bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
TU‐C‐I‐611‐01: Recent Developments in CT Technology
Authors: Kalender W 
Published: June 2005

The first lecture in the symposium “The New CT” will cover recent developments in hardware. This relates to the scanner mechanics, the x‐ray source, and the detector system, but also to new designs such as C‐arm and micro‐CT systems. The largest portion will be dedicated to detector concepts and characteristics. With rotation times below 0.5 s, modern clinical CT systems pose increasing demands on the mechanical design of the scanner and of all its components. These are contrasted by the demands of C‐arm systems using flat panel detector where rotation times are typically between 5 and 20 s. Due to the increased rotation speed in clinical CT, x‐ray power levels increase accordingly to allow for unimpaired image quality, in particular unaltered noise levels. The latest developments in x‐ray source technology, which offer power levels of 80 to 100 kW, will be reviewed and explained. CT detector technology has received remarkable interest in the past years. The continuous development from single‐slice to multi‐slice systems, including detectors allowing the simultaneous acquisition of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 32, 40, and 64 slices, has even been viewed as the “slice race” or the “slice war” in the media. The technological basis will be reviewed. In particular, the question if this development shall and will continue will be discussed. This also includes the potential role of flat panel detectors which have come into use with C‐arm systems and which are now being used frequently for interventional CT and for CT angiography. The presentation will conclude with a short review of dose management and micro‐CT systems. Conflict of Interest : WAK is a consultant to Siemens Medical Solutions.Educational Objectives:1. to understand the detector concepts presently in use in clinical CT2. to understand the distinction between multi‐row detectors and multi‐slice scanning3. to understand the concepts and requirements for exposure control systems
TU‐D‐I‐609‐03: Computer‐Aided Detection (CAD) in the Laboratory and the Clinical Environment
Authors: Gur D 
Published: June 2005

Computer‐Aided Detection (CAD) is intended to be used in a specific way and several studies have shown that when it is used appropriately improvements in performance can be realized. The effect seems to be much more noticeable in the laboratory than in the clinic. Data ascertained in both environments clearly suggest that the measurement methodology is extremely important as is the actual use of CAD as a part of the clinical workflow. Our observations suggest the following: 1) regardless of the actual improvement (or not) in accuracy, CAD is an important tool; 2) most radiologist do not use it in the clinical environment as originally intended; 3) comparison of sequential viewing “without” followed by “with” CAD may not be the appropriate/optimal way to analyze accuracy improvements; 4) change in detection rates are expected to be low and temporary, while change in average size (or stage) are expected to be small and persistent; 5) performance of the CAD alone does affect observer performance; 6) reliance on CAD in the area of micro‐calcifications may result in an increase in biopsy rates; 7) there is a significant difference in the performance of current CAD systems in regards to the detection of micro‐calcifications and masses, and this difference results in a significant difference in the level of reliance on CAD results with respect to the two abnormalities. These observations and the supporting experimental data will be shown and discussed.Educational Objectives:1. Understanding the difficulty in measuring performance changes with the incorporation of CAD technology into the clinical environment.2. Understanding the importance of study design in measuring the impact of CAD technology.3. Understanding the magnitude of the “human” factor in observer performance studies.
TU‐E‐P‐618‐01: Maintenance of Certification Update, MOC Educational Opportunities and CARE Update
Authors: Herman M , Hendee W , Morin R , Mills M 
Published: June 2005

The official beginning of the ABR Maintenance of Certification program for medical physicists began this year. Many have registered and many more have questions. The purpose of this session is to present a brief review of the ABR MOC program, its current status and to delve into some of the details related to successfully fulfilling the MOC process. The physics trustees of the ABR will first present a review of the MOC program as it is currently being implemented for medical physicists. The driving forces behind MOC as well as the four essential components of the program, Professional Standing, Lifelong Learning/Self Assessment, Cognitive Expertise, Assessment of Practice Performance, will be reviewed. Examples will be provided in each case to help medical physicists understand the details of the process. The web‐based process will be outlined. Specific issues related to individuals who have less than ten years until their certificate expires and to those certified by ABMP will be addressed. The MOC presentation will be followed by presentations from the chair of the ACR Commission on Medical Physics and the Chairman of the American College of Medical Physics, both who will address opportunities and developing programs aimed at providing the essential continuing education credits necessary for each of us to maintain certification. The final portion of this session will be dedicated to an update on the CARE bill. The Alliance for Quality Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (of which both the AAPM and ACMP are members) met again in March 2005 to further develop, in anticipation of passage of the Care Bill, statutes designed to specify the training and experience of all medical professions performing or planning medical imaging and radiation therapy. The Bill, as written, is designed to include both Medical Physicists and Medical Dosimetrists in the proposed regulation. The CARE bill was recently reintroduced in the US congress. An opportunity to ask questions of the speakers will be provided at the end of the session.Educational Objectives:1. To review the current ABR maintenance of certification program2. To understand the process for all time limited certificate holders3. To understand mechanisms offered by ACR and ACMP to obtain MOC credits4. To review the current status and implications of the CARE Bill
TU‐E‐T‐6E‐04: The Dosimetry Training Tool (DTT) Project
Authors: Boyer A , Kaylor S 
Published: June 2005

