Newsletter
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICISTS IN MEDICINE VOLUME 27 NO. 4
JULY/AUGUST 2002
AAPM President’s Column Summer Robert G. Gould San Francisco, CA The Annual Meeting will be over by the time this arrives but with registration at record levels, I am assured that this meeting will be a great one. Our Annual Meetings go so smoothly it is easy to overlook how much effort our members and Headquarters staff put into them. I am grateful to all who participated in making this year’s meeting a success, including Ervin Podgorsak, chair of the Local Arrangements Committee (LAC), all the other nine members of the LAC who have such a great city in which to live, Andrew Maidmont, Scientific Program director; Michael Herman, Scientific Program codirector; Eric Klein, Education Program director; Joel Gray, Education Program co-director; and Track Chair Organizers James Balter and Gary Ezzell. Bruce Curran, chair of the Meeting Coordination Committee (MCC), and subcommittee Chairs David Pickens and Jerry Allison also contributed greatly, as did all members of the MCC and its subcommittees. I also want to express my thanks to all the Headquarters staff,
without whose efforts the meeting simply would not occur. Sal Trofi, Angela Keyser, Lisa Rose Sullivan, Nancy Vazquez, Michael Woodward and his staff, and all the other members of Headquarters are to be commended for their efforts. As our Association has grown, the logistics of the Annual Meeting have become greater, the importance of the Annual Meeting to the finances of the Association have become larger, and the needs of the members for scientific, professional and educational activities have become more diverse. We should be proud that our volunteer members and our Headquarters staff continue to meet the challenge of making our Annual Meeting such a beneficial and enjoyable experience. Last year at this time, the AAPM National Institute of Bio-
medical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) Task Group was restructured to a subcommittee under the Research Committee with Phil Judy and Paul Carson as co-chairs. This subcommittee was active in nominating and supporting candidates for director of the institute and helping the institute identify areas of research. Since then, a new director, Elias Zerhouni, M.D., has been confirmed as head of the National Institutes of Health, and Roderic Pettigrew, M.D., Ph.D. has been appointed to head NIBIB. Both men are radiologists and should be supportive of imaging research. The AAPM, (See Gould - p. 2)
TABLE OF CONTENTS AAPM/IPEM Rep. p. 3 Undergrad. Fellows p. 5 MedPhys. Travel Rep. p. 8 Exec. Dir’s. Column p. 9 Gov’t. Affairs Column p. 10 Call for Applications p. 12 Call for Nominations p. 13 Mammography FAQs p. 14 Announcements pp. 15-16
AAPM NEWSLETTER
Gould
(from p. 1)
along with the RSNA, has agreed to co-sponsor a workshop on Biomedical Imaging Research Opportunities, which, if funded by NIBIB, will be held in January of 2003 and in subsequent years. Sponsorship of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering is also being sought. The Ad Hoc Committee on Imaging within the AAPM, chaired by Rick Morin, has solicited and received a total of 10 proposals for a two-day medical imaging research symposium to occur concurrently with the Annual Meeting in San Diego in 2003. The RFP solicited propos-
JULY/AUGUST 2002
als on topics in medical imaging, including those used for molecular imaging and those using nonionizing radiation. The selected proposal, “Medical image analysis: modalities using non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation,� was submitted by Elizabeth Berry, Ph.D. from the University of Leeds. This symposium is an effort to attract scientists who do not normally attend the AAPM Annual Meeting in order to make them aware of AAPM activities, and to encourage them to participate in the Association. At the end of July, Presidentelect Marty Weinhous and I will be attending two intersociety meetings; the first ever Medical Physics Summit and the
2
Intersociety Summer Conference. The Medical Physics Summit was organized by Rick Morin of the ACR, Mike Herman of the ACMP, and myself, representing the AAPM. The meeting stems from the recognition that numerous societies now include medical physicists, and coordination of matters of importance to medical physics can involve many of these. While not officially dissolved - the Trilateral Commission has not met in more than a year - coordination between societies remains important. Hopefully, the Physics Summit will grow and help meet this coordination need among all societies with medical physics involvement. At this time, seven so-
AAPM NEWSLETTER AAPM NEWSLETTER
cieties have indicated that they will participate, including the AAPM, ACMP, ACR, ASTRO, SCAR, and RSNA. Marty and I will attend the Intersociety Summer Conference
representing the AAPM. This meeting includes officers from nearly 50 societies who are active in radiology and radiation therapy. The title of this year’s
JANUARY/FEBRUARY JULY/AUGUST 2001 2002
conference is “Today’s Research, Tomorrow’s Practice.” I hope all have an enjoyable summer! ■
