AAPM Newsletter March/April 2001 Vol. 26 No. 2

Newsletter AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICISTS IN MEDICINE VOLUME 26 NO. 2

MARCH/APRIL 2001

AAPM President’s Column Coffey Break Charles W. Coffey, II Nashville, TN

Colin Orton, Editor, & Chris Marshall, Chairman Journal of Business Management Committee

2001 Annual Meeting I hope you are clearing your calendar in anticipation of attending the 2001 Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah from July 22 to 27. I especially want to invite you to the President’s Symposium on Monday morning entitled “Molecular Imaging and Its Impact on Radiation Oncology and Treatment Planning.” Speakers include nationally recognized leaders in the rapidly growing discipline referred to as molecular imaging.

The AAPM’s own Clifton Ling and Daniel Bourland are two of the speakers.The two other speakers are molecular imaging scientists from the Radiology Department of the University of California, San Francisco and from the Radiology Imaging Research Laboratory of the University of Washington. Look for an announcement from the Educational Council about Internet-based learning opportunities concerning the President’s Symposium and Refresher Course lectures from the 2001 Annual Meeting.

Changes to Medical Physics Online & Annual CD Version of Medical Physics

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering President Clinton signed H.R. 1795, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Establishment Act, into law on December 29, 2000. The Academy of Radiology Research (ARR) and the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE) worked together to build support for this legislation in the Congress and Administration. The AAPM has been a member society of the ARR and a staunch supporter of the Institute since 1995. On behalf of the AAPM, I’ve received a (See Coffey - p. 3)

Did you know that the online version of Medical Physics gets 30,000 hits and serves up 2,500 articles throughout the world each month and that these numbers are growing? The full text of Volumes 24 and 25 will be added to the online archive of (See Med Physics - p. 2)

TABLE OF CONTENTS President’s Column Med. Phys. Journal Chairman’s Column NIBIB Status NY State Licensure Exec. Dir.’s Col. Gov’t Affairs Col. RDCE Request RSNA Grant Prog.

Missouri Valley Ch. Travel Grant Rep. Midwest Ch. News ACR Contributions RTC - SC-MICRO

p. 1 p. 1 p. 6 p. 7 p. 9 p. 10 p. 12 p. 14 p. 15 p. 17 p. 18 p. 20 p. 21 p. 23

AAPM NEWSLETTER

Med. Physics (from

MARCH/APRIL 2001

p.1)

Medical Physics early this year, and abstracts of all volumes may also be searched online by visiting www.medphys.org.

You can even set up your own article collection through the Web site.

The current volume of Medical Physics is now available online in full text HTML as an addition to the previous formats. This new format gives more rapid online access to the text and much easier navigation through the text with any current Web browser by using active links. However, the quality of copies you print locally, as well as the quality of illustrations, may be better using the PDF version at the present time. Incidentally, for those who may have had problems accessing PDF versions using Internet Explorer version 5, these problems are resolved in version 5.5.

In 2000 we entered into agreements which greatly expanded the number of journals accessible from the reference links in Medical Physics Online. An active link will take you to the abstract of the article and to the full text of the article, if the article is online and you subscribe, or your institution subscribes. Many journals, including Medical Physics, now offer online article delivery for a fee if you do not subscribe.

Another enhancement under consideration for 2001 is the publication of articles online as

soon as they are ready for mounting, eliminating the waiting period for an entire issue to be completed. This will mean that some articles will be published online up to four weeks earlier than presently possible.

Fiscal prudence requires us to consider how best to offset the additional cost of these improvements. The Journal Business Committee is therefore actively considering the future of the CD ROM product beyond 2001. One CD can currently hold three volumes as full text plus the abstracts of prior volumes. The CD ROM for Volume 27, which will be distributed free to members later this year, will no longer contain the full text of Volume 24, which must be displaced to fit the new material. The abstracts of Volume 24 will be added to the abstracts of earlier volumes which can be searched on the CD. As we move forward, one volume will need to be displaced each year to fit the next.

Thus, members will need to use multiple CD’s in the future to load articles from different years.

The Web site gives immediate full text access to all volumes which are online and also has an increasing number of active links to references, as well as a powerful search capability for all abstracts published. As a result, it is superior to the CD in all these respects. We recognize that the CD has advantages to those members who have poor access

2 1

to the Web, but new cable, wireless and DSL telephone technologies are providing relatively high speed access even for home use, so we presume that this may not be a permanent advantage.

One of our plans for 2001 is to perform a survey of member opinions on this and other isâ– sues.

AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 MARCH/APRIL 2001

Coffey (from p. 1) letter of thanks from C. Douglas Maynard, MD, president of the ARR. His letter concludes that the successful passage of this five-year effort reflects the dedication of the ARR member societies and the individuals who contributed by writing to and meeting with their senators and representatives, organizing state and local grassroots efforts, and in some cases, coming to Washington to testify in support of the proposed Institute.

The AAPM is ably represented on the ARR Board of Directors by Phil Judy (see Phil’s article elsewhere in the Newsletter). We thank Phil for keeping the Association informed during this development period and leading and encouraging us in the letterwriting campaign of fall, 2000.

The AAPM leadership expresses our thanks to those of you who responded to the AAPM’s call to write your Congressional representatives.

Additionally during the letterwriting campaign, our American Institute of Physics (AIP) Governing Board representatives, Christopher Marshall and James Smathers, enlisted the support of the AIP and our sister organizations in the Institute’s legislative efforts.

During those key final days between congressional passage and the Presidential signing, the AIP, under the direction of its executive director, Marc Brodsky, Ph.D., made signifi-

cant contacts with Administration officials in support of the legislation.

Our relationships with the ARR and AIP illustrate the influence of cooperation. But alas, while the Institute legislation has become law, much remains to be done to ensure that it is structured and funded to maximize its effectiveness.

