Newsletter
American Association of Physicists in Medicine Volume 26 NO. 1
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
AAPM President’s Column Coffey Break
NEW EDITOR FOR THE NEWSLETTER Fellow AAPM members,
Charles W. Coffey, II Nashville, TN On behalf of the AAPM, welcome to 2001. I hope that your holiday season was filled with joy, peace, and rest. As I write this column, the RSNA Annual Meeting and the Winter Meeting of the AAPM Board of Directors have just concluded. The AAPM has completed another noteworthy year. I want to take this opportunity to thank many of you who have made the past year a success. Your faithful service to the many councils, committees, subcommittees, and task groups is what makes this Association great. I want to especially acknowledge the leadership shown in 2000 by Ken Hogstrom, President, and Geoff Ibbott, Chairman of the Board. Additionally, my sincere thanks for the unselfish efforts of Melissa Martin, Treasurer, Gerald White, Secretary, and Sal Trofi, Executive Director, who serve on the Executive Committee. As President-Elect for 2000, my assignment was to present to the Board at the Winter Meeting the council, committee, subcommittee, and task
group appointments for 2001. For the more than one hundred committee, subcommittee, and task group chairs that I contacted last October and November in preparation for these 2001 appointments, I want to thank the returning members for their continued willingness to serve our Association in a leadership role. To those of you who assumed a chairperson role for 2001, welcome aboard. The President-Elect and other leadership of the Association are keenly aware that for the Association to remain strong, we must continually train and develop the leaders of tomorrow. In preparation for the 2001 appointments, a notice was sent out in early spring of (See Coffey - p. 2)
It is my distinct pleasure to introduce the new editor of the AAPM Newsletter, Dr. Allan F. deGuzman. A task group, set up by PUBCOM last year and headed by Ned Sternick, selected Dr. deGuzman, who hails from Wake Forest University Medical Center, at the annual meeting in Chicago. His wife, Susan deGuzman, who will be the managing editor, will assist him in this venture. We have seen how the News(See New Editor - p. 2)
TABLE OF CONTENTS President’s Column...p. 1 New Editor...............p. 1 Ed. Council Rep.......p. 5 Ex. Director’s Col.....p. 6 Budget Report..........p. 7 Budget......................p. 8 FICR 2000................p. 10 IOMP News..............p. 11 Newsletter Mission...p. 12 Fenn Obituary...........p. 14 Announcements........p. 16 Letter from Editor.....p. 18 Letters to Editor........p. 18 Report from the Chairman of the Board..............Insert
AAPM NEWSLETTER
New Editor (from
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
p.1)
letter has grown in stature and importance to the society in recent years and anticipate a continuation of these qualities under the new editorship. The Newsletter is a vital forum for AAPM members to keep in touch with current issues of importance to the society and to air their views on these and other topics. We hope that the Newsletter continues to grow, expressing the needs of the society and the views of all its members. To that end, I entreat members to send articles and news items of interest for publication in the Newsletter so that it truly reflects the activities of the AAPM and its members’ interests. We wish Al well in this new position and look forward to receiving lively and interesting Newsletters in the coming months. Sincerely, Peter Biggs, Chair, PUBCOM Boston, MA
Coffey (from p. 1) last year soliciting volunteers (Full Members of the AAPM) for committee service; approximately sixty members responded to the solicitation letter. Following discussion with the appropriate subcommittee, committee, and/or council chairs, the volunteers were considered for appointment. Of the sixty responses, nearly twothirds of the volunteers were approved for committee service by the appropriate committee or subcommittee chair and subsequently approved by the Board at the Winter Meeting. Letters of appointment will be sent to individual appointees from headquarters in late January or early February. In advance, I thank all new appointees and reappointees for your time and effort spent in committee service during 2001. For those volunteers who were not granted appointments for 2001, I encourage you to resubmit a volunteer form to Robert Gould, PresidentElect, for consideration of appointment in 2002. The optimal method for getting an appointment is to attend the committee and subcommittee meetings that interest you most during this year’s Annual and Winter Meetings. Identify yourself to the presiding chairperson and inform her/him that you are interested in serving on that committee. Your attendance and participation in committee discussions will demonstrate
2 1
your desire for committee service. Remember, as a general rule, appointment to a task group is more difficult than appointment to a committee or subcommittee, in that, members of task groups have previously demonstrated service to the organization and represent experienced contributions to the specific task at hand. A word of caution is warranted here, as well. Committee appointment is not only a privilege and honor, it is a responsibility. Members who are appointed are expected to attend committee meetings and participate in the goals, tasks, and duties assigned by the committee chair. Following discussion with and recommendations from committee, subcommittee, and task group chairs during the Fall of 2000, some committee members were removed from their committee appointment due to lack of meeting attendance and participation in assigned tasks. Again, continuation on a committee is not only a privilege but a responsibility.
2001 Annual Budget At the Winter Board Meeting in Chicago, the Board, for the second year in a row, approved a deficit budget. Before we go into a financial panic, let me add that although the 2000 budget began as a deficit budget, it will conclude after the final audit in April, 2001, with approximately $100,000 on the posi-
AAPMNEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER AAPM
tive side of the ledger. Hence, we must all realize the great difficulty in predicting total income and expenditures for an Association of 4,600 members and a budget of nearly $4,500,000. My congratulations to Melissa Martin, Treasurer, Sal Trofi, Executive Director, members of the Finance Committee, and headquarters staff for the great job they do in the budgeting process. Back to the 2001 Budget; I am optimistic that again this year the budget will conclude on the positive side of the ledger. However, a deficit budget trend is not the goal of any viable and growing organization. As a response to continued growth in the arenas of education and professional issues and the increased requests for new membership services, we have experienced an increase in budgetary expenditures. AAPM leadership and members of the Finance Committee are committed to increasing present revenue sources and finding new revenue sources that can offset these increases in expenditures.
Corporate Membership Continuing the finance theme, I want to acknowledge and thank our corporate members and vendors who faithfully support AAPM publications, programs, and meetings. Our members realize that these corporate members and vendors are contributing to the positive
bottom line on our financial pages. A significant percentage of yearly budgeted revenue comes from corporate members and vendors who faithfully advertise in Medical Physics and “show” at the Annual Meeting Exhibit. As a fellow Association member this year, I challenge you to thank each vendor you contact or who calls on you for his/her continued support of the AAPM, and be sure to invite them to exhibit with us for our upcoming meetings. Please encourage those vendors who are not presently corporate members to contact headquarters and apply for Corporate Membership.
Summer Student Fellowships One exciting decision from the Winter Board of Directors meeting was the approval of dollars requested by the Education Council to fund five summer fellowships in 2001 for upcoming junior and senior undergraduate students who have a career interest and background sufficient for medical physics graduate education. This program is one attempt by the Education Council to present medical physics career opportunities to undergraduates. The program will be administered by the AAPM Summer Fellowship Subcommittee of the Education and Training of Medical Physicists Committee. To learn more of this program contact Ken Hogstrom
3
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
or AAPM Headquarters.