Journey through Shires of Lords: A Tale of the 2001 AAPM/IPEM Medical Physics Travel Award Indra J. Das Philadelphia, PA My journey started early in September 2000 when I decided to apply for the 2001 AAPM/ IPEM travel award. The surprise came in late April 2001 when I heard about the Awards Committee’s decision that I had been chosen to receive the award. Selecting a time to visit England was another big decision and arranging the trip was not an easy chore. Over three months, I sent hundreds of e-mails to finalize the trip with various iterations of places to visit, stay, travel, etc. Thanks to the Internet, such communication is fast and free. I decided to travel during the spring break (March 22- April 13, 2002) so that my children could join me for a week. We flew to London Gatwick and drove to Bristol. Driving on the left side of the road was a lifetime experience. Dr. Alan McKenzie had been a strong supporter of my visit. Unfortunately he was unavailable (due to a death in his family). I did miss him but my visit was well supported and coordinated by sev-
eral other physicists at this center. The department of medical physics is supported by the United Bristol Health System (UBHS) and is located inside the Bristol Oncology Centre on the hill overlooking Bristol, behind a children’s hospital and the Royal Infirmary. I learned very quickly about the differences in medical physics practices in the US and UK health systems. Most UK hospitals, known as National Health System (NHS) trusts or infirmaries, are government agencies and treat a large number of patients. Radiation oncology centers in the UK typically treat 6000-9000 patients/year. Each center has a department of medical physics that provides services to radiology, nuclear medicine, ultrasound, radiation therapy and bioengineering. This provides a cohesive atmosphere for imaging and therapeutic applications. I delivered my first talk to the group at UBHS titled, “Biological and clinical implication of high-Z interfaces for dose escalation in tumors.” The crowd was enthusiastic and had some interesting questions. While in the Bristol area, we visited the first suspension bridge in 3
the world – Clifton Bridge at scenic Avon Gorge. I was told that the word “gorgeous” probably came from gorge, which is beautiful, breathtaking and indeed gorgeous. We also visited the prehistoric megalithic site, Stonehenge, which dates back some 5000 years and is situated in a prairie near Salisbury. This is a remarkable piece of human achievement in science and engineering and we felt happy that we came to visit this place. In the following days we visited the world famous Oxford and Cambridge universities and their numerous colleges. Being a physicist, it was nostalgic to see the Cavendish Laboratory where Sir Thomson discovered the electron and Sir Rutherford worked on nuclear physics and alpha particle scattering. We also made a pilgrimage to Sir Newton’s Trinity College, the little apple tree and King’s College. Both of these campuses, nearly 120 miles apart, are unique and worth visiting. One can feel the wealth of knowledge radiating from these universities. We returned to London and I visited Elekta Oncology at (See AAPM/IPEM - p. 4)
AAPM NEWSLETTER
AAPM/IPEM
JULY/AUGUST 2002
(from p. 3)
Crawley near Gatwick Airport. I saw how waveguides and MLCs are made, and how accelerators are assembled and tested in unique bunkers known as testcells. I delivered a lecture on MLC and found that Elekta scientists were very cordial, enthusiastic and supportive of my visit. I then visited Edinburgh in Scotland. It is a pristine, hilly city with castles and domes of churches visible from a distance. Dr. David Thwaite came to pick me up at the hotel and during dinner he acquainted me with the history and politics of Scotland and medical physics in general. The Western General Hospital (WGH) is one of the biggest and most prestigious hospitals in Scotland that treats nearly 6000pts/yr and is solely equipped with Varian equipment with MLC, EPID, CT-sim, Helios, etc. This physics department is exceptionally unique in that it serves only oncology. The WGH just recently started a prostate brachytherapy program. Extensive expansion is planned as the NHS has granted money to every cancer hospital in the UK to buy equipment to improve the quality of radiation treatment. I had the pleasure of spending two days at WGH and got to know various physicists, including Drs. Thwaite, Redpath, and Porter. I also delivered a talk, “CT simulation: Geometric and dosimetric planning.” I departed from the main train station of Edinburgh, Waverly, for the Liverpool and Manchester areas. It was very picturesque and spectacular during springtime with
daffodils and blooming plants everywhere. The train to Liverpool passed through a lush British countryside. I arrived at the city of Chester in the evening. Dr. Philip Mayles and his wife, Helen, met me at the train station. They showed me the city of Chester and told me that it was once a Roman stronghold. Dr. Mayles and his wife took me to Mersyside, which is west of Liverpool. I checked in at the Pollard Inn at Willaston Village, which is a village pub with few guestrooms.
ity, CT numbers, and horizontal streaking in images that clearly needs to be resolved. In the US, we have not looked at these aspects very carefully since we have not integrated CT QA as rigorously as in the UK. The differences are mainly due to the structure of medical physics departments in the two countries. In the US, CT-sim comes under radiation oncology, where physicists have limited expertise and time for imaging and diagnostic procedures. I presented my experiences on the CT-simulator since
Indra with his family at Stonehenge.