Quoting from Dr. Maynard, “The establishment of the Institute will, over the long term, have a positive impact on every member of our discipline.

For the first time, experts from our profession will play a leading role in guiding and directing a significant, permanent research program intended to develop new imaging techniques and technologies for use in both clinical practice and advanced biomedical research.

The new Institute will also provide research training, which has been readily available to other specialties, for the best young minds in radiology and imaging science.” Thus, assisting in the structuring of the Institute will become one of the key issues for the AAPM for the near future.

Judy’s term on the ARR Board of Directors concludes in November of this year. He will be replaced on the Board

by Paul Carson. The Association membership will have two opportunities to learn more concerning the Institute and its impact on medical physicists during the 2001 Annual Meeting. A question and answer dis-

3

cussion period during the Annual Business Meeting on the Institute will be lead by Judy and Carson. A special “refresher” course session has been scheduled on Thursday morning (7:30 – 8:25 a.m.); a NIH official will report on the current status of the Institute.

Both of these sessions have been scheduled to offer interested AAPM members the opportunity to obtain information and offer input during the Institute’s formative years.

Intravascular Brachytherapy (IVB) As you know, in November, 2000, two manufacturers received final FDA marketing approval for radiation devices used in clinical intravascular brachytherapy applications.

This represents the culminaton of nearly six years of radiobiological and medical physics research including both animal and human clinical trials. The AAPM can take much pride in this introduction of intravascular brachytherapy to the clinic. We have from the beginning supported the need for the medical physicist to be an integral part of the intravascular brachytherapy team. The IVB team is now widely acknowledged as including the interventional cardiologist, radiation oncologist, medical physicist, and the cardiac catheterization laboratory staff.

Additionally, in many institu(See Coffey - p. 4)

AAPM NEWSLETTER

MARCH/APRIL 2001

Coffey (from p. 3) tions, the medical physicist is joined by a radiation safety physicist on the IVB team to lead/assist in matters of radiation safety.

The AAPM, through its members’ contributions, took the lead in the determination of accurate dosimetry and concern for radiation safety during intravascular brachytherapy procedures. The first major medical physics consensus report on intravascular brachytherapy physics was the AAPM’s Task Group #60 Report (Medical Physics, February, 1999). The original Task Group#60 was chaired by Ravinder Nath; he also chairs the current Intravascular Brachytherapy Subcommittee.

Intravascular brachytherapy physics and its associated radiation dosimetry and safety procedures need to be taught and subsequently applied clinically as this treatment modality is introduced across the country.

The Intravascular Brachytherapy Subcommittee has been active in getting IVB subject materials onto the educational programs during the 2001 Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City and the 2001 RSNA Meeting in Chicago. The Program Committee has allotted four refresher course hours on IVB topics during the Annual Meeting. The RSNA Refresher Course Committee has scheduled six hours of IVB lectures for its November meeting.

Medical Physicist Licensure Medical physicists across the country are disappointed with the final legislative outcome of the medical physicist licensure effort in New York during 2000. The medical physicist licensure bill that was approved by the New York State legislature during 2000, was vetoed by the governor in late December (see the New York licensure article, elsewhere in the Newsletter). The New York licensure effort was partially supported by AAPM Boardapproved funds. Medical physics leadership within New York remains optimistic concerning the ultimate passage of the medical physicist licensure bill during 2001. Look for activity and reports from the Legislation and Regulation Committee of the Professional Council concerning New York and other medical physicist licensure legislation opportunities in 2001.

Medical Physicist Mentoring One of the issues confronting the AAPM and the medical physicist community is the declining numbers of young physicists and other qualified students entering the medical physics profession. The everincreasing addition of community imaging and radiotherapy centers throughout the nation, the increase in medical technol-

4 1

ogy and treatment techniques, and the maturing age of practicing medical physicists (myself included), combine to create a renewed concern for the development of young medical physicists.

As a career-long educator, I’m concerned that now is the time to recruit and train the next generation of medical physicists. May I suggest the following volunteer opportunities for you to assist in this important endeavor: 1. give a medical physics lecture/presentation at a local college or university (the Education and Training of Medical Physicists Committee can assist with lecture content and slides), 2. participate as a sponsor in a work/study program for undergraduates (often local colleges and universities will fund summer work/study programs for outstanding upperclassmen), and 3. mentor a medical physics graduate student in clinical and/ or research medical physics (contact a medical physics program director in your geographical area for potential student candidates).

In our busy work lives, we oftentimes overlook the potential to impact the medical physics profession, one student at a time. I encourage you to participate in the future of medical physics by volunteering today.

Have a great Spring. I’ll see ■ you in Salt Lake City.

AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER

5

5

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 MARCH/APRIL 2001

AAPM NEWSLETTER

MARCH/APRIL 2001

Report from the Chairman of the Board 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 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 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, (See Hogstrom - p.8)

6 1

AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 MARCH/APRIL 2001

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging & Bioengineering Created Philip F. Judy AAPM Representative, Academy of Academic Radiology In past AAPM President’s Columns, Kenneth Hogstrom and Geoffrey Ibbott have been keeping you updated about the efforts to create the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). Those efforts, led by the Academy of Radiology Research (ARR) with the support of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP), have been successful.

On December 29, 2000, President Clinton signed into law H.R. 1795, The National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) Establishment Act. The path to the signing was not according to script and suggests that there was considerable congressional and community support for the creation of NIBIB. The supporters of the H.R. 1795 had expected that it would be attached to the omnibus appropriations bill that funded the Department of Health and Human Services and several other departments that the President would have to sign. Some key members of the House-Senate Conference Committee on that bill refused to allow it to be included in the

final conference report. On December 15th, the last day of the congressional session, then Senator Lott brought up the House-passed bill. The Senate approved it by unanimous consent (no senators present objected). This meant the President could veto it.

