bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
MO‐E‐213‐00: What Is Medical Physics Without Radiation Safety?
Authors: Rehani Madan 
Published: June 2015

The focus of work of medical physicists in 1980's was on quality control and quality assurance. Radiation safety was important but was dominated by occupational radiation protection. A series of over exposures of patients in radiotherapy, nuclear medicine and observation of skin injuries among patients undergoing interventional procedures in 1990's started creating the need for focus on patient protection. It gave medical physicists new directions to develop expertise in patient dosimetry and dose management. Publications creating awareness on cancer risks from CT in early part of the current century and over exposures in CT in 2008 brought radiation risks in public domain and created challenging situations for medical physicists. Increasing multiple exposures of individual patient and patient doses of few tens of mSv or exceeding 100 mSv are increasing the role of medical physicists. Expansion of usage of fluoroscopy in the hands of clinical professionals with hardly any training in radiation protection shall require further role for medical physicists. The increasing publications in journals, recent changes in Safety Standards, California law, all increase responsibilities of medical physicists in patient protection. Newer technological developments in dose efficiency and protective devices increase percentage of time devoted by medical physicists on radiation protection activities. Without radiation protection, the roles, responsibilities and day‐to‐day involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic radiology becomes questionable. In coming years either medical radiation protection may emerge as a specialty or medical physicists will have to keep major part of day‐to‐day work on radiation protection.Learning Objectives:

To understand how radiation protection has been increasing its role in day‐to‐day activities of medical physicist
To be aware about international safety Standards, national and State regulations that require higher attention to radiation protection than in past
To be aware about possible emergence of medical radiation protection as a specialty and challenges for medical physicists.
MO‐E‐213‐01: Increasing Role of Medical Physicist in Radiation Protection
Authors: Rehani M. 
Published: June 2015

The focus of work of medical physicists in 1980's was on quality control and quality assurance. Radiation safety was important but was dominated by occupational radiation protection. A series of over exposures of patients in radiotherapy, nuclear medicine and observation of skin injuries among patients undergoing interventional procedures in 1990's started creating the need for focus on patient protection. It gave medical physicists new directions to develop expertise in patient dosimetry and dose management. Publications creating awareness on cancer risks from CT in early part of the current century and over exposures in CT in 2008 brought radiation risks in public domain and created challenging situations for medical physicists. Increasing multiple exposures of individual patient and patient doses of few tens of mSv or exceeding 100 mSv are increasing the role of medical physicists. Expansion of usage of fluoroscopy in the hands of clinical professionals with hardly any training in radiation protection shall require further role for medical physicists. The increasing publications in journals, recent changes in Safety Standards, California law, all increase responsibilities of medical physicists in patient protection. Newer technological developments in dose efficiency and protective devices increase percentage of time devoted by medical physicists on radiation protection activities. Without radiation protection, the roles, responsibilities and day‐to‐day involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic radiology becomes questionable. In coming years either medical radiation protection may emerge as a specialty or medical physicists will have to keep major part of day‐to‐day work on radiation protection.Learning Objectives:

To understand how radiation protection has been increasing its role in day‐to‐day activities of medical physicist
To be aware about international safety Standards, national and State regulations that require higher attention to radiation protection than in past
To be aware about possible emergence of medical radiation protection as a specialty and challenges for medical physicists.
MO‐E‐213‐03: Newer Radiation Protection Requirements in Last Decade
Authors: Clements J. 
Published: June 2015