I visited the Clatterbridge Center for Oncology (CCO) which treats approximately 7000 cancer pts/yr. I was surprised at the existence of such a large facility in such a rural area. The CCO is the center for neutron therapy in the UK and still has a proton beam that treats patients from the Liverpool metro area. This department was sprawling in multiple single story buildings that house 7 Elekta units and has expansion plans for two additional units. MLC and EPID were being used on each machine. An 85cm wide-bore CT-sim from Philips has been installed. It was not fully functional yet due to various concerns about image qual4
1993 in a talk entitled “CT-simulation: Geometric and dosimetric planning” which was well attended and received. I had discussions with various members of the department and became familiar with the active programs. I visited the proton facility which has a 62 MeV proton beam used primarily for the treatment of ocular melanoma. The next leg of my journey was to Manchester. I visited John Wilkinson, who is the chief of radiation oncology physics in Christie Hospital. He took an active part in my visit. I was told that Christie Hospital is one of the busiest hospitals in the UK, treating nearly 9000 pts/yr. Professor
AAPM NEWSLETTER AAPM NEWSLETTER
Peter Williams, with whom I had the pleasure of meeting and discussing scientific matters, is the head of medical physics, which includes every aspect of radiation physics. Christie Hospital has active programs in IMRT, EPID, MLC, and brachytherapy. Even though Patterson and Parker developed their Manchester system of ‘Radium Dosage’ here, it is no longer used due to advances and availability of high dose rate units. The number of brachytherapy patients has also dropped significantly at Christie compared to the days of Patterson-Parker. It was a pilgrimage for me to visit the place of Patterson, Parker, Meredith, Spiers, and Massey, the legends of radiation oncology physics. My first talk, “Technology in radiation oncology: How far have we come?,” was in a large modern auditorium with a sizeable audience of physicians, physicists and radiographers. In the evening David Mott, one of the physicists, took me to downtown Manchester where we had an enjoyable walk and a nice dinner. I again visited Christie Hospital on Monday to meet other physicists whose names were already familiar to me, such as Geoff Budgell, Jonathan Skyes, Ronald MacKay, Chris Moore, Judy Mott, and others, along with Professor Peter Williams. I had the opportunity to see EPID, MLC and tumor modeling work currently being pursued there. I delivered the second lecture on MLC to the physicists and radiographers.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY JULY/AUGUST 2001 2002
AAPM Summer Undergraduate Fellows The AAPM Summer Undergraduate Fellowship Subcommittee is pleased to announce the following recipients of its 2002 Fellowships. Each fellow is mentored by a Full Member of the AAPM. Eva Bookjans Senior, Physics/Math, Centre College Mentor: Jean Pouliot, Ph.D., UC San Francisco Kengyeh Chu Junior, Bioengineering/Physics, Duke University Mentor: Peter Biggs, Ph.D., Massachusetts General Hospital Jennifer Clark Senior, Physics,Transylvania University Mentor: Ali Meigooni, Ph.D., University of Kentucky Britt Erickson Junior, Physics, North Park University Mentor: Michael Herman, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic Russell Kincaid Junior, Physics/Math, Syracuse University Mentor: Andrzej Krol, Ph.D., SUNY Upstate Medical University Amy Meyers Senior, Physics/Math, Lewis University Mentor: Russell Hamilton, Ph.D., University of Chicago Suzanne Topalian Senior, Physics, Boston University Mentor: Arthur Olch, Ph.D., Childrens’ Hospital of LA David Vonk Junior, Physics, Arizona State University Mentor: Stephen Sapareto, Ph.D., Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center David Scott Winter Senior, Physics, Trinity University Mentor: Paul Keall, Virginia Commonwealth University
(See AAPM/IPEM - p. 6)
5
AAPM NEWSLETTER
AAPM/IPEM
JULY/AUGUST 2002
(from p. 5)
In the evening I took a two-hour train ride to the giant industrial city of Birmingham in the Midland area. I checked in to the Lucas House, a university guesthouse. I was impressed with the university area, rolling hills, canals, botanical gardens and the clean atmosphere. Prof. Alun Beddoe came to pick me up for dinner, where we discussed and shared our experiences. Prof. Beddoe had moved from Australia to take the chief position at Queen Elizabeth Medical Center, University of Birmingham. He is also the editor of Physics in Medicine and Biology, which makes him work like an American physicist (60 hrs/ week). The next day I walked to the hospital to meet Prof. Beddoe, who had taken a keen interest in organizing my visit to the Birmingham University Hospital and introduced me to his staff. I can see that this department is growing rapidly and will make a significant impact on patient care and in various research areas, including Monte Carlo simulation and stereotactic radiosurgery. I delivered a talk on “Small field dosimetry of SRS and IMRT,” about which Prof. Beddoe has published several papers. In the last leg of my journey, as I was heading toward London for the Royal Marsden Hospital, I made a detour to Bristol to spend an evening with Dr. Alan McKenzie, whom I could not meet in the beginning of my trip. I was delighted to finally meet with Alan and his wife, Ros. We had a nice dinner and got to know each other. It was worth every minute