Supporters of H.R. 1795 then mounted an email and phone campaign to encourage the President to sign the bill. The ARR sent emails to all the individuals who had contacted their representatives and senators, who in turn were urged to support the creation of NIBIB with emails to the White House. Many AAPM members received one of these requests and responded. Your support was important and is appreciated.

We requested that the AIP make known its support for H.R. 1795 to the White House.

AIP staff contacted the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and also spoke with the American Physical Society Washington Office, whose representatives also contacted the OSTP. Now that H.R. 1795 has been enacted into law, efforts will be made to ensure that we provide input into the plans for NIBIB and that Appropriations Subcommittees with responsibility for NIH funding understand the need for NIBIB. The ARR and AIMBE have created a joint

7

committee to work with NIH. The participation of those of you from the congressional districts and states of appropriators will contribute to our success. Your efforts toward development and maintenance of the strongest possible basic science component of biomedical imaging research in the new Institute will be most critical.

Acting director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Ruth Kirschstein, has appointed a contact person to field suggestions and comments regarding the organization of NIBIB. She will also create an internal NIH committee to advise her on the creation of NIBIB and appoint an acting director of NIBIB. Your thoughts on these issues will be welcomed by the Task Force No. 1 of Research Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Implications.

Task Force No. 1 includes: Philip F. Judy, Chair Paul L. Carson, Incoming ARR Rep. Gary D. Fullerton, AIMBE Representative William R. Hendee, AIMBE Representative Christopher H. Marshall, AIP Representative â–

AAPM NEWSLETTER

MARCH/APRIL 2001

Hogstrom (from p. 6) 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 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 Dosimetry 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 the AAPM can provide a joint, constructive response to the MDCB. Due to expanded activities of the Training of Technologists Committee with medical dosimetrists, accelerator technologists, and others, that committee was renamed at our November Board of Directors Meeting to Medical Physics Education of Allied Health Professionals.

8 1

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 towards forming a professional society with assistance from the AAPM. The ad hoc committee, chaired by Jim Galvin, supports that effort and will be reappointed for 2001. Funds are budgeted to assist that group in developing by laws for their society, presently designated the Radiotherapy Service Engineers Association ■ (RSEA).

Editor’s Note: This article was included in the Jan/Feb Newsletter as an insert, but has been reprinted here for documentary purposes.

AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 MARCH/APRIL 2001

Status of the Medical Physics Licensure Effort in New York Reported by Stephen Nagy Cooperstown, NY In December 1991 members of the NYS Medical Physics License Coordination Committee met for the first time. Our goal at that meeting remains our goal today; to work with members of the legislature, regulatory departments within the executive branch, health-related organizations and other organizations to amend the education law and create the profession of Medical Physics in the state of New York. Achievement of this goal ultimately requires the passage of a bill referred to as The Medical Physics Practice Act. At the outset, key members of legislative committees, as well as members of the pertinent regulatory agencies, raised numerous concerns. Each issue had to be resolved to the satisfaction of the medical, medical physics, legislative and regulatory communities. Finally, on June 15, 2000, after another very intense legislative session, the bill passed unanimously in the state Senate and with only six votes against passage in the state Assembly.

Unfortunately, on December 8, 2000, Gov. George Pataki vetoed New York’s Medical Physics Practice Act (S.1652/ A.2793), citing two technical deficiencies. One concerned the effective date of the law. This was something which the Li-

censure Committee and the legislative sponsors had recommended be changed in an amendment to the chapter the governor would sign. The other deficiency concerned an interpretation of the bill in which some of the work presently being performed by other individuals working in the healthcare profession would be restricted to only licensed medical physicists; specifically, this referred to the QC measurements performed mainly by service organizations, diagnostic technologists, nuclear medicine technologists and radiation therapy technologists.

Before the governor requested the bill, our sponsors recognized both problem areas and addressed them in detailed letters to the governor (Letters of Intent). Both the sponsor in the Senate and the sponsor in the Assembly stated that it was the sense of the bill as passed to exempt these individuals.

Ultimately, it appears that the State Department of Education (the body that regulates the

9

professions in New York State) was unwilling to write regulations without detailed specifics for addressing this issue and the Department of Health could not support this legislation without a specific exemption for these individuals. In his veto message, the governor encouraged the sponsors to work with his staff to remedy the two deficiencies and craft new legislation.

Although we all were very disappointed with the governor’s veto, it was the unanimous decision of the Licensure Committee to continue our efforts. We have been working with staff members in both the legislative and executive branches to thoroughly address the governor’s concerns while keeping changes in the language of the past bill to a minimum. Once the bill’s language is finalized, it will be submitted as new legislation and begin its passage through the legislative process. Given the (See NY Licensure - p. 10)

AAPM NEWSLETTER

NY Licensure (from

MARCH/APRIL 2001

p.9)

Executive Director’s Column

legislative success of this past year, our hope and expectations are that the process will move quickly with the bill as amended once the session begins.

We thank our colleagues around the country for their continuous encouragement and support through this long and complicated process. We look forward to sending you a report of a successful conclusion in this calendar year.

The New York State Medical Physics License Coordination Committee PO Box #8 Cooperstown, NY 13326 Committee Members: Stephen Nagy, Ph.D., Chairman Doracy Fontenla, Ph.D. Yakov Pipman, Ph.D. Robert Pizzutiello, M.S. Lawrence Rothenberg, Ph.D. Jean St. Germain, M.S. Alan Schoenfeld, M.S. Citizens for Licensing of Physicists in Medicine, Inc. 7867 Parish Road Victor, NY 13464 (716)9242-0350 Fax (716) 924-5765

Summer School The 2001 Summer School is scheduled for June 24 – 28 at the University of Washington in Seattle. UW is conveniently located about three miles north of downtown Seattle, on the northern shore of Lake Washington. Program Co-Directors Bob Dixon, Penny Butler and Wlad Sobol have organized the program entitled “Accreditation Programs and the Medical Physicist.” Local Arrangements Committee Co-Directors Sherry Connors and Steve Langer have organized a wonderful ‘Night Out’ at Tillicum Village on Blake Island. Details and registration are available via AAPM online at www.aapm.org. Register before April 30 to receive discounted registration fees.

