIH grant R01 CA161613 and by Elekta; D.H. is support in part by a NIH grant R41 CA174089.