The focus of work of medical physicists in 1980's was on quality control and quality assurance. Radiation safety was important but was dominated by occupational radiation protection. A series of over exposures of patients in radiotherapy, nuclear medicine and observation of skin injuries among patients undergoing interventional procedures in 1990's started creating the need for focus on patient protection. It gave medical physicists new directions to develop expertise in patient dosimetry and dose management. Publications creating awareness on cancer risks from CT in early part of the current century and over exposures in CT in 2008 brought radiation risks in public domain and created challenging situations for medical physicists. Increasing multiple exposures of individual patient and patient doses of few tens of mSv or exceeding 100 mSv are increasing the role of medical physicists. Expansion of usage of fluoroscopy in the hands of clinical professionals with hardly any training in radiation protection shall require further role for medical physicists. The increasing publications in journals, recent changes in Safety Standards, California law, all increase responsibilities of medical physicists in patient protection. Newer technological developments in dose efficiency and protective devices increase percentage of time devoted by medical physicists on radiation protection activities. Without radiation protection, the roles, responsibilities and day‐to‐day involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic radiology becomes questionable. In coming years either medical radiation protection may emerge as a specialty or medical physicists will have to keep major part of day‐to‐day work on radiation protection.Learning Objectives:

To understand how radiation protection has been increasing its role in day‐to‐day activities of medical physicist
To be aware about international safety Standards, national and State regulations that require higher attention to radiation protection than in past
To be aware about possible emergence of medical radiation protection as a specialty and challenges for medical physicists.
MO‐E‐BRD‐03
Authors: Libby B. 
Published: June 2015

Is Non‐invasive Image‐Guided Breast Brachytherapy Good? – Jess Hiatt, MSNon‐invasive Image‐Guided Breast Brachytherapy (NIBB) is an emerging therapy for breast boost treatments as well as Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI) using HDR surface breast brachytherapy. NIBB allows for smaller treatment volumes while maintaining optimal target coverage. Considering the real‐time image‐guidance and immobilization provided by the NIBB modality, minimal margins around the target tissue are necessary.Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation in brachytherapy: is shorter better? ‐ Dorin Todor, PhD VCUA review of balloon and strut devices will be provided together with the origins of APBI: the interstitial multi‐catheter implant. A dosimetric and radiobiological perspective will help point out the evolution in breast brachytherapy, both in terms of devices and the protocols/clinical trials under which these devices are used. Improvements in imaging, delivery modalities and convenience are among the factors driving the ultrashort fractionation schedules but our understanding of both local control and toxicities associated with various treatments is lagging. A comparison between various schedules, from a radiobiological perspective, will be given together with a critical analysis of the issues.

to review and understand the evolution and development of APBI using brachytherapy methods
to understand the basis and limitations of radio‐biological ‘equivalence’ between fractionation schedules
to review commonly used and proposed fractionation schedules
Intra‐operative breast brachytherapy: Is one stop shopping best?‐ Bruce Libby, PhD. University of VirginiaA review of intraoperative breast brachytherapy will be presented, including the Targit‐A and other trials that have used electronic brachytherapy. More modern approaches, in which the lumpectomy procedure is integrated into an APBI workflow, will also be discussed.Learning Objectives:

To review past and current clinical trials for IORT
To discuss lumpectomy‐scan‐plan‐treat workflow for IORT
MO‐E‐BRB‐04: Real‐Time Exit‐Fluence Delivery Validation
Authors: Siebers J. 
Published: June 2015

Recent high profile reports of technical failures and human errors causing severe radiation‐ induced injuries and deaths come in support of the sustained efforts to ensure patient safety in the delivery of radiation treatments. In addition, highly conformal radiation therapies and escalated fraction doses mandate increased and sustained accuracy of the entire radiotherapy process. Consequently, and as a Result of AAPM and ASTRO led efforts patient specific quality assurance for specialized radiation treatments such as IMRT, SRS/SBRT and Arc Therapy had become a three‐tier process: Pre‐treatment, during treatment, and post treatment patient specific QA. Traditional patient QA consists of pre‐treatment data transfer integrity dosimetric verifications and during‐treatment geometric verifications. However, as treatment adaptation becomes closer to deployment in the clinics, during treatment validation via exit detectors had become a realistic QA option, permitting plan assessment in near real time. Post‐treatment, machine logs allow comparisons of a range of mechanical parameters. A combination of these techniques could be used in evaluating inter‐fraction, and intra‐fraction delivery over a long time period such as an year, to evaluate the significant errors per site, per treatment technique. This type of data mining over longer periods of time provides the potential to recognize suboptimal radiation treatments, while allowing to identify systematic, possibly significant errors. This would allow creation of a data base of realized errors, small and large in dosimetry that could be for process or equipment improvement. This educational symposium will describe and review patient QA techniques, results, and strategies for patient specific quality assurance.Learning Objectives:

review the goals of pre‐treatment QA for various specialized procedures
review methods and means for pre‐treatment QA, limitations and tolerances
review the scenarios where Varian/Tomo Log files could be used.
review error detection via log file analysis
Learn how exit detector signal recorded in log file could be used to improve patient safety
understand real‐time EPID‐based transmission dosimetry methods
understand the goals of real‐time delivery monitoring
CMS Innovation grant. Rapid response supportive and palliative care program for patients with advanced cancer, starts July, 2012; Accuray Inc. Exit detector based QA software evaluation, Sept, 2012‐Sept, 2013; ROI GRant from ASTRO “Safety and Quality: IMRT treatment delivery accuracy”
MO‐FG‐BRD‐00: Real‐Time Imaging and Tracking Techniques for Intrafractional Motion Management
Authors: Fahimian Benjamin 
Published: June 2015

Intrafraction target motion is a prominent complicating factor in the accurate targeting of radiation within the body. Methods compensating for target motion during treatment, such as gating and dynamic tumor tracking, depend on the delineation of target location as a function of time during delivery. A variety of techniques for target localization have been explored and are under active development; these include beam‐level imaging of radio‐opaque fiducials, fiducial‐less tracking of anatomical landmarks, tracking of electromagnetic transponders, optical imaging of correlated surrogates, and volumetric imaging within treatment delivery. The Joint Imaging and Therapy Symposium will provide an overview of the techniques for real‐time imaging and tracking, with special focus on emerging modes of implementation across different modalities. In particular, the symposium will explore developments in 1) Beam‐level kilovoltage X‐ray imaging techniques, 2) EPID‐based megavoltage X‐ray tracking, 3) Dynamic tracking using electromagnetic transponders, and 4) MRI‐based soft‐tissue tracking during radiation delivery.Learning Objectives:

Understand the fundamentals of real‐time imaging and tracking techniques
Learn about emerging techniques in the field of real‐time tracking
Distinguish between the advantages and disadvantages of different tracking modalities
Understand the role of real‐time tracking techniques within the clinical delivery work‐flow
MO‐FG‐BRD‐03: Real‐Time Imaging and Tracking Techniques for Intrafractional Motion Management: EM Tracking
Authors: Keall P. 
Published: June 2015

Intrafraction target motion is a prominent complicating factor in the accurate targeting of radiation within the body. Methods compensating for target motion during treatment, such as gating and dynamic tumor tracking, depend on the delineation of target location as a function of time during delivery. A variety of techniques for target localization have been explored and are under active development; these include beam‐level imaging of radio‐opaque fiducials, fiducial‐less tracking of anatomical landmarks, tracking of electromagnetic transponders, optical imaging of correlated surrogates, and volumetric imaging within treatment delivery. The Joint Imaging and Therapy Symposium will provide an overview of the techniques for real‐time imaging and tracking, with special focus on emerging modes of implementation across different modalities. In particular, the symposium will explore developments in 1) Beam‐level kilovoltage X‐ray imaging techniques, 2) EPID‐based megavoltage X‐ray tracking, 3) Dynamic tracking using electromagnetic transponders, and 4) MRI‐based soft‐tissue tracking during radiation delivery.Learning Objectives:

Understand the fundamentals of real‐time imaging and tracking techniques
Learn about emerging techniques in the field of real‐time tracking
Distinguish between the advantages and disadvantages of different tracking modalities
Understand the role of real‐time tracking techniques within the clinical delivery work‐flow
MO‐FG‐BRB‐00: The Global Cancer Challenge: What Can We Do?
Authors: Van Dyk Jacob 
Published: June 2015