Regular registration closes June 1. Housing reservations are being handled directly with the University of Washington and must be made by June 1.

2001 AAPM Annual Meeting

Officers: Robert Pizzutiello, President Stephen Nagy, Treasurer Doracy Fontenla, Secretary Legislative Consultant: Mr. Vernon Benjamin

Sal Trofi College Park, MD

■

The 43 rd AAPM Annual Meeting will be held July 22 – 26 in Salt Lake City, Utah. All sessions, exhibits and committee meetings will be held at the

10 1

Salt Palace Convention Center.

Registration materials will be available on AAPM online in mid-April. Registration will only be available via the Web. Register by June 15 to receive discounted registration fees.

Advance registration will close July 1. On-site registration will be available.

Along with the traditional scientific and educational sessions, Scientific Program Director Eric Klein, Co-Director Andrew Maidment, and Education Director Bob Gould have included many symposia and courses that include stateof-the-art subjects, as well as back-to-basics subjects. The full program will be available on the Web by May 15.

This year’s meeting will have some new features. The exhibit hall will open on SUNDAY from 12:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

Also, all poster sessions will be held on Sunday afternoon in the exhibit hall poster area from 1:00 pm- 5:00 pm. Make plans to arrive by Sunday to take ad-

AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER

vantage of the extra time to meet with the exhibiting companies and participate in the poster sessions.

The Local Arrangements Committee, chaired by Grant Gulberg, is hoping that you will plan to come a little earlier or stay a little later to take advantage of the pre and post convention tours they have arranged. A trip to Zion and Bryce National Parks is planned from July 19 – 21 and a trip to Yellowstone, Grand Tetons and Jackson Hole is planned for July 26 – 28. Information on these tours and the companion tours organized during the meeting are already posted on aapm online.

Headquarters Office Space - Update Construction of the new office space is now complete and the staff has settled in. The AAPM headquarters is located in College Park, Maryland in a building named the American Center for Physics (ACP). The ACP is less than two miles from the campus of the University of Maryland and less than one mile from a Metro station servicing the greater Washington, DC area. The ACP was built in 1993 and the AAPM moved from New York City at that time along with the American Institute of Physics (AIP) and the American Physical Society (APS). The ACP has five floors with the first floor totally devoted to common area and con-

taining several large conference rooms, a cafeteria, exercise room, and a daycare. The second and third floors are occupied by the AIP and the fourth floor is occupied by the APS. We occupy almost half of the fifth floor and the other half is occupied by the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT).

All floor space in the ACP is now fully developed and occupied. Our new lease has an initial term of ten years and two five-year renewal options.

There are currently 16 staff members and the new space will accommodate 22 or 24 if we give up the smaller of two conference rooms. The likelihood of outgrowing the space in ten years is very small, but we do have an escape clause if this occurs.

Staff News Farhana Khan has been promoted to the new position of Web designer and will be tasked with a complete revision of the AAPM Web site. Farhana will work closely with members of the Electronic Media Coordination Committee for guidance on the design of the Web site.

One idea that will be pursued is the possible division of the site into public relations and members-only sections. The search for a replacement for Farhana is underway.

Kysha Marshall, our accounting assistant, is leaving to further her career in account-

11

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 MARCH/APRIL 2001

ing. Kysha worked for the AAPM for almost two years and made positive contributions to handling the greatly increased financial activity brought about by the World Congress Meeting in July of 2000.

Other News The year 2000 was the first since 1993 that the AAPM did not have revenues exceeding expenses. The combination of a falling stock market and hosting the World Congress Meeting caused our finances to be negative by about $75,000. The very strong financial result of the Medical Physics Journal helped to ease the amount of loss. After the 1998 World Congress Meeting, our exhibits at the Annual Meeting increased substantially. The same sort of rebound after the 2000 World Congress would be wel■ comed.

AAPM NEWSLETTER

MARCH/APRIL 2001

Government Affairs Column

Angela Furcron College Park, MD Since this is my first newsletter article I would like to introduce myself. My name is Angela L. Furcron (nicknamed Angie). I’m originally from northwest Pennsylvania. I have a B.S. degree in Psychology with a Speech Communications minor and a Masters of Public Administration degree with certificates in Health Administration and Gerontology. My previous job was in the government relations division of a large healthcare association.

My primary responsibilities were legislative and regulatory research, attending hearings and coalition meetings, and interacting with Congressional staff.

I began work here October 30, 2000 and I’m looking forward to a bright future with the AAPM. I have been working closely with Mike Gillin, chair of the Professional Council.

Our largest project has been the Government Relations Meeting that is scheduled to take place April 9 - 10, 2001. There are 28 physicists who have agreed to participate. The two-day meeting will start April 9 with a day of preparation before going to Capitol Hill April 10. We are currently fine-tuning the message that will be taken to Capitol Hill. Here are a few

things that are on the agenda: •an overview of how Capitol Hill works, •presentations by other physics and radiology government relations representatives explaining how they interact with Congress, including my own explanation as to how AAPM members can best interact with Congress, •a discussion on the new National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), and •a role-playing session.

My daily duties consist of monitoring legislative and regulatory activities that are of interest to the AAPM. I use several different sources to keep abreast of the activities of Congress and regulatory agencies such as the FDA, HCFA, NIH and the NRC. I read newspapers, periodicals and journals in print and online to gather information. I also keep in contact with other related groups

12 1

through phone calls, e-mails and coalition meetings. I have met with the ACR, ASTRO and the HPS. I have also been taking part in a weekly American Institute of Physics (AIP) Coalition conference call every Monday and a monthly luncheon. The AIP is an umbrella organization for physics that provides services to their member organizations. The AAPM is a member of the AIP. This coalition consists of all AIP member associations that have a government relations department. The AAPM has a lot of commonality with the ACR, ASTRO and the HPS, but not as much with the AIP. Most AIP member organizations are focused on non-medical areas of science, but I find that my relationship with the AIP is very beneficial because it provides me with perspective on what is important to other areas of the physics community.