Goal: A program was funded in 2002 by the NCI to produce and support a web‐based computer‐aided distant learning tool for training medical dosimetrists. Medical physicists, radiation oncologists, and medical dosimetrists have served as volunteer authors of the 24 modules in the tool consistent with the recommendations of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD) for a recognized medical dosimetry training program. The distant learning modules contain assessment instruments for both the summative evaluation of the students as well as the formative evaluation of the learning tools. The intent of this project is for graduates from these programs to apply for the certification examination administered by the Medical Dosimetrist Certification Board when they have accrued the required two years of training and experience. Accomplishments: The authors have developed and refined their individual modules by electronic transmission of course material to developers at Stanford. Over 7000 html pages are currently online. Medical physicists, radiation oncologists, and medical dosimetrists in radiation oncology centers serve as mentors for the students. A test of the tools is being conducted by 73 mentors registered to train approximately 159 students. Resources: Information about the program is available on the web at http: dosimetry.stanford.edu. Upcoming Changes: The html pages are being converted to an xml format using a learning management system being developed at Stanford. The project is now recruiting reviewers to participate in a round of revisions of the existing material that will take place over the next year.Educational Objectives:1. To understand the goals and methods of a web‐based training project for Medical Dosimetrists2. To learn about opportunities to participate in the development of course content in the project.
WE‐A‐I‐611‐01: Cone Beam Reconstruction
Authors: Hsieh J 
Published: June 2005

Over the past decade, x‐ray computed tomography has experienced tremendously technological advancements: the introduction of helical/spiral and multi‐slice/volumetric acquisition. These advancements not only allow improved image quality and enable new clinical applications, but also significantly increase the technical challenges associated with image reconstruction. The first part of this lecture will cover the fundamentals of image reconstruction. For the ease of understanding, we start with an explanation of the central slice theorem (Fourier slice theorem) for a 2D parallel beam geometry. Both theoretical and intuitive approaches are used to illustrate the concept. The reconstruction algorithm is then extended to fan beam geometry by mathematical derivation and graphic description. Using the central slice theorem as the foundation, reconstruction algorithms for helical acquisition are discussed in the second part of the lecture. We analyze, for single slice, the major difference between helical and step‐and‐shoot acquisitions. Implications of different reconstruction approaches on image quality and computational complexity are also discussed. Cone beam reconstruction discussion will start with one of the most popular algorithms: FDK algorithm. The derivation of the algorithm from the fan‐beam case is first described and its extension to helical/spiral acquisition is then presented. The lecture ends with a discussion on some of the most recent advances in cone beam reconstruction, including both approximate and exact methods. Jiang Hsieh is an employee of GE Healthcare Technologies.Educational Objectives:1. Learn the fundamentals of x‐ray CT reconstruction.2. Understand recent advancements in reconstruction algorithms.
WE‐A‐T‐6E‐01: Tools for IMRT QA
Authors: Dogan N 
Published: June 2005

The intensity Modulated Radiation therapy (IMRT) is an advanced form of three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3‐D CRT) that not only uses 3‐D imaging and treatment delivery, but allows for varying radiation beam intensities to produce much more conformal dose distributions than those possible with conventional 3‐D CRT. The complex nature of IMRT planning and delivery impose new requirements for quality assurance (QA) process. A comprehensive QA for IMRT must address the issues involving the verification of pre‐treatment, patient‐specific, delivery and post‐treatment. A complete set of tools, including detectors and phantoms, and techniques are necessary to accomplish the new QA tasks. Some of the detectors used for IMRT QA include films, TLDs, EPIDs, ion chambers and gel dosimeters. Each of them has distinct characteristics and limitations. Several phantoms are also available to accomplish the verification measurements, including cylindrical or a stack of solid water. Tools also have been developed for the dosimetric analysis of the measurements and calculations. Some of these tools include isodose overlay, dose difference histograms, distance‐to‐agreement and gamma evaluation. This presentation will review the QA tools and techniques that are currently in use for all aspects of IMRT process.Educational Objectives:1. To identify the QA tasks involving IMRT2. To identify the requirements for the QA tools3. To describe the QA tools for all aspects of IMRT process4. To explain the limitations of the QA tools5. To compare the IMRT QA tools and techniques
WE‐B‐I‐618‐01: Testing Flat Panel Imaging Systems‐What the Medical Physicist Needs to Know
Authors: Tomlinson J 
Published: June 2005