Association Planning Of the upcoming events for Spring, let me call your attention to two significant committee meetings. During the first weekend in March, a Site Review Committee will visit and assess the organizational structure, functionality, and response to membership requests of the Headquarters administration and staff. The Site Review Committee membership includes Bruce Curran, Chair, with Maryellen Giger, John Hazle, and Chris Marshall. I will serve on the Site Review Committee in an ex-officio capacity. Additionally, in early April, the Long Range Planning (LRP) Committee will meet at AAPM Headquarters in College Park. At this LRP Meeting, members of EXCOM will be joined by the three council chairs and invited committee chair leadership representing all three of the councils and selected administrative committees. This consultant-led planning meeting will focus on programs, membership services, and leadership development issues that the AAPM will encounter in the next two to five years. We hope strategies will result from this meeting that the Association can implement in order to face tomorrow’s concerns. (See Coffey - p. 4)
AAPM NEWSLETTER
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
Coffey (from p. 3) 2001 Annual Meeting and Summer School Although January is early, I encourage you to begin making plans for the 2001 Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, on July 22-26. It promises to be a great meeting venue with both excellent scientific and social programs planned. I also want to begin now to encourage each Annual Meeting participant to make plans to attend the Business Meeting of the Association. At the Business Meeting members learn first hand about the Association, what it is doing and where it is going. Attendance affords an opportunity for individual members to voice their opinions and concerns before other AAPM members and the Association’s executive leaders. While attending the Annual Meeting, I also encourage you to stay in the AAPM-designated hotels. This year in Salt Lake City, seven AAPM-designated hotels are available for your choice. Staying in the AAPM-designated hotels is a good personal and organizational policy to adopt because hotels will include “attrition clauses” into future Annual Meeting site contracts that penalize the Association for not filling the number of hotel rooms contracted two to three years in advance. Look for a Newsletter article from Bruce Curran on this important issue
early this year. Also for 2001, the Summer School is not coupled to the Annual Meeting; it will be held June 24-28, in the Seattle, Washington area. The topic will be “Accreditation Programs and the Medical Physicist.” Make early plans to attend before registration limits are filled.
AAPM Newsletter Editors Let me take this opportunity to officially welcome Dr. and Mrs. Allan F. (Al and Susan) deGuzman as Editor and Managing Editor of the AAPM Newsletter. We look forward to the continued informative materials and current event subjects under the leadership of the deGuzmans. I want to extend the Association’s appreciation to Dr. and Mrs. Robert (Bob and Marsha) Dixon for their diligent efforts to maintain an informative and timely publication during the last six years.
Advance Thanks Let me conclude my first column as president with advance thanks to my family and my fine staff of physicists and dosimetrists at Vanderbilt, who will support and assist me during the coming year in this leadership role. Without family commitment and understanding, I would not be able to adequately fulfill the roles of husband and father during this busy year. Without my staff’s ef-
4 1
forts on my behalf, I would not have the necessary time available to fulfill the duties of president. To those of you who seek assistance or desire a response from me as your AAPM President during the year, be it known now that I may not always respond in the manner and timeliness that some of you may expect. On most occasions my official responses will follow EXCOM and Board of Director’s discussion concerning your issue(s). Please be patient, for when I do respond, I will always want to respond with integrity and wisdom. And finally, for all of you whom I will call upon for assistance and advice in the coming months, my sincere personal thanks. I have as my personal and Association leadership goal in 2001 “to seek peace and pursue it.” I look forward to a rewarding year of service to■ gether.
AAPMNEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER AAPM
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
G. Donald Frey, Chair Charleston, SC The Education Council and its committees met at the RSNA Meeting in Chicago this past November. I am pleased to report that the council continues to make progress in a number of areas. Among the many other council activities was the decision of the AAPM Board to approve some start up monies for placing continuing education activities on the Internet. An ad hoc committee will be formed to work out the details and to negotiate a contract with an appropriate vendor. Once the contract is in place, the AAPM will be able to place continuing education courses and other educational materials on the Internet. After the programs have been viewed, continuing education credit will be available through the RDCE program. Another new program your Association will be undertaking is a summer fellowship program for undergraduate students. There was considerable discussion at the AAPM Long Range Planning Meeting about attracting more and better students into medical physics. The number 5 of undergraduate physics students has been decreasing for many years. Medical physics needs to attract the best of these students into medical physics. Consequently, the
AAPM Board voted to establish a program to fund five fellowships for undergraduate students. It is hoped that this program can grow in the future by having industrial partners and attracting National Science Foundation monies. The program will be administered by the Training of Medical Physicists Committee. Ken Hogstrom and Bhudatt Paliwal will be managing the initial efforts. The Training of Technologists Committee has changed its name to the Medical Physics Education of Allied Health Professionals Committee. The new name reflects changes in the way we refer to colleagues (radiation therapists) and the generally broadened role of the committee. They have established a new subcommittee to work on dosimetrist education issues. The AAPM and the RSNA present a lecture for technologists at the RSNA Annual Meeting each year. This year the topic was “Antimatter Comes to the Community Hospital – Positron Imaging in Your Department.” The speakers were Scott Dube and James Patton. Next year the topic will be “Spiral and Multislice CT.” The International Physics Olympiad was held in July,
5
2000 in Leicester, England. The five high-school students on the U.S. team won a silver and four bronze medals. The AAPM is one of the sponsoring organizations. Please be sure to mark your calendars for this year’s Summer School. The topic, “Accreditation Physics,” is timely for all medical physicists. The school will be June 24 to June 28. Two chairs of Education Council Committees rotated off at the end of 2000. I want to thank Cynthia McCollough for her many years of service to the Medical Physics Education of Physicians Committee and Nicholas Detorie for his many years of service to the Public Education Committee. I would also like to welcome Michael Dennis and Kenneth Hogstrom who will take over the chairs of those two committees. I would also like to welcome Herbert Mower who will become vice-chair of the council. Finally I wish to thank the many individuals who have served the council committees in 2000 and welcome all the ■ new members for 2001.
AAPM NEWSLETTER
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
Executive Director’s Column By Sal Trofi College Park, MD
Salt Lake City Meeting The 43 rd AAPM Annual Meeting will take place from Sunday, July 22 through Thursday, July 26 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Committee meetings, scientific and educational sessions, exhibits, the Icebreaker Reception, and the Awards Ceremony and Reception will all take place at the Salt Palace Convention Center. The online abstract program was activated in January. All abstracts must be submitted electronically. This year, abstracts are uploaded from the web rather than sent as documents attached to e-mail. The deadline to submit your abstract(s) is Friday, March 9. Authors will be notified of the disposition of their papers on April 27. The program will be available on-line by May 15. Registration will be handled electronically and will be activated in April. Members of the Local Arrangements Committee, chaired by Grant Gulberg, have arranged for a pre-convention tour of Zion and Bruce Canyon National Parks and a post convention tour of Yellowstone, Grand Tetons and Jackson Hole. Look for details on the web in April.
Membership The total AAPM membership increased 3.7% during the 2000-year. This is the biggest increase since 1995. There were 121 more “Full Members”, which is a 4.5% increase. This is the biggest increase since 1996. Student Memberships have been in decline for the past few years. The AAPM Membership Committee made a change in the student application process by no longer requiring a copy of the student’s curriculum. The Board also approved the waiver of first year student dues in November 1999. These two changes had a positive effect. The student membership categories increased by 3.1% for the year of 2000. The Membership Committee also streamlined the process by which Junior Members become Full Members. Junior Members no longer have to apply for the change of status. The new process is integrated with the dues renewal process, and is triggered once the Junior Member satisfies the appropriate years of experience.