I have attended the Alliance for Quality Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Meeting and the ACR State Chapter Leaders Meeting. Both were in Washington, D.C. in March. I will be attending the CRCPD Meeting from April 27 to May 2 in Anchorage, AK. While at this meeting I will also attend the AAPM Training Course and the Emerging Modalities in Medicine Training Course (ACR).

AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER

The Bush administration is expected to propose a multibillion dollar increase for the National Institutes of Health in the upcoming fiscal year (FY) 2002 budget. As I was writing this article I discovered that the Bush administration is reviewing 13 Final Rules from HCFA that were caught under a 60day moratorium for regulations that had been published in the Federal Register but have not gone into effect. At this writing I’m not sure if any of these regulations affect the AAPM,

but I will keep monitoring the situation and give an update in my next article.

The HCFA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes changes to the Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) is scheduled to be published in the spring of 2001. The Advisory Panel on Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) groups held their annual meeting on February 27 - 28 to discuss reconfiguration of APC groups. I will discuss this further in my next column. I have

13

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 MARCH/APRIL 2001

been keeping in contact with Ed Nagy, the executive director of the Academy of Radiology Research (ARR), who has been meeting with NIH officials regarding the NIBIB. The ARR is an umbrella organization to which the AAPM belongs.

Right now there is not a lot to say about Capitol Hill. At the time that I wrote this article Congress was finishing up committee assignments and doing preliminary legislation. In other words, Congress really wasn’t in full swing.

■

AAPM NEWSLETTER

MARCH/APRIL 2001

RDCE Update: Request for Article Question Writers Charles Kelsey Albuquerque, NM The Remotely Directed Continuing Education (RDCE) program has been in operation for over two years now and we have shaken most of the bugs out of the system. There are seven categories of questions on the Web site: Radiation Oncology, Radiation Protection, Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Mammography, Ultrasound and MRI. The questions are written at a level of someone who has just passed their board exam.

We have a total of 40 question sets available for our members to take and pass in order to obtain continuing education (CE) credits. Our RDCE coordinator, Jacqueline Gallet, performs heroically in keeping track of which articles have been chosen, who is writing the questions, and when they are placed on the Web.

One of our constant challenges has been finding enough article question writers (the AQW) to write questions on available articles in Medical Physics, current AAPM reports, other journals, and Summer School proceedings. At the moment we have 18 articles awaiting question writers. In order to address and hopefully solve this problem, the AAPM Board, during its December meeting, authorized the payment of a $100 honorarium to an AQW who writes a new set of questions for an RDCE quiz.

Anyone who is interested should contact Chuck Kelsey at ckel@unm.edu for more information. Please include your area of expertise or your specialty to receive relevant articles.

For those of you who haven’t signed up for the RDCE program yet, here’s the way it works. Access to the RDCE program is through the AAPM

14 1

Web site. After signing in, all the quiz categories are available for inspection, although only members who have paid the $20 RDCE fee are allowed to take the quizzes and receive CE credits. The article that the quiz is based on, and the article’s location, are indicated at the top of the quiz. After studying the article at least eight of the ten questions must be answered correctly and submitted in order to receive 1 CE credit. The quiz can be retaken if it is not passed on the first try, but only after one day has elapsed. Each year, a certificate is issued to the RDCE member indicating the number of CE credits obtained during the past year. ■

AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 MARCH/APRIL 2001

The RSNA Research and Education Foundation Leadership in Support of the Radiological Sciences Stephen R. Thomas, RSNA REF Board Member Cincinnati, Ohio The mission of the Foundation is to support research and education in the radiological sciences. Particular emphasis of many of the programs is to stimulate promising young researchers and educators to pursue careers in radiological research by providing assistance in gaining relevant experience early in their professional careers. The Foundation was established in 1984 with an endowment gift of $1 million and the appointment of its own Board of Trustees. In these sixteen years the programs and grant support capabilities have shown remarkable expansion.

From the outset, the RSNA has donated all proceeds from the sale of RSNA educational materials to the Foundation and early on provided an additional gift of $2 million.

At the 1998 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, it was announced that the RSNA would donate an additional $10 million to the Foundation with the earnings to be used for establishment of new educational program grants. Also noteworthy is the enthusiasm expressed by the radiological community at large. There has been a dynamic partnership with corporations who have joined ranks

as the Vanguard Group of Companies in support of the Foundation’s mission.

These Vanguard Companies clearly recognize the importance of support for research in the radiological sciences as critical for maintaining the vitality of our profession. In 2000, the total corporate endowment alone within the Foundation was nearly $13 million. Not to be left behind, the membership of the RSNA has risen to the call. Individuals have shown increasingly generous support through contributions included with their annual dues. In 1996, the Pathfinder Visionaries Program was established through which the current and past leadership of the RSNA have made donations and pledges of over $2.7 million. In July of 2000, the Visionaries Program was opened to all RSNA members interested in committing themselves directly to guaranteeing a bright future for radiological research.