For many years Medical Physicists have evaluated image quality performance on all medical imaging modalities, except radiographic systems. We have looked at resolution and contrast on MRI, CT, fluoroscopic systems, ultrasound systems, and nuclear medicine cameras; but rarely radiographic equipment, especially those having screen‐film receptors. With the increased presence of flat panel digital radiographic systems, which have dedicated detectors as an integral component, it is appropriate for the Medical Physicist to include an analysis of detail and contrast sensitivity as part of acceptance and routine annual testing. Some vendors provide automated QA hardware and software tools, but these may not give standard results for adequate monitoring. Using commonly available test tools, resolution and contrast sensitivity can be evaluated on each system. Patient radiation dosimetry can also be evaluated for manual and automatic techniques. Test methods and typical results will be presented, which should help the clinical Medical Physicist to monitor and maintain good image quality performance.Educational Objectives:1. The participant will learn simple test methods to evaluate image quality performance on flat panel detectors.2. Typical and expected results will be presented to provide the participant with thresholds of acceptance.
WE‐B‐T‐6E‐01: Source Modelling and Beam Commissioning for Monte Carlo Treatment Planning
Authors: Ma C , Faddegon B , Curran B 
Published: June 2005

Source modeling and beam commissioning are important components of a Monte Carlo based treatment planning system. In this presentation, we will review the current status of Monte Carlo simulations of clinical photon and electron beams and the theories and methodologies used in particle phase space representation and reconstruction for Monte Carlo dose calculation. We will discuss the sensitivity of beam characterization to simulation details, such as beam energy, angle, intensity, and details of the treatment head design. We will review different source models for photon and electron beam characterization and discuss the accuracy and efficiency tradeoffs between full phase space and simplified source models. We will describe the methods and software that have been developed for source modeling and beam commissioning for the clinical implementation of the Monte Carlo method for treatment planning and beam delivery verification. We will present different methods for source parameterization based on simulated phase space data and a standard set of measured beam data including in‐air and in‐phantom output factors and in‐phantom dose distributions. We will discuss problems associated with CT scanning and phantoms that can affect Monte Carlo accuracy. We will describe requirements and procedures for commissioning and acceptance testing of Monte Carlo dose calculation software for radiotherapy treatment planning.Educational Objectives:1. Introduce the Monte Carlo method for clinical photon and electron beam simulations2. Review theories and methodologies for phase space representation and reconstruction3. Present different source models for Monte Carlo dose calculation4. Describe different methods for source parameterization and beam commissioning5. Provide requirements and guidelines for the clinical testing of Monte Carlo dose calculation software for radiotherapy treatment planning
WE‐C‐I‐611‐02: Composite Fluorographic System Evaluation
Authors: Bednarek D , Rudin S , Yadava G , Dohatcu A 
Published: June 2005

This presentation explores methods for the assessment of total fluorographic system performance as related to typical clinical tasks. Many quantitative imaging system analyses focus on separately evaluating the characteristics of the individual system components. Although there is a place for such individualized characterization in product specification and troubleshooting, image quality depends on the interaction of a number of factors including the focal spot characteristics, the projection geometry of the object of interest, scattered radiation, and the image receptor. To determine how the system will perform requires a composite evaluation that includes the net effect of all components impacting image quality under clinical conditions. This is the intent of the NEMA XR 21–2000 Standard that specifies a procedure and phantom “to benchmark cardiac fluoroscopic and fluorographic performance.” This standard provides a qualitative method of evaluation that is dependent on “trained human observers.” For a quantitative analysis, a generalized systems approach has been developed to determine the GMTF, GNNPS, GNEQ and GDQE. This presentation reviews the mechanics of these methods and explores the advantages as well as limitations of composite system evaluation as opposed to component evaluation.Educational Objectives:1. To provide an understanding of those factors that influence the image quality of fluorographic systems2. To describe methods of total system performance evaluation3. To explore the usefulness and limitations of the NEMA XR 21 standard4. To review the steps in the determination of the generalized system parameters of GMTF, GNNPS, GNEQ, and GDQE.Partially supported by: NIH Grants R01EB002873 and R01NS43924, Toshiba Medical Systems Corp., and the UB Foundation.
WE‐C‐J‐6B‐03: Use of 4D Models for Tracking Motion During Therapy
Authors: Keall P 
Published: June 2005