Government Affairs Angela (Angie) Furcron joined the AAPM headquarters staff on October 30 as the new
6 1
AAPM Government Affairs Manager. Angie will write a regular column about government affair information starting with the next issue of this newsletter. Angie is currently monitoring federal legislation and regulation on a daily basis. One bill that she is monitoring is the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Establishment (NIBIBE) Act. This would amend the Public Health Service Act and create a new Institute at the National Institutes of Health. The House version of this bill passed the House of Representatives in September of 2000. The Senate companion version of this bill was referred to the Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee, but no floor action has been taken. The progress of the NIBIBE Act will be monitored in 2001.
AAPMNEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER AAPM
Since joining the staff, Angie attended a trilateral meeting of AAPM, ACMP and ACR, as well as the AAPM/RSNA meeting. She and Mike Gillin are working together to organize an April 2001 visit for some AAPM members to Capitol Hill to meet with various congressional offices. She is also working closely with Mike Gillin on a visit to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), which will occur in 2001.
Other News The Headquarters Information Services Department has added functionality to allow
each AAPM committee to host its own website on AAPM.ORG. Instructions have been sent to each committee chair on how to access their web space, which will be accessible from the committee page on the AAPM Committee Tree. The Membership Directory will be shipped about mid-January. If that schedule is met, members should receive their paper copy of the directory at about the same time as this Newsletter. You are encouraged to use the online version of the directory, which is always available and always current. The Headquarters staff moved into the new office space during the last week of
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
December. All went well with the exception of the delivery of conference room furniture, which arrived late in January. The new space is first rate and enhances the image of the AAPM. Members living in or visiting the Washington, DC area are invited to come see the new space and the staff. ■
2001 Budget Report Melissa Martin, Treasurer Bellflower,CA At the November 29, 2000 Board of Directors meeting, the proposed operating budget of $4,902,346 for the year 2001 was approved as detailed on the following pages. Some of the factors impacting this budget are our increased activities in all of the councils, particularly in the Professional Council, increased staff at Headquarters to accommodate the ever increasing requests from our membership as well as increased office space to accommodate the ad-
ditional Headquarters operations. Although the actual approved budget shows a negative $392,083 balance, it is anticipated that we will probably have a break-even to slightly positive balance at the end of
7
2001 based on the history of our organization’s operations. For the past several years, we have operated at approximately 90% of the budgeted amount due to funding requested for activities that do not actually get completed in the time frame anticipated. Based on this analysis, the approved budget for 2001 is consistent with these operations. We will have slightly over $4.6 million in reserves at the end of 2000, which meets the requirement for having one year’s operating budget in re(See Budget - p.10)
AAPM 2001 Programmatic Budget Revenue
Expenses Direct
Overhead
Net Total
Membership Dues Dues Renewal Notices Applications and Reinstatements Subtotal
$764,976
$155,480 9,000 1,700 $166,180
$3,161 19,365 44,483 $67,009
$158,641 28,365 46,183 $233,189
$606,334 (28,365) (37,983) $539,986
$255,500 1,400 60,000 1,710
$88,685 32,000 110,000 56,292 15,000 13,000 27,000
$11,596 24,877 11,929 4,118 148
$318,610
$341,977
$100,281 56,877 121,929 60,410 15,148 13,000 27,000 101,218 $495,863
$155,219 (55,477) (61,929) (58,700) (15,148) (13,000) (27,000) (101,218) ($177,253)
$0
$18,000 77,500 110,269 11,000 $216,769
4,254 $103,655
$24,798 170,103 110,269 15,254 $320,424
($24,798) (170,103) (110,269) (15,254) ($320,424)
$15,000
$97,500 92,500 41,050 128,730 26,500 68,650 $454,930
$6,494 96,365 1,751 50,719 19,587 5,440 $180,356
$103,994 188,865 42,801 179,449 46,087 74,090 $635,286
($88,994) (188,865) (42,801) (179,449) (46,087) (74,090) ($620,286)
$0
$26,800
$220,651 3,749 97,085 9,056 152,134 52,586 0 4,123 $539,384
$247,451 3,749 97,085 26,756 152,134 52,586 42,000 52,079 $673,839
($247,451) (3,749) (97,085) (26,756) (152,134) (52,586) (42,000) (52,079) ($673,839)
8,200 $773,176
Membership Services Placement Bulletin Membership Directory Monthly Mailings Newsletter Salary Survey AAPM Brochures JACMP CD-ROM for Members AAPM Web Site Subtotal
101,218 $153,886
Organizational Board of Directors Executive Committee Executive Committee - Contingency Elections & Society Votes Subtotal
$6,798 92,603
Councils and Committees Education Council Professional Council Science Council Administrative Committees Ad Hoc Committees Liaisons with other Organizations Subtotal
$15,000
Administrative Professional Services Investment Management Telephone and Mail Headquarters Travel General Operations AAPM Database Credit Card (Processing Costs) AIP Services
17,700
Subtotal
$0
42,000 47,955 $134,455 Page 8
AAPM 2001 Programmatic Budget Revenue
Expenses Direct
Overhead
Net Total
Other Income CAMPEP AAPM Mailing Lists Membership Certificates Credit Card Royalties Computers in Physics, Royalties WWW Host Services and Advertising Malpractice Insurance Program Subtotal
$15,000 24,000 100 6,000 3,500 1,200 20,500 $70,300
$6,000 750 10
$17,678 3,361
4,238 $25,277
$23,678 4,111 10 0 0 0 6,738 $34,537
($8,678) 19,889 90 6,000 3,500 1,200 13,762 $35,763
2,500 $9,260
$204,468 32,829 $237,298
$972,034 63,139 $1,035,174
$465,238 (63,139) $402,098
Meetings Annual RSNA
$1,437,272 Subtotal
$1,437,272
$767,566 30,310 $797,876
Summer School Review Courses, Medical Physics Subtotal
$153,200 12,750 $165,950
$94,505 12,188 $106,693
$24,557 369 $24,926
$119,062 12,557 $131,619
$1,415,455
100,412 29,330 $129,742
$1,138,712 36,830 $1,175,542
$276,743 (36,830) $239,913
$3,664 1,946 $5,610
$4,864 7,946 $12,810
$3,136 (946) $2,190
($25,000) (21,150) ($46,150)
Education Programs $34,138 193 $34,331
Medical Physics Journal Journal Production Journal Business Management Subtotal
$1,415,455
$1,038,300 7,500 $1,045,800
Subtotal
$8,000 7,000 $15,000
$1,200 6,000 $7,200
Subtotal
$0
$25,000 21,150 $46,150
$0
$25,000 21,150 $46,150
Subtotal
$16,500 33,000 15,000 33,000 9,000 $106,500
$16,500 33,000 15,000 33,000 9,000 $106,500
$353 353 353 353 $1,413
$16,500 $33,353 15,353 33,353 9,353 $107,913
$0 ($353) (353) (353) (353) ($1,413)
$4,317,263
$3,433,790
$1,468,556
$4,902,346
($585,083)
$50,000 150,000 $200,000
$7,000 $7,000
$0
$7,000 0 $7,000
$4,517,263
$3,440,790
$1,468,556
$4,909,346
Publications Books Reports
Other Organizations Contributions and Donations Dues and other payments
Sponsored Residencies AAPM/RSNA Fellowship Varian RSNA ASTRO Elekta
Totals before Investment Revenue Investment Revenue From Operations Transfer from Investment funds Subtotal
Grand Total, Accrual Basis
Page 9
$43,000 150,000 $193,000
($392,083)
AAPM NEWSLETTER
Budget (from
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
p.7)
serves. We are now budgeting a transfer of $150,000 from the revenues generated by this investment reserve into our operating budget. This has been planned for the last few years but we have not actually made this transfer. Due to the efficient operations of our headquarters office and our members, we have not needed to transfer anything out of our investment funds in the past which has let us achieve this goal of $4.6 million in reserves. As can be seen from the proposed budget, we have three significant sources of revenue to our organization: the Annual Meeting, the Medical Physics Journal, and dues. Other sources of income are from additional educational ac-
tivities such as the Summer School and RDCE activities, the Placement Service, and other publications. As these funding sources are limited, additional sources of revenue are being explored. Anyone with suggestions of further income sources is welcome to forward them to me or any member of the Finance Committee. We are very fortunate in that interest in our journal is increasing as indicated by a rise in both advertising income and library subscriptions. This is in contrast to other physics publications experience. The support from our vendors and commercial members is crucial to the function of our organization. Income at the Annual Meeting is about a 50/50 split between our registrations and exhibit income. All members