of my time to come back to Bristol. For the following two days, I took a train from London to Sutton to spend time with Prof. Steve Webb and his group at Royal Marsden NHS Trust and Institute of Cancer Research. I was amazed at the size of the medical physics department with a physics staff of nearly 150 in clinical and research areas. It might be one of the biggest medical physics departments in the world which covers every aspect of radiation physics – imaging: CT, MRI, PET, US, and radiation oncology: dosimetry, Monte Carlo simulation, treatment planning, optimization, etc. There is no doubt why it is known as the printing press of medical physics. Prof. Webb had organized my visit extremely well and gave me the opportunity to meet and discuss with various scientists, students, postdoctoral fellows, and clinical staff. I delivered two lectures entitled “Is there a perfect MLC for IMRT?” and “Clinical and biological consequences of high-Z interfaces in dose escalation” in the two days I spent in Sutton. The Royal Marsden NHS Trust has two hospitals, one at Sutton and the other in London at Fulham Road. I visited the Fulham Road campus the morning of my last day. Miss Margrette Bidmead, section chief of physics at Royal Marsden, introduced me to her staff and showed me the department and the resources. The Royal Marsden at Sutton has mainly Elekta equipment, whereas the Fulham Road facil6
ity is equipped mainly with Varian equipment. This gives them additional advantage for comparative study of various devices. I delivered a talk on CT simulation, which was well received. In the afternoon Dr. Frank Verhaegen, a close associate of mine, came to take me to National Physical Laboratory (NPL) where he now works. The NPL is the equivalent of NIST in the US. I discussed collaboration for dosimetry and delivered a talk on the problems of small-field dosimetry in homogeneous and medium containing inhomogeneity. Alan Dusautoy showed me various facilities in NPL. It was a worthwhile experience to visit NPL. I returned to Philadelphia the following day filled with great appreciation and memorable experiences. I am thankful to AAPM and IPEM for awarding me the travel grant through the generosity of Dr. Lescrenier of GammexRMI and Varian-TEM, respectively, that made it possible for me to travel and meet so many wonderful people in the UK. The sweet and nostalgic feelings of my UK journey will remain with me forever. Some summary observations: • Most centers in the UK treat a large number of patients (60009000 patients/year). • Typical number of accelerators in UK centers is 8-12; it is 1-4 in US centers. • There are plenty of kilovoltage and Co-60 units in the UK; there are only a few in the US. (See AAPM/IPEM - p. 8)
AAPM NEWSLETTER AAPM NEWSLETTER
JANUARY/FEBRUARY JULY/AUGUST 2001 2002
Excellent Sensitivity 0.001 pA to 195.00 nA range • 0.01 pC to 999,999 nC range.
Digital Filter A digital filter built into the MAX 4000 virtually eliminates the effect of noise. This results in a very stable and exact measurement even at 1 fA.
Comprehensive Display The amp, coulomb and collection time can be displayed simultaneously, minimizing the need to switch screens. The MAX 4000 Electrometer is a superior instrument for accurate measurement of an extremely wide range of radiation therapy applications. It is versatile enough to be used for low dose, high dose and intravascular brachytherapy, as well as external beam and diagnostic x-ray applications.
www.standardimaging.com 7601 Murphy Drive • Middleton, WI 53562 U.S.A. Tel (800) 261-4446 • (608) 831-0025 • Fax (608) 831-2202
7
ELECTROMETER
AAPM NEWSLETTER
AAPM/IPEM
(from p. 6)
• There are no doors to the accelerator rooms in the UK. • Radiation therapists in the UK are called radiographers and most of them have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree. • In the UK radiation oncologists are called clinical oncologists or consultants. • There are no dosimetrists in the UK. Treatment planning is performed by either a physicist or a physics assistant. • Special procedures (SRS, prostate seed implant, etc.) are highly centralized to only a few centers in the country. • Treatment fraction size is rather large (250-350 cGy/day) in the UK compared to that in the US (150-250 cGy/day). • The waiting period for treatment in the UK is relatively long, 2-3 months, compared to 2-3 weeks in the US. • All medical treatment in the UK is free to all patients. • There is no portal filming in the UK, rather it is done with an EPID; in the US it is mainly portal filming and very few EPIDs. • Most people in the UK work 37.5 hrs/week with 5-6 weeks yr of vacation, compared to a 4060 hour work week with 2-3 weeks of vacation in the US. • In the UK there are two types of physicists; clinical and research. The crossover of their duties is much more rigid as compared to the US. ■
JULY/AUGUST 2002
AAPM Medical Physics Travel Grant
Aldo Badano Rockville, MD On March 28th, 2002, after 12 hours of airplane travel, I arrived in Montevideo, Uruguay. The goal of this trip was to present lectures on topics I have been working on for the past years (at the University of Michigan and at the FDA labs), and to interact with professional and academic groups in the area of medical physics. After two weeks, four talks and numerous exchanges with several investigators, I can say that the goal was achieved. In this report, I underline the highlights of my visit. Let me also state that I was born in Uruguay, where I did my undergraduate studies. It was during the latter part of that program that I developed an interest in the radiation sciences in university and government labs. I had planned to give a lecture in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Unfortunately, due to a combination of reasons beyond my control (including a strike of transportation workers the same day my lecture was scheduled) it had to be cancelled. I want to thank many colleagues and 8