A listing with brief descriptions of the thirteen existing research and educational grant programs and awards are as follows: •The Scholars Program designed to facilitate the research activities of junior clinical faculty members early in their academic careers by freeing at least

15

one-half of their time for a designated research project. ($60,000 annually for two years) •The Research Fellow Awards targeted to young physicians in the academic radiological sciences who are not yet established in their field. ($35,000 salary support for one year merit renewable for a second year at $40,000) •The Seed Grant Program designed to enable young investigators (previously unfunded) to gain experience in testing hypotheses and defining objectives before applying for major extramural grants. (one year award for up to $25,000) •The Research Resident Program designed to provide second or third year radiology residents an opportunity to gain further insight into scientific investigation and to develop competence in research and educational techniques and (See RSNA - p.16)

AAPM NEWSLETTER

MARCH/APRIL 2001

RSNA (from p.15) methods by freeing up at least 90% of their time to pursue a research project. (one year award for $30,000) •The Medical Student/ Scholar Assistant Grant Program designed to make radiology research opportunities possible for medical students, thereby encouraging them to consider academic radiology as an important option for their future. ($5,000 grant for a medical student to work with an RSNA Scholar grant awardee) •The Medical Student Departmental Program designed to enable departments of Diagnostic Radiology, Radiation Oncology, of Nuclear Medicine allied with medical schools to provide research opportunities to medical students. (matching funds of $1,000 per month for the designated medical student) •The Roentgen Resident/ Fellow Research Award recognizes and encourages outstanding residents and fellows in radiological research. (award plaque made available to participating North American residency programs) •The Revised Roentgen Centennial Fellowship Program offers physicians in the radiological specialties the opportunity to explore the regulatory and/or legislative processes of health care, research and educational issues as they relate to the training and practice of radiology, radiation on-

cology or nuclear medicine. (involves participation in the IoM/ Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellowship orientation Program in Washington, DC) •The Outstanding Researcher Award granted to honor one senior physician or scientist who has made a career of significant contributions to the field of radiology or radiological sciences through research. ($25,000 directly to the recipient) •The RSNA World Wide Web-based Educational Program Grant designed to provide opportunities for scientists and physicians in the radiological sciences to develop educational materials specifically for widespread distribution through the World Wide Web. (up to $75,000 for a one year program with the possibility of renewal for an additional year) •The Educational Scholar Program designed to develop the expertise of educational leaders and teachers in the discipline of education in radiological sciences. ($75,000 annually for two years to MD board certified radiologists) •The International Radiology Education Program grant to “Teach the Teachers” from Emerging Nations designed to support scientists and physicians in the radiological sciences in developed countries to produce educational programs for use in emerging countries. The goal is to enhance the education and training of individuals in the emerg-

16 1

ing countries who will be teaching radiological sciences. (up to $100,000 per year with the possibility of renewal for a second or third year) •The Outstanding Educator Award to recognize and honor a senior individual who has made original and significant contributions to the field of radiology or radiological sciences throughout a career of teaching and education. ($25,000 directly to the recipient) In 2000, Research and Education Foundation grants were presented to ten new scholars, five fellows, 25 seed grant investigators, seven research residents, three medical student/ scholar assistants, three medical student departmental awards, and two recipients for each of the following educational grants: World Wide Webbased Education Program Grant, the Educational Scholar Program Grant, and the International Radiology Program to “Teach the Teachers” from Emerging Nations, and the Educational Scholar Program Grant.

The Foundation is served by a group of 270 Distinguished Scientific Advisors. The grant application and review processes themselves are under continual evaluation by the Board to improve efficacy and impact. A new reviewer database has been implemented.

Decisions have been made to structure NIH-style study sections to review and rank grants

AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER

in a manner that will provide truly helpful feedback to applicants as assistance in their future efforts in seeking grant support.

In the final analysis, the success of the Foundation grant programs is directly linked to the career outcomes of the individual young investigators who receive support. The indications are that past recipients have made and continue to

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 MARCH/APRIL 2001

make significant contributions to radiological science, education, and patient care. The Research and Education Foundation, with the assistance of the radiological community, looks forward to continued productive support of young scientists and physicians as they pursue careers in research and education in radiology and related ■ scientific disciplines.

Missouri River Valley Chapter Announcement The Missouri River Valley Chapter’s spring meeting will be as follows: Date: May 5, 2001 Place: Tan-Tar-A Resort Lake of Ozarks, Osage Beach, MO (1-800-826-8272) Registration fee: $20 ($25 on-site) A scientific session will also be included. Five and a quarter CME credit hours will be applied. Details are as follows: •“PET and MicroPET Imaging Using Non-conventional Isotopes” Dr. Richard Laforest, Washington University

•“ICRU 50 for 3-D Conformal and IMRT Radiation Therapy” Mr. Harms, Washington University •“Helical Tomotherapy” Dr. Thomas Mackie, University of Wisconsin •“Monte Carlo Treatment Planning Using Peregrine” Dr. Rosemary Walling, Lawrence Livermore National Lab. •“Intensity Modulated Radio Surgery” Dr. Cheng Saw, University of Nebraska •“Recent Progress in IMRT” Dr. Lei Xing, Stanford Univeristy

17

•“Scan Beating Heart Using MRI” Dr. Jie Zheng, Washington University For further information contact Jason W. Sohn at the Mallinckrodt Institue of Radiology of Washington University: sohn@radonc.wustl.edu.

■

AAPM NEWSLETTER

MARCH/APRIL 2001

Travel Grant Report Summary of European visit by 2000 AAPM Medical Physics Travel Grant award recipient Paul Keall, Assistant Professor in Radiation Oncology at the Medical College of Virginia Paul Keall Richmond, VA Throughout my career I have been fortunate enough to see medical physics and radiotherapy practiced in several countries. As recipient of the AAPM Medical Physics Travel Grant, I have now been exposed to radiotherapy practices in three more countries, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Switzerland, visiting five centers overall. On this trip I gave five different talks based on research work with which I am involved at the Medical College of Virginia. I presented either one or two of these talks at each institution, depending on the preferred topic(s) chosen by the staff. The titles of these presentations are listed below.

1. “Clinical Implementation of Monte Carlo-based Treatment Planning” 2. “Image Reconstruction and Dose Calculation for HighZ Implants” 3. “Incorporating Set-up Error as Beam-patient Alignment Uncertainty in Treatment Planning” 4. “4D Imaging and IMRT” 5. “Radiobiology Calculations for Genetic Radiotherapy”

Paul and his daughter, Naomi, are shown here relaxing on the Antrim Coast in Northern Ireland.