are encouraged to attend the Annual Meeting and to visit our commercial exhibits at that time to express our appreciation of their support. As indicated in this budget, we are a very active organization with many successful programs. The dedication and volunteer efforts of our members keep us growing. I wish to extend my thanks for all the efforts exhibited by both our members and the staff to keep this organization functioning within this budget. ■
FICR 2000: Tehran, Iran Andrew Karam, Radiation Safety Officer, Rochester, NY Azam Niroomand-Rad, Washington, DC Iran’s Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences recently hosted the “FICR 2000 International Conference on Radiation and its Role in Diagnosis and Treatment.” Attending the conference were over 300 delegates from 10 nations, including the United States, the Netherlands, Canada, India, Japan, Korea, and several nations from the Middle East. We
understand that any mention of Iran in the U.S. brings with it inevitable political and religious considerations. We do not feel, though, that these are appropriate topics for this forum and will refrain from further discussion on these points. We would also like to note that our contacts during this conference were with Iranian scientists, students, physicians, and staff,
10 1
not with the Iranian government or religious leaders. A large number of technical papers were presented at this meeting, and the agenda was well balanced between the basic science of radiation biology and the applications of radiation to the medical profession. In some respects, this conference presented delegates from some of the less developed na-
AAPMNEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER AAPM
tions an opportunity to learn from those from more developed countries, but this was not always the case, and speakers from all nations made some very fascinating and valuable presentations. Of particular interest were Myron Pollycove’s discussions of the effects of low-dose radiation exposure on the immune system and K.P. Mishra’s suggestion that rather than trying to kill cancer cells with radiation, we may instead try to deliver just enough dose to trigger the cells’ own apoptosis program.
However interesting the presentations, this conference also brought together scientists and physicians from nations that have not enjoyed much scientific contact in recent years. It could be that this personal contact will be the longest-lasting legacy of FICR 2000, and it is our hope that the brief personal and scientific contacts made at this meeting will continue beyond the end of this conference in late October, because all parties involved stand to gain much from continued communication.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
Many of the papers were presented in Farsi. On the first day simultaneous translation was provided, which was quite helpful. On subsequent days this was not available and it was difficult for non-Farsi speakers to follow the speaker’s comments, although most slides were presented in English. This was, perhaps, the only area of difficulty encountered during ■ an excellent meeting.
International Organization of Medical Physics (IOMP), 2000 Anchali Krisanachinda, Bangkok, Thailand Azam Niroomand-Rad, Washington, D.C. The 10th AAPM / IOMP oneweek Course/Workshop in Radiation Therapy Physics was held successfully at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand, May 29 – June 2, 2000. The Course/ Workshop was co-sponsored by the AAPM International Scientific Exchange Programs (ISEP) and International Organization for Medical Physics (IOMP) Education and Training Committee. The program was organized by the Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn Uni-
versity and the Medical Physics Club of Thailand. The objectives of this course/ workshop were to update the knowledge of medical physics, to present advanced radiation therapy physics to clinical physicists, to compare calibration of photon and electron beams using IAEA and AAPM TG-21 protocols, and to exchange information concerning the medical physics profession in Thailand and nearby countries. Dr. Anchali Krisanachinda, President of the Medical Phys-
11
ics Club of Thailand, was the Host Director and Co-Director of this program. The AAPM faculty were: Drs. Faiz Khan, Azam Niroomand-Rad, Bhudatt Paliwal, Ishmael Parsai, James Purdy and Theodor Torson. There were 102 participants. The program began with a welcoming address by Professor Vacharee Buachum M.D., Head of the Department of Radiology, and was officially inaugurated by Professor Adisorn Patradul, M.D., Associate Dean for Plan(See IOMP - p. 12)
AAPM NEWSLETTER
IOMP
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
(from p.11)
ning and Development Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University. The local expenses of the faculty were supported by the host institution and their travel expenses were financed by funds provided by the AAPM, Medical Physics Foundation, and vendors. Corporate sponsors included Computerized Medical System (CMS), Elekta Oncology System, Medical Physics Foundation, Nucletron Corporation (USA), SSGI/ Prowess Systems, Siemens Medical Systems, and Varian Oncology Systems. Contributors included DIACOR, HUESTIS, and Standard Imaging. The local expenses were
supported by Bicron/HarshawRadiation Measurement Products, MDS Nordion - Science Advancing Health, Canada, Philips Electronics (Thailand) Co. Ltd., Elekta Oncology System Ltd., Panja Engineering Co. Ltd., Siemens Ltd., Supreme Products Co. Ltd., BrainLAB, Thai Technomed Co. Ltd., CMS, Varian Pacific Incorporation, 3D Technologies Inc., Prowess, and Syncor International (Thailand) Co. Ltd. We are grateful to these organizations and companies for their generous contributions. We also wish to acknowledge the commitment and effort of Dr. Anchali Krisanachinda and the staff of the Local Organizing Committee during the past
two years in organizing and implementing this program. This workshop provided an excellent opportunity for interaction among the medical physicists from different countries in the regions with an unforgettable friendship among the faculty and the participants. We would also like to thank the AAPM faculty for volunteering their time and effort in this endeavor. â–
Fellow AAPM members, Now that the new editor of the Newsletter is in residence, this is an appropriate time to review the mission statement and guidelines of the Newsletter. The mission statement and guidelines were first prepared and approved by PUBCOM several years ago, but were updated and expanded at the RSNA meeting in November 1999 to include the editorial board. PUBCOM welcomes any comments and suggestions by members for improving these guidelines. Sincerely, Peter Biggs, Chair, PUBCOM Boston, MA
12 1
AAPMNEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER AAPM
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
AAPM Newsletter Mission Statement & Guidelines 1. Mission Statement: The mission of the AAPM Newsletter is to provide an unbiased source of information about AAPM activities and items of interest to AAPM members. The Newsletter should provide useful and timely information for AAPM members and serve as a forum for lively debate about issues of interest to AAPM members. All reported material will be covered in a manner that conforms to truth and accepted journalistic standards. 2. Guidelines: Publication of the newsletter shall follow the ethical guidelines published by the Society of Professional Journalists. Content of the newsletter shall maintain respect for individuals as well as their opinions. Specifically, submissions to the Newsletter, either articles or letters to the editor, should be signed and not contain libelous material. Publication of written material is at the discretion of the editor and editorial board. In matters where there is a strong division of opinion on a particular topic, the editor should balance the publication of articles and letters in a fair and even manner to ensure that all viewpoints are equally represented. All material submitted to the editor that is perceived as either questionable or inflammatory shall be sent to the board prior to publication. 3. Duties of the Editor: The editor provides nominations for members of the editorial board for their approval. The editor has overall responsibility for the timely publication of the Newsletter. As part of this responsibility, the editor: · Reviews all material submitted for publication for suitability and timeliness; · Reviews with the editorial board, when necessary, any material that is questionable or inflammatory; · Solicits articles, news items of interest for inclusion in the Newsletter; · May edit articles and letters to limit space; · Monitors interest of membership on current coverage and format and looks for topics and article writers; · Discusses changes in the Newsletter with the editorial board; · Meets with the editorial board at the annual meeting and at the RSNA. 4. Responsibilities of the Editorial Board: A Newsletter editorial board shall be set up which, in addition to the editor and managing editor (ex-officio, nonvoting), shall be comprised of at least six other members nominated by the editor and approved by the Publications Committee and passed on to the Board of Directors for their concurrence. Each member shall be appointed initially for a period of three years. It is the responsibility of the editorial board to advise the editor on all matters relating to the Newsletter, particularly with regard to questionable material. The editorial board is responsible for ensuring adherence to the guidelines. On controversial matters, the editorial board should solicit opposing views for the Newsletter to ensure an even balance of views. The editorial board shall advise the editor on the direction and focus of the Newsletter to ensure that it meets the requirements and wishes of the members and provides an appropriate format to■ achieve this goal.