friends from Buenos Aires who worked hard to arrange and host my visit. Dr. Eduardo Savio, president of the Sociedad Uruguaya de Biología y Medicina Nuclear (Uruguayan Society of Biological and Nuclear Medicine), organized my first lecture. Eduardo is also a professor at the radiochemistry department. The lecture “Mamografía en un mundo digital” was offered at the Comisión Honoraria de Lucha contra el Cancer (National Honorary Commission for the Fight against Cancer) to members of a number of professional and technical organizations including radiology departments from medical institutions and academia. The lecture was well received and facilitated discussions related to digital and analog radiography and image quality. Later, the radiochemistry department at the Facultad de Química of the Universidad de la República hosted a series of discussions with investigators in various fields. I would like to emphasize the visit to Dr. Laura Fornaro’s laboratory. For many years now Prof. Fornaro has developed a solid program on crystalline films for radiation detectors. In addition to having shown HgI2 and PbI2 films with good uniformity, the group is also developing techniques to work with other semiconductor materials that offer increased X-ray absorption. Dr. Savio also introduced me to a number of projects
AAPM NEWSLETTER AAPM NEWSLETTER
related to 188 Re intravenous brachytherapy. This project has developed during the last years and has now reached a stage where new techniques are being investigated. In that respect, we discussed at length the possibility of using Monte Carlo simulation methods to predict the dose to the patient and to the operators. The other center I visited was the technical arm of the Dirección Nacional de Tecnología Nuclear. This office, part of the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining, deals with regulating the peaceful uses of ionizing radiation including medical devices. The institution is divided into a regulatory branch and a research and development branch. When I was in Uruguay in the early 1990s, I helped in the development of the thermoluminescent dosimetry service. It was quite refreshing to see the same instrumentation still working in reason-
able condition, something that I was not expecting due to their persistent problems with the continuity of the scientific and technical programs. The dosimetry service is now under the R&D branch. Raul Goyenola, head of the R&D branch, organized my visit to the lab. My talk was well received, particularly by those working in image quality assurance in radiology. After participating in the design of the calibration laboratory for radiation meters, I was able to see it in operation. Although some areas are in need of improvement, the lab is the only national center for the characterization of radiation detectors, including those used in diagnostic and in therapeutic medical applications. Several projects, some of them already ongoing and some initiated by my visit, will be considered in the near future. The lecture was attended by most of the technical staff, as well as by investigators
JANUARY/FEBRUARY JULY/AUGUST 2001 2002
and professors of the University Hospital. My visit was at all times intense. Having lived my early years in that city, every corner seemed to bring back memories, most treasured. I also had the opportunity to get together with a number of friends and family members after many years of separation. Although the weather was typical of early fall, my family and I were able to enjoy a sunny Saturday morning swimming in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean in a small resort which was once a fishing village and is located two hours east from Montevideo. As the recipient of the 2001 AAPM Medical Physics Travel Grant, I thank Dr. Charles Lescrenier and AAPM for this opportunity. I also would like to express my gratitude to the CDRH, FDA for supporting my visit. ■
Executive Director’s Column Sal Trofi College Park, MD I will devote this column to interesting statistics on membership, membership services, and the AAPM Web site.
Membership This year we were able to enforce rules that limit the number of years any member can remain in the student or junior membership category. This resulted in a
significant shift from these categories to the full membership category. Students went from 536 to 248 members, or –53%. 9
Juniors went from 357 to 78 members, or –78%. The full membership category went from 2922 to 3395 for a gain of 473 members, or +16%. We now have a good e-mail address for 96% of all members in our database. A few years ago we had about 50% when we started a campaign to gather all addresses to improve communication. The average age of the membership by category is: Students (See Trofi - p. 10)
AAPM NEWSLETTER
Trofi
JULY/AUGUST 2002
(from p. 9)
average age 29, Junior average age 32, and Full average age 46. Note that dates of birth are self reported and not checked for accuracy. Members with dates of birth in their record fall into the following age ranges: 26 to 35 = 17%, 36 to 45 = 32%, 46 to 55 = 28%, and 56 to 65 = 16%. Females make up 16% of the membership. Members living outside the US make up 17% of the membership. We currently have the home address for 2,688 members, or 275% more than last year at this time.
Membership Services Job offerings in the AAPM Placement Bulletin have increased from the low point of 196 in 1995 to 493 offerings in 2001. This is an increase of 297 job offerings, or 253%. The
2002-year job offerings as of June 30 are 34% greater than June of the previous year.