The global burden of cancer is growing rapidly with an estimated 15 million new cases per year worldwide in 2015, growing to 19 million by 2025 and 24 million by 2035. The largest component of this growth will occur in low‐to‐middle income countries (LMICs). About half of these cases will require radiation treatment. The gap for available cancer treatment, including radiation therapy, between high‐income countries (HICs) and LMICs is enormous. Accurate data and quantitative models to project the needs and the benefits of cancer treatment are a critical first step in closing the large cancer divide between LMICs and HICs. In this context, the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) has developed a Global Task Force on Radiotherapy for Cancer Control (GTFRCC) with a charge to answer the question as to what it will take to close the gap between what exists today and reasonable access to radiation therapy globally by 2035 and what the potential clinical and economic benefits are for doing this. The Task Force has determined the projections of cancer incidence and the infrastructure required to provide access to radiation therapy globally. Furthermore it has shown that appropriate investment not only yields improved clinical outcomes for millions of patients but that it also provides an overall economic gain throughout all the income settings where this investment is made. This symposium will summarize the facets associated with this global cancer challenge by reviewing the cancer burden, looking at the requirements for radiation therapy, reviewing the benefits of providing such therapy both from a clinical and economic perspective and finally by looking at what approaches can be used to aid in the alleviation of this global cancer challenge. The speakers are world renowned experts in global public health issues (R. Atun), medical physics (D. Jaffray) and radiation oncology (N. Coleman).Learning Objectives:

To describe the global cancer challenge and the corresponding potential benefits of addressing this challenge.
To describe what radiation therapy infrastructure, in terms of facilities, equipment and personnel, will be required to address this challenge.
To describe models of addressing personnel and infrastructure mobilization and capacity building within regions where significant cancer treatment disparities exist.
MO‐FG‐BRB‐02: Uniform Access to Radiation Therapy by 2035: Global Task Force on Radiotherapy for Cancer Control
Authors: Jaffray D. 
Published: June 2015

The global burden of cancer is growing rapidly with an estimated 15 million new cases per year worldwide in 2015, growing to 19 million by 2025 and 24 million by 2035. The largest component of this growth will occur in low‐to‐middle income countries (LMICs). About half of these cases will require radiation treatment. The gap for available cancer treatment, including radiation therapy, between high‐income countries (HICs) and LMICs is enormous. Accurate data and quantitative models to project the needs and the benefits of cancer treatment are a critical first step in closing the large cancer divide between LMICs and HICs. In this context, the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) has developed a Global Task Force on Radiotherapy for Cancer Control (GTFRCC) with a charge to answer the question as to what it will take to close the gap between what exists today and reasonable access to radiation therapy globally by 2035 and what the potential clinical and economic benefits are for doing this. The Task Force has determined the projections of cancer incidence and the infrastructure required to provide access to radiation therapy globally. Furthermore it has shown that appropriate investment not only yields improved clinical outcomes for millions of patients but that it also provides an overall economic gain throughout all the income settings where this investment is made. This symposium will summarize the facets associated with this global cancer challenge by reviewing the cancer burden, looking at the requirements for radiation therapy, reviewing the benefits of providing such therapy both from a clinical and economic perspective and finally by looking at what approaches can be used to aid in the alleviation of this global cancer challenge. The speakers are world renowned experts in global public health issues (R. Atun), medical physics (D. Jaffray) and radiation oncology (N. Coleman).Learning Objectives:

To describe the global cancer challenge and the corresponding potential benefits of addressing this challenge.
To describe what radiation therapy infrastructure, in terms of facilities, equipment and personnel, will be required to address this challenge.
To describe models of addressing personnel and infrastructure mobilization and capacity building within regions where significant cancer treatment disparities exist.
MO‐FG‐BRA‐03: A Monte‐Carlo Study of Cellular Dosimetry of Radioactive Gold‐Palladium Nanoparticles
Authors: Ma Y , Michaud F , Fortin M , Beaulieu L 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:Radioactive gold‐palladium nanoparticles (1⁰3Pd:Pd@Au NPs) are being developed for prostate cancer brachytherapy. Photons emitted by the radioisotope palladium (photon energy: 20.1 and 23.0 keV), interacting with gold‐coating of NPs, lead to enhanced energy distribution in nucleus. Here, a simple cellular model was studied using detailed track‐structure method.Methods:Geant4‐DNA was used with auger electrons enabled. Biological cell was modeled as a sphere of radius r=5 µm that were immersed in a fluid containing large number of NPs at different concentrations (S=1, 2.15, 5.1, 17.2 mg‐Au/g‐H2O). Nucleus was modeled as a concentric sphere (r=3µm). Thickness of gold‐coating on 1⁰3Pd core was 15nm, 20nm and 25nm, respectively. A scenario of NP diffusion was investigated, where S=5.1 mg‐Au/g‐H2O outside cell and S=1 mg‐Au/g‐H2O in cytoplasm. 101⁰ 1⁰3Pd decays were simulated for each combination of NP concentration and gold‐coating.Results:A uniform increase in energy deposition (Edep) is observed in cell nucleus and the energy enhancement ratio (EER) is 1.16, 1.22 and 1.3 for 15nm, 20nm and 25nm of gold ‐coatings, respectively. Edep at the center of nucleus is increased by a factor of 1.47, 2.51 and 5.54 when the NP concentration in the cytoplasm increases from 1 mg‐Au/g‐H2O to 2.15, 5.10 and 17.2 mg‐Au/g‐H2O, respectively. When NPs diffuse into cytoplasm, the mean value of Edep in nucleus increases from 0.42 to 1.13 MeV per 10⁹ decays (GBq‐Second) of 1⁰3Pd and the maximum value increases from 0.54 to 2.5 MeV per GBq‐Second.Conclusion:These results suggest that 1⁰3Pd:Pd@Au NPs constitute a promising nanotherapeutic agent. Ongoing studies use transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of prostate cancer.
MO‐FG‐BRA‐05: Next Generation Radiotherapy Biomaterials Loaded With Gold Nanoparticles
Authors: Cifter G , Sajo E , Korideck H , Kumar R , Sridhar S , Cormack R , Makrigiorgos G , Ngwa W 
Published: June 2015

Purpose:It has been proposed that routinely used inert radiotherapy (RT) biomaterials (e.g. fiducials, spacers) can be upgraded to smarter ones by coating/loading them with radiosensitizing gold nanoparticles (GNPs), for sustained in‐situ release after implantation to enhance RT. In this work, we developed prototypes of such RT biomaterials and investigated the sustained release of GNPs from the biomaterials as a function of design parameters.Methods:Prototype smart biomaterials were produced by incorporating the GNPs in poly(D,L‐lactide‐co‐glycolide) (PLGA) polymer millirods during the gel phase of production. For comparison, commercially available spacers were also coated with a polymer film loaded with fluorescent GNP. Optical/spectroscopy methods were used to monitor in vitro release of GNPs over time as a function of different design parameters: polymer weighting, type, and initial (loading) GNP concentrations. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry was employed to verify GNP release.Results:Results showed that gold nanoparticles could be successfully loaded in the new RT biomaterial prototypes. Burst release of GNPs could be achieved within 1 to 25 days depending on the preparation approach. Burst release was followed by sustained release profile over time. The amount of released GNP increased with increasing loading concentration as expected. The release profiles could also be customized as a function of polymer weighting, or preparation approaches.Conclusion:Considered together, our results highlight potential for the development of next generation RT biomaterials loaded with GNPs customizable to different RT schedules. Such biomaterials could be employed as needed instead of currently used inert spacers/fiducials at no additional inconvenience to patients, to enhance RT.