13
AAPM NEWSLETTER
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
Jimmy O’Neil Fenn Obituary G. Donald Frey, Ph.D. and Kenneth Vanek, Ph.D. Charleston, SC Dr. Jimmy O’Neil Fenn passed away on September 28, 2000 following a brief illness. Dr. Fenn, the Dean of South Carolina Medical Physicists, received his BS from Lincoln Memorial University in 1963, his MS from Emory University in 1967 and his Ph.D. from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1980. Following his graduation from Emory, he joined the faculty of the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), where he began a long and fruitful collaboration with the late Keene M. Wallace, MD. These two collaborators built the first modern radiation oncology department in South Carolina. As the first full time medical physicist in the South Carolina, Jimmy did much to shape the profession within the state. Dr. Fenn, except for two brief absences, spent his entire career at MUSC. For one year he returned to Georgia Institute of Technology to finish course work for his Ph.D., and another year was spent at the National Cancer Institute. Besides his work in Radiation Oncology, Jimmy also served as Radiation Safety Officer for the Medical University of South Carolina. Dr. Fenn retired from MUSC in 1998.
Jimmy was committed to the profession of medical physics. He believed in the importance of board certification to ensure high standards within the profession. He was certified by the American Board of Radiology in Radiological Physics in 1977 and by the American Board of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology Physics in 1990. His commitment to board certification included service as an examiner for both boards and service on the Board of Trustees of the ABMP. Jimmy is remembered fondly by the many radiation oncology and radiology residents and radiological technologists who benefited from his gifted teaching. He had the ability to tie physical principles to clinical examples in a way that made the physics vivid to the student.
14 1
Dr. Fenn is well known for his many contributions to medical physics organizations. He served on a variety of committees and on both the Science and Professional Councils of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. He was an at-large member of the Board of Directors from 1985 to 1988 and served as president of the Southeast Chapter in 1972. Jimmy was a member of the Board of Chancellors of the American College of Medical Physics from 1982 to 1983. His steady hand helped that organization develop in its early years. Following his service on the board, he served the ACMP as secretary and as a member of the Membership Committee. Finally, in 1991, he held the office of chairman of that organization. His contributions to the American College of Radiology were also noteworthy. Once again, he served on several committees and was a member of the Physics Commission from 1984 to 1988. Dr. Jimmy Fenn was one of those rare individuals who was a fellow of the AAPM, the ACMP and the ACR. These fellowships denote his exceptional abilities, his willingness to work for the improvement of our profession, and the respect for which his colleagues
AAPMNEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER AAPM
had for him. The ACMP honored him with the Marvin M.D. Williams award, its highest honor. Dr. Fenn was admired by all who knew him. He felt an exceptional obligation to develop the talents of those who worked with him. He had a warm and ready wit, and always had a good story. He had a passion for life and was most happy sharing that passion with friends in the outdoors. Jimmy was devoted to his family. He
is survived by his beloved wife, Debbie, his son, Daniel, his daughters, Nancy Anne and Beth, and his two stepsons, Vincent and Cole. His death brought sorrow to his family and his many friends throughout the world. He lived an exceptional life of service to his profession, the patients he served, his colleagues, and his friends and family. There have been few men like him. He will be both remembered and â– missed.
FILM SUPPLIED TO COME FILM
15
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
AAPM NEWSLETTER
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
Announcement Call for Articles - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics Richard Stark, Managing Editor Redwood, CA As the new managing editor of the Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, I wanted to take the opportunity to describe the workings of this journal, encourage authors to submit articles for publication and, by publicizing the clinical value of the journal, encourage readership. The Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an applied journal, publishing papers that will help clinical medical physicists perform their responsibilities more effectively and efficiently, and for the increased benefit of the patient. There is a definite need in the international medical physics community for a clinically focused journal where applied medical physics manuscripts can be published and made readily available to readers throughout the world. JACMP fulfills this need with its completely electronic format. Because of its practical, clinical practice-based focus, much of the valuable information contained in this journal would not otherwise be published in research-oriented journals such as Medical Physics, Physics in Medicine and Biology, or the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics. I would like to em-
phasize that JACMP is complimentary, not competitive, with these other journals that emphasize research and “new science”. Colin Orton, the editor of Medical Physics, has endorsed the JACMP. The editor-in-chief of JACMP, Peter R. Almond, Ph.D., is responsible, along with the editorial board, for the direction of the journal and the peer-review process. Manuscripts in clinical practice, administration, regulations, health physics, machine maintenance, etc. will be considered. In 2000 we published 19 manuscripts in 4 issues. In 2001, we project we will publish 32 manuscripts in 4 issues. Our median publication time is 4.5 +/- 1 month from submission of a paper to publication on the Internet. As many of you are well aware, this is far shorter than most scientific print journals. In addition, a wide variety of figures have been published including line drawings, radiographs, colored photographs, and colored computer screen output thus reflecting the versatility of the electronic print medium. The JACMP website, reached through http://www.acmp.org, currently gets over 8000 hits per month from over 700
16 1
unique hosts, including sites in foreign countries. Readership is growing quickly as the word gets out of the unique nature of the journal. At the current time the journal subscription is free; we desire to keep it so or at a very low rate in order to encourage a broad readership. We feel that this is important to allow medical physicists all over the world easy access to valuable information. As a clinical medical physicist I have written procedures and/ or contacted colleagues to get answers to and document solutions for clinical issues. Across the world, I am sure we have all “reinvented the wheel” many times. I would like to make an appeal to physicists like myself who have gathered a wealth of information over the years but have yet to share it with the rest of the community either because of lack of time, or the presumed “triviality” of the information. The Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics can provide you on-line access to technical information and clinical know-how aggregating the knowledge of the radiation medicine community. I invite you to become a participant in this process as both author and ■ reader.
AAPMNEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER AAPM
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
Announcement 2001 ABMP Testing Schedule Part I:
General Medical Physics Written Exam July 21, 2001 - Salt Lake City, UT (AAPM Annual Meeting)
Part II: Written Exam(s) July 21, 2001 - Salt Lake City, UT (AAPM Annual Meeting) •Radiation Oncology Physics •Diagnostic Imaging Physics •Medical Health Physics •Magnetic Resonance Imaging Physics •Hyperthermia Physics Applications must be receved no later than 01/15/01 in order to take the written exams in 2001. Part III: Oral Exam(s) April 19-22, 2001 - Chicago, IL •Radiation Oncology Physics •Diagnostic Imaging Physics •Medical Health Physics •Magnetic Resonance Imaging Physics •Hyperthermia Physics Applications must have been received no later than 12/15/00 in order to take the oral exams in 2001. Late applications will be accepted. 2000 Exam Results: Pass
Fail
Condition
Total
Part I:
Gen Med. Phys
35
22
57
Part II:
Rad Onc Diagnostic Health Physics
31 7 3
28 6 1
59 13 4
Part III:
Rad Onc Diagnostic MRI Health Physics
31 5 3 0
16 6 0 0
17
21 4 0 2
68 15 3 2
AAPM NEWSLETTER
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
Letter from the Editor I’m not going to tell you who I voted for in the last presidential election. I was, as I think most people were, very happy to see the whole ordeal finally come to an end. I certainly realize the importance of the process and of the results, but I was sick and tired of it being the only event covered by the newspapers, the talk shows, the radio shows, the comedians and the television news. There were and still are numerous other news items which certainly should not be overshadowed by a singular news story. Did the wars and other world news simply stop while we debated our election results? The one good
thing that resulted from this long, drawn-out process was the apparent feeling of cooperation and reconciliation that has emerged among the various groups. I hope we physicists can learn something from this process. I hope we will not be so completely overwhelmed by a single topic that we lose touch with other (more) important topics that we need to address as a group. I hope the articles and letters I receive for the Newsletter cover all aspects of medical physics and are received from numerous, varying members. As your Newsletter Editor, I
do not intend to censor anyone or direct the topics covered in the Newsletter. If some of our AAPM members want to discuss a particular topic it will certainly be discussed. I do not make up the information printed here, just gather and organize it. It is up to the AAPM membership to contribute letters, articles, committee reports, chapter news, pictures, jokes or cartoons for publication. It is, after all, your Newsletter. Allan F. deGuzman Winston-Salem, NC
Letter to the Editor Cooperation or Conflict Renowned author and lecturer Steven Covey encourages people to seek first to understand. With that guidance in mind, Bhudatt and I attempted to understand the concerns about the ACMP that Don Tolbert and Bob Dixon expressed in the last two newsletters. Medical physicists are actively involved in many organizations including (in alphabetical order) AAPM, ACMP,
ACR, ACRO, ASTRO, HPS, IOMP, RSNA, SNM, SPIE, and several others. The physics leaders of three of these organizations (AAPM, ACMP, and ACR) joined together in the Tri-lateral Commission to coordinate their efforts for the betterment of the medical physics profession. In addition, other societies are working closely with medical physicists in the promotion and advance-
18 1
ment of imaging and radiation oncology in medicine. The influence and participation of medical physicists are expanding within and beyond the boundaries of radiology departments. Medical physicists are actively involved in the clinical care of patients, research, product development, and creation of new advanced clinical procedures. All of these efforts ultimately lead to the improved
AAPMNEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER AAPM
diagnosis and treatment of diseases thereby benefiting our ultimate customer, the patient. It is difficult for us to understand the perceptions of an imagined battle for control and conquest of one organization over another and the rationale for this battle. When we speak of organizations, we speak about ourselves. Many AAPM members are either active or becoming active in multiple professional societies and colleges. Some AAPM members hold positions of leadership in several different organizations. AAPM members may move from very active involvement in one organization to very active involvement in another depending upon the need and situation. They recognize the value of each organization in the advancement of medical physics and the improvement of patient care and never consider whether one group should dominate another. The needs of the patient and our profession are the dominant factors. We both personally believe that each of the tri-lateral organizations, like individual people, have their strengths and weaknesses. The principles that apply to effective personnel leadership also apply to intersociety leadership. Wise leaders know that, in order to best serve our profession, they must seek to utilize the strengths of each organization and diminish their weaknesses in order to achieve objectives that are in the profession’s best
interests. They also recognize that failure to seek cooperation and coordination accomplishes nothing but destruction of professional progress. In addition, a failure to present a unified front may easily result in a loss of any perception of professional maturity and unity both within and outside our profession. Diversity of ideas and new challenges are beneficial to growth and progress as long as constructive dialogue and a cooperative spirit prevail. Creation of conflict and win/lose philosophies are devastating no matter how “right” the opposing sides may feel. It is important to our profession that we speak in a unified voice. Unification does not represent dictatorship. It represents a cooperative spirit and willingness to mold many diverse opinions into a unified effort. Although some may take offense to the following brief but incomplete organizational descriptions, they will hopefully highlight certain aspects of each tri-lateral organization. The ACMP is an organization of and for clinical medical physicists. Its efforts and goals are focused on supporting and meeting the professional needs of the clinical physicist. The Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics and the practical applied focus of the annual workshop are two examples of its clinical focus. The AAPM consists of a much broader scope of membership including clinical physi-
19
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
cists, academic and industrial researchers, commercial product and support personnel, plus other individuals with an interest in physics in medicine. The AAPM provides the unified strength of scientific research and applied medical physics. This combination results in excellent task group reports, improved calibration protocols, development of new technologies, a highly respected scientific journal, a forum for exchange of scientific information, plus numerous continuing education opportunities. The ACR is predominately a physician organization with a long history of physics involvement. Physics members of the ACR are given the opportunity to join physician colleagues in the development of standards, medical practice accreditation programs, and economic endeavors via CTP codes and lobbying efforts. The vast financial and staffing resources of the ACR plus the political strength of this large medical organization are quite valuable and important in state and national regulatory and reimbursement arenas. The strengths of each organization have promoted and improved our profession and our organizations. We would like to conclude by reiterating Don Tolbert’s encouragement for all AAPM members to become aware of professional issues and to become informed about each one. We also encourage you to learn (See Cooperation - p. 20)
AAPM NEWSLETTER
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
Letter to the Editor
Cooperation (from p. 19) about the professional challenges facing our profession and about each of the organizations representing us. Become involved with one, two, or all three tri-lateral organizations and others! At this time, no one organization can do everything, so provide your support to as many as possible. Through unified diversity and cooperation, there is strength. Medical physics is our chosen profession, but our professional stature can not and will not grow or even maintain its current strength if the professional aspects are ignored by its membership. Many of our senior members and pioneers are nearing retirement or have already retired. Volunteers are needed to assume leadership positions. Please become active now and become a part of shaping your profession’s future. Ken Vanek, Charleston, SC Bhudatt Paliwal, Madison,WI