The hospitality shown to me at all the centers I visited was outstanding. It was very humbling that such accomplished, busy scientists took the time to show me their centers, discuss their practices, explain their research and offer suggestions to improve the research efforts with which I am involved at MCV. My first port of call was Belvoir Park Hospital in Belfast, the lone radiotherapy center in beautiful green Northern Ireland. Susan Mullins organized my visit and hosted the departmental tour. Their Medical Physics Agency is looking to expand into larger and new buildings in a different part of town; a large and expensive task. The agency conducts a wide range of research covering many aspects of medical physics, including radiotherapy.

18 1

In London I visited the Royal Marsden Hospital (Fulham Road). With Dr. Alan Nahum and colleagues, I discussed radiobiology, Monte Carlo dose calculation implementation and clinical dose escalation trials.

One of their projects that most impressed me was the success of the non-rigid body image registration necessary to determine dose for combined brachytherapy (gynecological applicator) and external beam treatments of cervical cancer.

In Birmingham I was hosted

by Prof. Alun Beddoe and visited his department in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

Alun and I grew up in the same town in New Zealand and worked together in Adelaide.

As in Adelaide, Alun has a very proficient and motivated staff.

His group is doing interesting work on radiobiological impli-

AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER

cations of treatment delays, Markov chain Monte Carlo, and also on solid state dosimetry. Stuart Green showed me the cyclotron that they are in the process of modifying to allow boron-neutron capture therapy (BNCT). Successful cyclotron BNCT may allow this modality to be more accessible and cost effective than reactorbased BNCT. The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI) in Amsterdam really impressed me with their teamwork, facilities and implementation of research ideas into the clinical routine with documented evidence of improved practice. Dr. Ben Mijnheer explained the NKI research efforts and organized discussions with representatives of the major research projects. They are investigating the big issues: identifying the target (using multimodality imaging and probability-based planning) and ensuring the target was hit with the correct dose (online portal imaging, and portal dosimetry).

Dose escalation trials are also being performed.

My final destination was Bern, Switzerland. Dr. Hans Neuenschwander organized my stay and a mini-symposium.

Hans is chief physicist in the Lindenhof Hospital (the largest private hospital in Switzerland), and still has close ties with the University of Bern Inselspital research. The staff competence and efficiency of the radiotherapy department was outstanding. Most of the

patients are 3D planned, and most treatments (apart from the first day) are completed in 10 minutes. At the Inselspital I had discussions regarding Macro Monte Carlo (MMC), beam angle optimization and IMRT implementation.

Being in such beautiful places, I also managed to do some sightseeing in each of the countries I visited. These escapades included visiting a Stone Age tomb in Ireland, museums, canals, going on a double decker bus tour in London, seeing the night life in Amsterdam, and sledding the magnificent Alps in Switzerland. Needless to say, the food and beverages I consumed were varied, plentiful and all capital. However, the best part was the warmth and hospitality of the people I met. There are good people everywhere, and many are found in science.

I would like to thank the donation from Charles Lescrenier and the AAPM for making this wonderful opportunity available, and also the Medical College of Virginia for supporting my visit. I encourage people to apply for these travel awards so that you, too, can experience more of the world, improve your scientific knowledge, and share your ideas with others. â–

19

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 MARCH/APRIL 2001

AAPM NEWSLETTER

MARCH/APRIL 2001

Midwest Chapter News Jerry Soen Hinsdale, IL On January 20, 2001 the Midwest Chapter of the AAPM had their annual meeting. Two featured talks included Dr. Allan F. deGuzman, who presented the Jotsyna Paul Memorial Lecture entitled “Brachytherapy, the First 100 Years,” and Dr. Arnold Feldman, who presented the Lawrence Lanzl

Award Lecture on the “Education and Training of Medical Physicists.”

A new feature added this year was a Young Investigators Symposium which allowed graduate and postgraduate physicists to compete for small cash awards based on the content and presentation of their talks. Three talks were given, all well organized and well presented. The winner was Mark

Pankuch, a Rush University Ph.D. student, who spoke on a new parallel plate microchamber to be used to scan small field photon beams. The remainder of the talks were on various apsects of brachytherapy and included talks on prostate and endovascular ■ brachytherapy.

It’s a bird, it’s a plane, no, it’s . . . the ABR Physics Written Exam Committee members who have arrived at their January meeting in Key West, FL in a former Soviet air force jet. Bob (“Captain Midnight”) Dixon and his backseater Rick (“Blue Jay”) Morin - holding his oxygen mask - are shown in the cockpit following a high altitude flight from Jacksonville. Also shown standing are ground crew committee members Tony (“the Shark”) Seibert and Russ (“Deacon”) Ritenour.

20 1

AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 MARCH/APRIL 2001

Accomplishments of ACR Commission on Medical Physics Richard Morin, Chair Charles Kelsey, Vice Chair ACR Commission on Medical Physics Dear

AAPM

Members,

Bob Dixon, in his recent letter (Jan/Feb AAPM Newsletter), invited the three member organizations of the Trilateral Committee (AAPM, ACMP, ACR) to list some of their accomplishments which served the interests of the medical physics community. This is the American College of Radiology (ACR) Commission on Medical Physic’s (the CMP) response to that invitation. Please understand these achievements occurred while Dr. Don Tolbert was chair of the commission.

Because of its background as THE society for radiologists, the ACR has always had a major interest in economic issues which could affect its members.

Jim Hevezi is chair of the CMP Economics Committee and is a medical physicist member of the ACR Economics Commission that regularly reviews and provides input into billing issues early in the development process. His position on the commission is important both because modifications and changes to the reimbursement rules are more easily accomplished early in the rule-making process, and because the

third party payers and government agencies pay attention to the ACR, which has 30,000 members. Having a medical physicist in this sensitive and influential position is vitally important to our economic wellbeing.