AAPM Web site The AAPM Web site continues to increase its activity. Since July 1, 2001 the AAPM home page has been requested about 350,000 times. By far the most popular feature of AAPM.ORG is the membership directory with about 135,000 searches yielding about 90,000 results. The placement bulletin has been downloaded about 50,000 times. The 2000 salary survey has been downloaded about 11,000 times. For the 2001 year, about 3,400, or 75% of all member records will have a database record changed for reasons other than dues payments. Of the 3,400 members with a record change, 2,500 or 73% were done so without the help of
staff. For the first six months of last year, about 1,200 members had changed their record. This compares to about 1,600 for the first six months of this year, which represents an increase of 25% in the number of members with a record change. Dues payments via the AAPM Web site have increased dramatically this year from last year. For the 2001-year, we received 761 dues payments online compared to 2,359 in 2002-year. This represents more than a 300% increase. We now receive more than 50% of all dues payments via the Web. The Web site accepted 613 electronic abstracts submissions for the Montreal meeting. Last year the number of submissions for the Annual Meeting was 404. This represents an increase of about 50%. ■
Government Affairs Column Angela L. Lee College Park, MD
AAPM Legislative Software Now on the Web site The AAPM has contracted with a legislative software company named CapWiz. Legislative information can now be accessed on the AAPM Web site in the Government Affairs Section. Cap Wiz is an online suite of tools that, combined with the data provided by their in-house research team,
will help AAPM members identify and contact elected officials at the federal level. This is a great time to go to the AAPM Web site and find out who your represen10
tatives and senators are. You can also find out who is running against them in the next election. This software will also allow you to easily access voting records and co-sponsor information. CapWiz was first launched in 1996 and is used by nearly one thousand associations, organizations, and media organizations. These groups include AARP, AOL, Yahoo!, CNN, USA Today and MSN. CapWiz will help AAPM members “connect and be counted.”
AAPM NEWSLETTER AAPM NEWSLETTER
Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni Named NIH Director The National Institutes of Health (NIH) have a new director, Elias Zerhouni, M.D. The NIH is the world’s foremost medical research institute with a $23 billion budget. Dr. Zerhouni, 51, was most recently executive vice dean of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and chair of the Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science. For more information on Dr. Zerhouni, go to: http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/ may2002/od-20.htm.
Dr. Roderic I. Pettigrew Named First NIBIB Director The appointment of Roderic I. Pettigrew, Ph.D., M.D., as the first director of the NIH’s National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), was announced on May 7, 2002. Dr. Pettigrew is currently professor of radiology, medicine (cardiology) and bioengineering and director of the Emory Center for MR Research, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Pettigrew is expected to begin his appointment in late August or early September 2002. For more information on Dr. Pettigrew, go to: http:// www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2002/ od-07.htm. Dr. Pettigrew will oversee NIBIB’s federally-mandated budget for basic and applied re-
search and training. As you may remember, NIBIB was established in December 2000 by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Establishment Act (H.R. 1795), which the AAPM strongly supported. NIBIB’s mission is to improve health by supporting fundamental research in bioengineering and bio-imaging science and transferring the results to medical applications. NIBIB also coordinates ongoing efforts of NIH centers and institutes and exchanges information with other federal agencies. NIBIB awarded its first grants in April 2002.
AAPM to Co-sponsor Research Conference The Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Research and Education Foundation (CIRREF), in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, NIBIB, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology Imaging Network, and the AAPM, is sponsoring a basic and clinical science research conference on interventional oncology. The program entitled “Interventional Oncology: From Benchtop to Bedside” will take place on September 18-19, 2002 in Tyson’s Corner, Virginia. The primary goal of the conference is to provide a forum for clinicians, basic scientists, physician-scientists and trainees from academia, private practice, government, and industry to be exposed to cutting edge basic science research as it pertains to the many clinical areas and therapies in which they 11
JANUARY/FEBRUARY JULY/AUGUST 2001 2002
are involved. CIRREF is currently soliciting abstracts for the poster presentation at the Interventional Oncology Conference. Accepted abstracts will be published in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. The deadline for abstract submission is August 2, 2002. Please see Page 15 in the Announcement section for details. ■
AAPM NEWSLETTER
JULY/AUGUST 2002
AAPM Awards and Honors Committee Call for Competitive Applications for 2003 Travel Grants Deadline–All applications must be received by October 15, 2002. Address Travel Grant applications to: AAPM Awards and Honors Committee One Physics Ellipse College Park MD 20740-3846 Applicants will be notified of decisions by June 15, 2003. Recipients will be honored at the AAPM Awards and Honors Ceremony and Reception during the 45th Annual Meeting in San Diego, California.
AAPM-IPEM Medical Physics Travel Grant
AAPM Medical Physics Travel Grant This grant is made annually to a U.S. AAPM member to travel to a foreign country of the recipient’s choice. The purpose of this grant is to assist in the career development of the recipient and to promote communications in medical physics between nations.