Patient anatomy and physiology, of both normal and tumor tissue, changes with time. These timescales vary from seconds (respiratory, cardiac and skeletal motion, rectal gas) to minutes (bladder filling, stomach emptying, muscle relation) and days (repositioning, tumor growth/shrinkage, radiation‐induced effects on bronchiole obstructions, atelectasis regions, edema, fibrosis, functional reserve capacity). These changes challenge the current paradigm of three‐dimensional radiotherapy methods, and demand the exploration of four‐dimensional (4D) techniques to account for these intra‐and interfractional changes. Several components need to be developed for 4D radiotherapy, including online volumetric imaging, automated planning, deformable model development and associated hardware and software modifications. This presentation will focus on the basis and role of 4D deformable models for tracking motion in radiotherapy. The input to 4D deformable models is volumetric imaging information (either 3D or 4D), and for some algorithms user‐defined landmarks. The output of these models are displacement vector fields (DVFs), in which each anatomy element (imaging voxel) is tracked throughout the imaging data sets. These DVFs allow subsets of the anatomy, such as contours and dose distributions, to be seamlessly transferred from one dataset to another, facilitating reoptimization and accurate dose accumulation. An ideal deformable model would be (a) accurately predict DVFs (and be fail‐safe where this is not possible), (b) be unsupervised and require no human input and (c) be fast to allow online implementation and use of the 4D models. The educational objectives of this course include:1. Appreciate the importance of 4D deformable models in radiotherapy.2. Introduce the basis of some models that have been applied to the 4D radiotherapy problem.3. Describe the clinical process for 4D radiotherapy using deformable models.
WE‐C‐P‐618‐02: NRC Update: Part 35 Training and Experience and Who's ACMUI and Why Should a Medical Physicist Care?
Authors: Lieto R 
Published: June 2005

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) finalized the training and experience requirements for Authorized Medical Physicists, Authorized Users and Radiation Safety Officers in March 2005. A brief summary of the changes to the regulations will be presented. The Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) was established in 1958 to advise NRC staff on policy and technical issues that arise in the regulation of the medical uses of radioactive material in diagnosis and therapy. The ACMUI membership includes health care professionals from various disciplines who comment on changes to NRC regulations and guidance; evaluate certain non‐routine uses of radioactive material; provide technical assistance in licensing, inspection, and enforcement cases; and bring key issues to the attention of the Commission for appropriate action. A general description of the ACMUI composition and interactions with NRC will be given. A discussion of the recent activities of the ACMUI and the implication for medical physicists will be presented. Future issues where NRC may have significant impact on the medical physicist will be addressed.Educational Objective:1. To understand the make‐up and responsibilities of the ACMUI and the issues being discussed and their implications on medical physicists.
WE‐C‐P‐618‐03: CARE Act Update
Authors: Keys D 
Published: June 2005

The Alliance for Quality Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (of which both the AAPM and ACMP are members) met again in March 2005 to further develop, in anticipation of passage of the Care Bill, statutes designed to specify the training and experience of all medical professions performing or planning medical imaging and radiation therapy. The Bill, as written, is designed to include both Medical Physicists and Medical Dosimetrists in the proposed regulation. The CARE bill was recently reintroduced in the US congress.Educational Objective:1. To review the current status and implications of the CARE Bill
WE‐D‐T‐6C‐02: Role of Imaging in Drug Response: Challenges and Opportunities
Authors: Clarke L 
Published: June 2005

Advances in biomedical imaging technology such as anatomical, functional and molecular imaging methods permit new protocols and informatics tools to be developed for measuring drug response. There is, however, an increasing need to harmonize methods for data collection and analysis to provide a greater acceptance of these methods by the clinical community, and in particular, the pharmaceutical industry community. Recently the NCI and the FDA have entered into a broad inter agency agreement, referred to as the Interagency Oncology Task Force (IOTF) to review how to accelerate the use of biomarkers for measurement of drug response. Biomedical imaging is an integral part of this IOTF. NCI is also reviewing its drug trial infrastructure, including web accessible methods to access trial data to enhance the development of informatics tools to measure drug response. http://iotftraining.nci.nih.gov/ NCI Cancer Imaging Program (CIP) therefore has an interest in challenging the cancer center, academic and industry communities to engage in research that may lead to harmonization of imaging protocols, related quality assurance methods and data analysis methods as required to measure drug response across different imaging platforms and clinical sites. NCI is actively engaged, for example, in providing web accessible reference image data sets collected from drug response investigations. These efforts include providing annotated data to permit more standardized methods for measuring the performance of related informatics tools, such as change analysis. They are part of an overall development of a large data archive and web query systems referred to as caBIG. http://imaging.cancer.gov/programsandresources/InformationSystems http://cabig.nci.nih.gov/ This presentation will outline example scientific and NCI programmatic opportunities in this area. The intent of this presentation is to challenge investigators to consider this area of research.Educational Objectives:1. Understanding NCI Imaging Initiatives