The ACR has assisted medical physicists on many billing initiatives. There are frequent incursions on the reimbursement for medical physics wrought by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), the federal agency in charge of setting reimbursement rates. ACR closely monitors these activities and alerts the ACR/CMP Economics Committee when action needs to be taken. The committee has responded to many of these actions which would have reduced medical physics reimbursements. Two examples of the many committee actions are presented here.

The recent Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (HOPPS) reimbursement rules for medical physics radiation oncology procedures proposed by the HCFA would have been a disaster. In some cases reimbursement for medical physics procedures would have been reduced by 75%. The efforts of Jim and the CMP Economics Committee averted the disaster and significantly improved reimbursement rates for

medical physics procedures compared to what they could have been.

Another recent success of the Economics Commission due to Jim’s efforts has been the approval of billing for three-dimensional treatment planning under 77295. Because of his efforts, the 35 Relative Value Units for this charge are allocated 6/7 to the technical physics and 1/7 to the physician rather than the reverse allocation. Achieving approval of this charge and its split is a fine example of the results produced by the behind the scenes efforts of the CMP. Similar efforts are continuing today regarding reimbursement for IMRT and other issues in radiation oncology affecting medical physicists.

The ACR has a full legal and legislative liaison staff ready and willing to promote and protect the interests of its physics members. For example, a few years ago a nuclear medicine supplier offered to include all medical physics services to their clients at no additional charge. This would have eliminated the need for a contract or consulting physicist. The ACR stepped in with legal counsel, warning the supplier of some of the legal implications of their proposal. The company quietly dropped their offer.

The ACR’s influence extends (See ACR - p. 22)

21

AAPM NEWSLETTER

MARCH/APRIL 2001

ACR (from p. 21) beyond Washington, D.C. to issues at the state level as well.

For example, a medical physics consulting group on the East Coast received a ruling from the state that their services were not professional but rather a diagnostic testing of taxable equipment and hence subject to state sales tax. With the strong assistance of the ACR state chapter and the ACR legal staff, the ruling was rescinded. This may have set a precedent for other states.

The ACR was instrumental in initially setting up the voluntary mammography accreditation program, which grew into MQSA with the resulting requirement of annual medical physics surveys. The new ACR accreditation standards call for physics input. These steps mean increased visibility of diagnostic medical physicists.

In recent years, the ACR Council has adopted policies, which support and protect the interests of practicing medical physics as follows: 1. The concept of medical physics licensure is ACR policy. The ACR supports chapters that are attempting to establish medical physicist licensure by providing practical advice on the best way to approach and convince legislators to support licensure.

2. A definition of a qualified medical physicist is included in ACR standards which require

medical physics input. This definition states that certification and continuing medical education in the appropriate subfield demonstrates the competence of an individual in the subfield.

3. The ACR continuing education standard now includes language specific to medical physicists.

4. The protection of medical staff privileges for both physicians and medical physicists is recommended. This would protect against dismissal without a hearing following managed care buyouts of hospitals.

The CMP has been active in improving relations between the medical physics and regulatory communities by hosting an informal get together between the state leaders of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) and the medical physicists attending their annual meeting. In addition, the ACR staff has been instrumental in working with the CRCPD Program Committee to include medical physicists and physicians on the CRCPD technical program and to sponsor a training session on emerging modalities in medicine. This, coupled with the AAPM training session presented at the annual CRCPD meeting, has changed the attitude from adversarial to cooperative.

These are some of positive contributions the ACR has

22 1

made toward improving the well-being of the medical physics community in the past.

None of us has the time nor resources possessed by the ACR to monitor federal, state, or third party payer proposals, regulations, or laws, any of which could drastically affect our lives and incomes. With managed care becoming more widespread, the resources of the ACR will be even more important in the future, and our association with and participation in the ACR allows us to leverage our influence well beyond what we could accomplish acting alone as physicists. â–

AAPM AAPM NEWSLETTER NEWSLETTER

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 MARCH/APRIL 2001

New RTC Subcommittee on Imaging and RT J. Dan Bourland, Chair MICRO The Radiation Therapy Committee (RTC) recently approved the formation of the Subcommittee for Molecular Imaging in Radiation Oncology (MICRO). SC-MICRO is charged with informing the RTC on developments in the “new” area of biological, functional and molecular imaging and applications to radiation treatment. Examples of MICRO imaging include SPECT and PET imaging, functional

and spectroscopic MR, and the use of imageable biological markers such as the SIGMAII receptor.

SC-MICRO is formulating its membership to include individuals in the medical physics, imaging science, radiation oncology, and radiology fields, both scientists and physicians, to bring multi-disciplinary expertise to the committee. A brief white paper with committee charge has been written by the current SC-MICRO membership, which is: Isaac Rosen (MD Anderson), Chris

23

Scarfone (Vanderbilt), Zuofeng Li (U. of Florida), and Dan Bourland (Chair, Wake Forest).

For more information about SC-MICRO, please contact me at the following address: Dan Bourland, Ph.D. Dept. of Radiation Oncology Wake Forest U. School of Medicine Winston-Salem, NC 27157 Tel: 336-716-2987 Fax: 336-716-7837 ■ bourland@wfubmc.edu

AAPM NEWSLETTER

MARCH/APRIL 2001

AAPM NE WSLET TER NEWSLET WSLETTER EDITOR Allan F. deGuzman MANAGING EDITOR Susan deGuzman 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 The AAPM Newsletter is printed bi-monthly.

Next Issue: May/June 2001 Postmark Date: May 15, 2001 can I work here

Deadline for the May/June issue: April 15, 2001

Editorial Board Arthur Boyer Nicholas Detorie Kenneth Ekstrand Geoffrey Ibbott C. Clifton Ling Richard Morin

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