This grant is made annually to a U.S. AAPM member who shows evidence of an active scientific career in medical physics. The purpose of this grant is to promote communications and professional partnerships between U.S. AAPM members and IPEM members from the United Kingdom.
Primary Criteria • Completed graduate training within the past ten years. • Not be able to accomplish this travel without financial assistance. • Travel for 14 to 21 days to a foreign country between July, 2003, and July, 2004. • Submit report suitable for publication in the AAPM Newsletter, and appropriate receipts for reimbursement.
Primary Criteria • Practicing medical physics for at least 5 years. • Travel to United Kingdom for 14 to 21 days between July, 2003 and July, 2004. • Submit report suitable for publication in the AAPM Newsletter, and appropriate receipts for reimbursement. Application Procedure • Applicant should send curriculum vitae and letter detailing anticipated professional development as a result of this travel, and five suggested topics for lectures to be presented during his/her visit to the U.K., to the AAPM Awards and Honors Committee (address above) along with a list of proposed facilities to be visited and professional contacts at those facilities.
Application Procedure • Applicant should send curriculum vitae and letter detailing anticipated professional development as a result of this travel, and five suggested topics for lectures to be presented during his/her travel, to the AAPM Awards and Honors Committee (address above) along with a list of proposed facilities to be visited and professional contacts at those facilities. This grant is supported by a donation not to exceed $1,500 from Charles Lescrenier.
The grant is supported by a donation from Charles Lescrenier of up to $1,500. In addition, this grant will include, £400 from the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine and, £750 from Varian TEM Ltd. towards expenses incurred in the U.K. 12
AAPM NEWSLETTER AAPM NEWSLETTER
JANUARY/FEBRUARY JULY/AUGUST 2001 2002
AAPM Awards and Honors Committee Call for Nominations Deadline–All nominations must be received by October 15, 2002. Further information in Section 3.9 of Rules of AAPM (see AAPM 2002 Membership Directory, page 70). Address Awards and Honors nominations to: AAPM Awards and Honors Committee One Physics Ellipse College Park MD 20740-3846 Award winners and nominators will be notified of decisions by June 15, 2003. Awardees will be honored at the AAPM Awards and Honors Ceremony and Reception during the 45th Annual Meeting in San Diego, California.
William D. Coolidge Award This award recognizes an AAPM member for a distinguished career in medical physics. Primary Criteria • Exerted a significant impact upon the scientific practice of medical physics. • Significantly influenced the professional development of the careers of other medical physicists. • A leader in national or international organizations, with specific emphasis on AAPM activities. Nomination Procedure • Submission of nomination including information regarding comprehensiveness and the criteria outlined above. • Letters of support from three other AAPM members.
AAPM Award for Achievement in Medical Physics This award recognizes AAPM members whose careers have been notable based on their outstanding achievements. Primary Criteria • Outstanding career achievements in medical physics practice, education, or organizational affairs and professional activities. Nomination Procedure • Submission of nomination including supporting evidence of outstanding achievement in one of the three areas of medical physics. • Letters of support from three other AAPM members.
13
AAPM Fellows ONLINE SUBMISSION PROCESS ONLY!! AAPM Fellowship recognizes distinguished contributions by AAPM members. Primary Criteria • Distinguished achievement in medical physics practice, education, or leadership. Nomination Procedure • Nominated by either an AAPM Chapter, with endorsement by two fellows, or by two AAPM Fellows. • Minimum of ten years as Full Member of AAPM. • To nominate an AAPM Member for Fellowship, please go to http://www.aapm.org/ memb/nominate/.
AAPM NEWSLETTER
JULY/AUGUST 2002
ACR Mammography Accreditation Frequently Asked Questions for Medical Physicists Priscilla F. Butler Senior Director, ACR Breast Imaging Accreditation Programs Does your facility need help applying for mammography accreditation? Do you have a question about the ACR Mammography QC Manual? Check out the ACR’s Web site at www.acr.org; click on the blue bar, “Mammography” and then “Frequently Asked Questions.” In each issue of this Newsletter, I’ll present a question or two of particular importance for medical physicists.
Q. I understand that there are new FDA requirements for equipment that go into effect in 2002. What are they and when must my equipment meet these regulations?
A. In the 1997 publication of the FDA Final rules, the FDA presented several new and more stringent quality assurance (QA)
and equipment requirements that would not go into effect until five years later (October 28, 2002). This delay was provided to allow facilities time to ensure that their equipment would meet those regulations or time to appropriately upgrade their equipment. Although the FDA will not require the equipment to immediately go out of service if it cannot meet the
new regulations in 2002, the facility must replace, modify or repair the equipment as soon as possible. See FDA’s Policy Guidance Help System at http:// www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/guidance-rev.html for specific guidance on this topic. These 2002 requirements are summarized in the table below:
FDA REQUIREM ENTS EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 28, 2002 FEATURE
RULE SECTION
REQUIREM ENT
900.12 (b) Equipment. Each system shall provide an initial power- driven compression activated by Application hands- free controls operable from both sides of the patient. of compression Each system shall provide fine adjustment compression controls operable from both sides of the patient.