AAPM to pay $27,000 to ACMP I had read in the pre-board packet before the RSNA Meeting that the AAPM plans to pay ACMP $27,000 so that each AAPM member can get a CD containing all the issues of the ACMP on-line journal AJCMP. Since the on-line journal and all the back issues are available free through the ACMP web site to anyone (ACMP member or not), then the AAPM is in effect “giving” ACMP $27,000 to support their journal. This is about $6 per AAPM member, so $6 of your dues will be going directly to ACMP. (Possible cartoon here: smiling wolf with his hand in Pinnochio’s pocket). I hope you will remember this the next time the AAPM wants to hit you up for a dues increase. In fact, in the same board packet there was a letter from EXCOM to the Southeastern Chapter, which had requested that the AAPM not raise dues for 3-5 years, rejecting their request. If you object to this money transfer, then it is not too late to do something about it, since
20 1
the money will not be paid until the end of 2001. Call or write your AAPM board representative and ask him/her to revisit this decision at the Summer AAPM Board Meeting and vote to rescind this giveaway. The leadership apparently feels it has the authority to authorize such a transfer without fully informing the rank and file membership. Even if this journal were not available on-line at no cost, I suspect that there are many AAPM members who do not want this “free” CD. Let us make the choice. I would have no objection to the AAPM putting it on the dues statement as a choice for each member to make. Finally, if the AAPM insists on buying us presents, I would prefer to have a Duke Ellington CD, or maybe a pen and pencil set. Happy New Year, Bob Dixon Winston-Salem, NC
AAPMNEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER AAPM
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
Letter to the Editor Implementation of TG-51: Practical Considerations1 and Why Use TG-51 Instead of TG-212 I read the two articles on the TG-51 protocol in the September/October 2000 issue of the Newsletter with great interest since I was scheduled to start the annual calibration cycle at that time. After reading those articles I was encouraged that the changeover would not be too traumatic. Thus when I actually ran the two protocols in parallel during the calibration I was not prepared for the effort that was required to resolve the differences between my results and those that have been published. After correcting one startup blunder (when doing point measurements, one must shift the chamber away from the source for beam quality and PDD measurements) my TG51 to TG-21 output change was +3.2% for 6MV photons, +2.4% for 18MV photons, and +1.5% to +2.7% for the electron beams. Those results were significantly higher than the +1% higher photon output reported in the article by J. Lowenstein1. I have spent the past two months (so much for saving overworked medical physicists some time) investigating this discrepancy by careful review of all the measurement procedures and calculations for both protocols and by
measurement with a second dosimetry system. I am convinced that the above increases in reported output are valid. There is at least one incorrect statement in the Lowenstein article that accounts for a good part of the discrepancies. The stated 1% increase in measured photon output, referenced to the article by S. Cho et al.3, is for the output at 10 cm depth, not at dmax. The last step in the TG-51 protocol is to correct the dose at 10 cm to the clinical dose reference depth using the “clinical” PDD or TPR. If one compares a complete TG21 calibration, in our case the dose at dmax, using the current unshifted “clinical” PDD data with a TG-51 calibration using a new shifted “clinical” PDD data, the TG-51/TG-21 output ratio will increase. For one of our 6 MV beams the required chamber shift of 1.8 mm results in a PDD change from 67.3% to 66.6%. This means that the TG-51/TG-21 output ratio at dmax is 1.010 times greater than the ratio at 10 cm depth. Now the expected overall photon output change, based on the results in the Cho paper, is about 2%. The next most significant source discrepancy was in our
21
ADCL calibration. This was mentioned in the Cho paper but not in the Newsletter articles. Our chambers are calibrated at the University of Wisconsin ADCL and those in the Cho paper were calibrated at the MD Anderson ADCL. Using the ND,W/NK analysis in the Cho paper, the expected change in 60 Co output measurement for my Capintec PR-06C is 1.023 vs. the 1.015 reported by Cho for the same chamber model. This adds another 0.8% to my expected reported output measurement. If I take the Cho ratios of 1.011 and 1.004 for the 6MV and 18MV beams respectively and multiply them by the PDD and ADCL factors, my expected TG-51/TG-21 ratios are now 1.030 and 1.021. I also performed the calibrations with an Exradin A12 chamber and got actual TG-51/ TG-21 ratios of 1.018 for 6 MV and 1.011 for 18 MV vs. expected ratios of 1.023 and 1.015. The ADCL factor for this chamber was 1.017 vs. 1.011 in the Cho paper; which is a better agreement between the ADCL’s. This raises the question of which calibration is true or perhaps more accurate. I will be going with the A12 (See TG-51 - p. 22)
AAPM NEWSLETTER
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
TG-51 (from p. 21) chamber since it is waterproof and the sheath used with the PR-06 looks to be made of rubber and may be responsible for an increased sensitivity. To truly assess the clinical impact of the protocol change from the Oncologist’s perspective, one should probably look at how much the radiation delivered to the patient changes, not just on how much the accelerator output will be changed. To fully implement the TG-51 protocol, the clinical dosimetry databases must be changed. This means that the monitor unit (MU) calculations will change. For the photons the change is due to the new effective measurement point. For the electrons new stopping power ratios are needed. For the 6 MV photons, as noted above, the change would be an increase of 1% in the monitor units if PDD’s were used for the calculation. We use TMR for our MU calculations and the theoretical change would be an increase of only 0.5%. A 1% MU increase combined with a downward output adjustment of 1.8% gives a net decrease of 0.8% in radiation to the patient. For the TMR case, the theoretical change would be a net decrease of 1.3% in radiation. In practice, a 0.5% change in the TMR will often not result in a MU change due to round off to an integer value. In that case the decrease in the radiation delivered will be the full cali-
bration adjustment of 1.8% for this example. If one uses the “incorrect” unshifted PDD data in the final TG-51 step and left the MU calculation alone, the decrease in radiation delivered would be 0.7%. My preliminary look at the electron monitor unit calculation indicates minimal change. For the electron beams, it looks like the change in radiation delivered will be determined by the output measurement change only (1.3% 2.9% reduction in radiation delivered with the A12 system). The Lowenstein article also raised the issue of the change in the photon PDD measurement procedure. Frankly, I do not understand the statement that “…the use of an ‘unshifted depth dose data’ increases the uncertainty in the dose only near dmax.” The shift in the PDD curve is about 2 mm for the scanning chamber we use. At any given depth along the descending part of the curve, the dose change is about 0.7% of the maximum dose. Also, all of our dosimetry and treatment planning system data are in error by that 2 mm, which in turn means that closed isodose curves on our plans will grow about 2 mm in all directions. With all the recent emphasis on conformal therapy and IMRT, I can not believe that our physician colleagues will find that acceptable. Bottom line: full implementation of the new TG-51 will mean a significant investment
22 1
of physics resources. I concur with the advice given by Lowenstein; “Before making the conversion to TG-51, be sure to notify all personnel involved at your facility of the magnitude of these changes.” Unfortunately, the published data that I have seen to date do not present the full clinical impact of this change. References: 1. J. Lowenstein, “Implementation of TG-51: Practical Considerations,” AAPM Newsletter, Vol. 25, No. (5), pp. 20-21 (2000). 2. D.W.O. Rogers, “Why Use TG-51 Instead of TG-21,” AAPM Newsletter, Vol. 25, No. (5), pp. 17-19 (2000). 3. S.Cho et al., Jour. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., Vol. 1, No. (3), pp. 108-115 (2000). Hobart Shackford Fall River, MA.
AAPMNEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER AAPM
23
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
AAPM NEWSLETTER
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
AAPM NEWSLETTER EDITOR Allan F. deGuzman MANAGING EDITOR Susan deGuzman What Please send submissions (with pictures when possible) to the editors at: e-mail: deguzman@wfubmc.edu (336)773-0537 Phone (336)716-7837 Fax 2340 Westover Drive, Winston-Salem, NC 27103
can I work here
The AAPM Newsletter is printed bi-monthly. Next Issue: March/April 2001 Postmark Date: March 15, 2001 Deadline for the March/April issue: February 15, 2001
Editorial Board Forthcoming
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICISTS IN MEDICINE
One Physics Ellipse College Park, Maryland 20740-3846 (301)209-3350 Phone (301)209-0862 Fax e-mail: aapm@aapm.org http://www.aapm.org
24 1
AAPM NEWSLETTER
INSERT
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
Report from the Chairman of the Board This report was inadvertently omitted from the January/February 2001 AAPM Newsletter as a result of technical difficulties. It will be printed in the March/April 2001 AAPM Newsletter in its entirety for documentary purposes. Kenneth Hogstrom Houston, TX The AAPM remains an active Association representing medical physicists. I look forward to serving this year as Chairman of your Board of Directors. As we approached the year’s end with our committee meetings and Board of Directors’ Meeting at the RSNA Annual Meeting in Chicago, I looked back on an active 2000, while at the same time looked forward to a promising 2001 under the leadership of our new President, Charlie Coffey. This time of transition gave me the opportunity to reflect on some issues of significance to me and related Board actions.
Medical Physics Residencies Medical physics residency education programs remain an issue of key importance to the future of medical physicists and remain an area that I continue to promote. Due to recent efforts by the Chair of the Development Committee, Steve Goetsch, the medical physics residency grants have been increased to $18,000/year so that the grants can provide 50% of annual resident stipend costs. These grants continue to help
seed new programs. The AAPM remains a staunch supporter of CAMPEP, which now has four accredited training programs in radiation oncology physics with promise of adding four new accredited programs in 2001, two in radiation oncology physics and two in diagnostic imaging physics. Still, the number of medical physics residency programs must grow to have the capacity for allowing them to become a prerequisite for sitting for Board certification examination. I have appealed to our physician colleagues through an article in the March 2000 ACR Bulletin (also see the September/October 1999 AAPM Newsletter). As part of my statement representing the AAPM at the opening session of the RSNA Annual Meeting, I presented the following to the mostly physician audience: “...The RSNA-AAPM relationship has served our respective professions well. I want to spend the remainder of my time reviewing one activity significant to medical physicists. As many of you may be aware, residency education programs for medical physicists are evolving. There are presently four nationally (CAMPEP) accredited residency programs in
1a 1
radiation oncology physics, and by the end of 2001, at least six radiation oncology physics and two diagnostic imaging physics programs should be accredited. Medical physics is maturing as a professional practice, and the demands on the education and training of the medical physicist are increasing as a result of increased technology and healthcare economics. All medical physicists should enter their profession broadly trained and fully proficient, which is best accomplished by required residency education. The RSNA has been the staunchest supporter of AAPM education, having contributed significantly to the AAPM Development Fund in 1991, and subsequently in 1997 by providing funding for two matching fund grants that seed diagnostic imaging physics residency programs. I believe that accelerated growth of medical
AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER
INSERT physics residency programs is best done with the assistance of the individual radiologist. Therefore, I ask our physician colleagues for their assistance. This can happen in the following ways: first, next time you recruit a new medical physicist, ask him or her if he/she has residency training, and second, recognize the value of residency training in the recruitment process. Additionally, if you are in a setting that has radiologist residency training, ask your department head if there can be a comparable program for the medical physicist. Also, if you are the head of your department, discuss with your chief medical physicist the possibility of having a medical physicist residency program. Such programs are eligible for HCFA funding that is independent of that provided for graduate medical education of physicians....”
Allied Health Professional Colleagues Another area I felt of importance during my term as President was to strengthen our ties with our allied health professional colleagues, which include medical dosimetrists and accelerator engineers. There are a number of actions that are building bridges in that area. Early 5 in the year, the AAPM and American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) provided $11,000 each to assist Art Boyer in pursuing a mechanism
for developing a web-based medical dosimetry training tool. Those funds supported a workshop held just before the American Association of Medical Dosimetry (AAMD) Annual Meeting. The purpose of the workshop was to initiate its development. Simultaneous to the workshop, Art submitted a R-25 grant to the NCI. Art recently informed the AAPM that the grant was not funded, but that he intended to reapply. To prepare for resubmission, a pilot program is being developed. Also, in an email to which I was copied, ASTRO Chairman of the Board, Chris Rose, urged AAMD President Robin Famiglietti for ASTRO, AAMD, AAPM, and NCI to work together to find innovative solutions, such as Art’s, for training medical dosimetrists. In my final President’s Column, I mentioned that the AAPM, through its Training of Technologists Committee, was developing a response to the Medical Dosimetry Certification Board’s (MDCB) draft document “Statement on the Scope and Standards of Medical Dosimety Practice.” With Geoff Ibbott representing the AAPM, our input is being meshed with that of the American College of Medical Physics (ACMP) so that the ACMP, ASTRO, and AAPM can provide a joint, constructive response to the MDCB. Due to expanded activities of the Training of Technologists Committee with medical dosimetrists, accelerator tech-
1b
JANUARY/FEBRUARY JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 2001
nologists, and others, that committee was renamed at our November Board of Directors Meeting to Medical Physics Education of Allied Health Professionals. Another area of potential benefit to our allied health colleagues would be availability of AAPM technology for remotely directed continuing education (RDCE), which is presently being evaluated by the RDCE Subcommittee and will be a subject of discussion at next spring’s long range planning meeting. Last, accelerator engineers continue to work toward forming a professional society with assistance from the AAPM. The ad hoc committee, chaired by Jim Galvin, supports that effort and will be re-appointed for 2001. Funds are budgeted to assist that group in developing by-laws for their society, presently designated the Radiotherapy Service Engineers As■ sociation (RSEA).