8(i)(A) 8(i)(B)
900.12 (e) Quality assurance - equipment. Compression The maximum compression force for the initial power drive shall be between device performance 111 newtons (25 pounds) and 200 newtons (45 pounds).
4(iii)(B)
Automatic exposure control performance
The AEC shall be capable of maintaining film optical density (OD) within +/0.15 of the mean optical density when thickness of a homogeneous material is varied over a range of 2 to 6 cm and the kVp is varied appropriately for such thicknesses over the kVp range used clinically in the facility.
5(i)(B)
Focal spot condition
Facilities shall evaluate focal spot condition only by determining the system resolution.
5(iii)
Radiation output
The system shall be capable of producing a minimum output of 7.0 mGy air kerma per second (800 mR per second) when operating at 28 kVp in the standard (moly/moly) mammography mode at any SID where the system is designed to operate.
5(x)(A)
14
AAPM NEWSLETTER AAPM NEWSLETTER
Q. How will I know if my equipment meets these new requirements?
A. Check your equipment performance during its annual survey to determine not only if it meets the current QA requirements, but also if it will meet the more stringent 2002 QA requirements outlined in section (e) of the FDA regulations. In addition, determine if it meets the 2002 equipment requirements outlined in section (b) of the FDA regulations. If your equipment does not meet these requirements, you
should consult with your equipment manufacturer to see if service or an upgrade would bring the equipment into compliance. You also may try contacting thirdparty vendors if manufacture upgrades are not available.
Q. At the time of an MQSA inspection, a mammographic unit is found to not meet one or more of the specific equipment requirements listed in 900.12(b) (3-10). Must the unit immediately be taken out of service?
JANUARY/FEBRUARY JULY/AUGUST 2001 2002
paired as soon as possible. The facility may continue to use the unit for a limited time, as long as it takes measures to ensure that the failure to comply with the requirement does not result in substandard patient care. The facility is reminded that regardless of what is stated above, the unit must remain in compliance with the requirements listed in 900.12(e) if it is to be used on patients and the facility remains subject to possible citation. ■
A. No. However, the unit must be replaced, modified or re-
Announcement “Interventional Oncology: From Benchtop to Bedside” September 18-19, 2002, Tyson’s Corner, Virginia Call for Abstracts – Deadline August 2, 2002 The Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Research and Education Foundation (CIRREF), in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, National Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Institute, American Cancer Society, American College of Radiology Imaging Network, and American Association of Physicists in Medicine, is sponsoring a basic and clinical science research conference on interventional oncology. The program, “Interventional Oncology: From Benchtop to Bedside,” will take place on September 18-19, 2002 in Tyson’s Corner, Virginia. The primary goal of the conference is to provide a forum for cli-
nicians, basic scientists, physician-scientists and trainees from academia, private practice, government, and industry to be exposed to cutting edge basic science research as it pertains to the many clinical areas and therapies in which they are involved. The conference is intended to provide an opportunity for cross-fertilization between researchers in interventional radiology, functional imaging, oncology, basic science, clinical science and related disciplines. The program is comprised of four modules: 1) tumor biology, 2) animal models, 3) molecular and functional imaging, and 4) image-guided interventions. A secondary goal of the 15
conference is to stimulate an interest in research among trainees. CIRREF is currently soliciting abstracts for poster presentation at the Interventional Oncology Conference. Accepted abstracts will be published in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. To encourage trainee participation, accepted abstracts will be automatically considered for a CIRREF Travel Scholarship Award to help offset the cost of attending the meeting. The deadline for abstract submission is August 2, 2002. Go to www.cirref.org for detailed instructions and an abstract sub■ mission form.
AAPM NEWSLETTER
JULY/AUGUST 2002
Announcement WIMP Meeting The 25th Winter Institute of Medical Physics (WIMP) will convene February 8, 2003 at the Holiday Inn Summit County in Frisco, Colorado. This informal gathering (limited to 40 participants) lasts four and a half days with four hours of meetings each
day. The format allows adequate time for discussion and making new friends on and off the ski slopes and at unscheduled lunches and dinners. Applied aspects of scientific, clinical, educational and professional interest are included. Each attendee presents a 15-minute talk. Sunday through Wednesday mornings’
breakfasts are provided in the meeting room at 7 AM, as are heavy snacks at the 5 PM sessions. Greater detail is available on the WIMP Web site at “www.utmem.edu/wimp” or by contacting the director at “rltanner@utmem.edu.” ■
AAPM NEWSLETTER Editor, Allan F. deGuzman Managing Editor, Susan deGuzman Editorial Board, Arthur Boyer, Nicholas Detorie, Kenneth Ekstrand, Geoffrey Ibbott, C. Clifton Ling, Richard Morin
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: September/October 2002 Postmark Date: September 15 Deadline: August 15, 2002
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
16 1