AAPM Newsletter May/June 2014 Vol. 39 No. 3

AAPM

N E W S L E T T E R The American Association of Physicists in Medicine We advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics

MAY/JUNE 2014 Volume 39 No. 3

How do I become involved

in AAPM?

By AAPM President John Bayouth.

State Legislative Updates March 2014

The Medical Physics Residency Common Application Process (CAP)

and more...

AAPM

NEWSLETTER

AAPM NEWSLETTER is published by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine on a bi-monthly schedule. AAPM is located at One Physics Ellipse College Park, MD 20740-3846

CONTENTS MAY/JUNE 2014 Volume 39 No.3

EDITORIAL BOARD EDITOR Mahadevappa Mahesh, MS, PhD

Johns Hopkins University E-mail: mmahesh@jhmi.edu Phone: 410-955-5115 John M. Boone, PhD Robert Jeraj, PhD George C. Kagadis, PhD E. Ishmael Parsai, PhD Charles R. Wilson, PhD SUBMISSION INFORMATION Please send submissions (with pictures when possible) to: AAPM Headquarters Attn: Nancy Vazquez One Physics Ellipse College Park, MD 20740 E-mail: nvazquez@aapm.org Phone: (301) 209-3390 PUBLISHING SCHEDULE The AAPM Newsletter is produced bimonthly.

Next issue: July/August Submission Deadline: June 12, 2014 Posted Online: Week of June 30, 2014

Articles in this Issue

Events / Announcements

AAPM President’s Column

Career Services

AAPM Executive Director’s Column

2015 AAPM Summer School

Editor’s Column

56th Annual Meeting & Exhibition

Legislative & Regulatory Affairs Report

RSNA AAPM HQ Hotel Change

Education Council Report

2015 Spring Clinical Meeting

Professional Council Column

AAPM 2014 Elections

ACR Accreditation FAQs

Awards and Honors

ABR News CAMPEP News International Affairs Committee Report

www.AAPM.org

Contact us with your feedback

Editor’s Note Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

I welcome all readers to send me any suggestions or comments on any of the articles or new features to assist me in making the tablet edition a more effective and engaging publication and to enhance the overall readership experience. Thank you.

AAPM President’s Column

John Bayouth, Madison, WI

How do I become involved in AAPM?

T

his question is probably the most common question I am asked by our members during my visits to chapter meetings and/or student and resident groups. AAPM is a fantastic organization for many reasons, one of which is we represent a collection of talented, dedicated, intelligent, and detail oriented people. Currently we have 8013 members, 5619 of whom are Full members, and 1302 who serve as volunteers on 263 active committees. Over half of these groups are within Science Council, a great example of how we apply scientific methods and critical thinking to solve clinically relevant problems. Other committees are found within Administrative Council (43), Education Council (34), and Professional Council (24). Finally, we have nearly 20 committees that report directly to the Board of Directors.

The key points I’m trying to make are: (1) AAPM is involved in many activities, and (2) our activities are predominately driven by volunteers. The volunteers of AAPM are a tremendous strength; with the support of a knowledgeable and skilled staff, our organization is fundamentally driven by over 1000 volunteers. So how do you as a member (Full, Corresponding, International Affiliate, Resident, Junior, Associate, Student, or Emeritus) become involved in the activities of the organization? First, you need to understand the structure of the organization. You are unlikely to begin by being an officer or council chair.

You are also unlikely to be appointed as a member of one of the four councils (Administrative, Education, Professional, and Science). These are positions at the top of the hierarchy. Councils are comprised primarily of committees, and committees of sub-committees. The most likely entry level will come at the Task Group and working group level. Nearly half of the 263 “committees” I mentioned in the opening paragraph are either Task Groups or Working Groups.

The next step is to identify the Task Groups and/or Working Groups that best match your passions and skills. In my opinion this point is critical to both the success of the individual and the success of the organization. I hope the first point is clear; being a volunteer effort the individual must be independently inspired to work hard to complete the task, as the payment of box lunches does little to motivate. To further emphasize the second point, AAPM leadership needs to work to assure the individuals who are being appointed into positions are highly qualified to complete the task. With ~ 8000 members, are the ~ 10 individuals proposed to perform the task truly the best ten people? If not, we are not being good stewards with the associations resources, both volunteer hours and capital expense.

The website is a good resource for finding the current Task Group and Working Group AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

activities. Using the search feature allows you to find groups with key words that meet your interests. For example, if you have an interest in PET, you can search PET and find an exhaustive listing of groups mingled with presentations and meeting minutes. If you then select a box at the top of the page titled “Also Search Committee Tree� you will find a listing of committees including PET. There are currently 4 groups: TG-126, TG-145, TG-174, and TG-211. Our website lists the Charge of each group, the date they began, and when they are scheduled to complete their work. In some instances you can even find their minutes online. Learn about what they are doing, what remains to be done, and e-mail the chair to ask if you can sit in on their next meeting as a guest. If you are confident you have expertise to contribute, discuss with the chair; most chairs are always looking for people with skills that are eager to roll up their sleeves and work. If the current group is almost complete with their charge, ask the chair if there are plans for a new proposal moving forward.

I have found my volunteer efforts on behalf of AAPM to be extremely rewarding. I hope you will be able to dedicate some of your time to our organization and further advance the science, education and professional practice of Medical Physics.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

AAPM Executive Director’s Column

Angela R. Keyser, College Park, MD

AAPM Matters Participate In the AAPM Professional Information Survey Reminder! Please participate in the AAPM Professional Information Survey. Log in information was emailed to you in early April. This project provides AAPM members with aggregated data on the vitality of the job market. A detailed report summarizing the results will be available on the AAPM web site in mid-May and an announcement will be sent to the membership.

New AAPM Reports The “Addendum to the AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of highenergy photon beams” is now available on the AAPM Reports list.

Election Process- Online Only!

Elections for the 2015 Officers and Board Members-At-Large will open on June 11 and will run through July 2. Again this year AAPM will use the Bulletin Board System (BBS) during the election process to allow members to discuss issues of concern with the candidates and the election in general. The election process will be online only so be alert for email announcements.

Your Online Member Profile This is a reminder to keep your AAPM Membership Profile information up to date by going to http://www.aapm.org/memb/profile/ and making any changes necessary. Please, upload your picture if you have not already done so.

Remember to review the “Conflict of Interest” area of the Member Profile to self-report conflicts per the AAPM Conflict of Interest Policy.

AAPM recognizes that not everyone is interested in every topic that we communicate to our membership, so we are now organizing our e-mail communications into “campaigns” that are typically time and event based. The first time you receive an email about a particular event, you may opt-out of receiving future emails on this topic at the bottom where is says, “To inhibit future messages of this kind, click here.” For example, if you know you aren’t able to go to the 2014 Annual Meeting and don’t want communications about the meeting, you may opt-out from any email in the campaign, or from the e-preferences screen in your member profile.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

Education and Research Fund Update

Are you a “Platinum, Gold, Silver, or Copper” level contributor to the AAPM Education and Research Fund? This information is displayed on the AAPM website to assist you in keeping track of your total to the fund. If you are logged in, you will see a message in the upper righthand side of the page that shows your cumulative contributions with an indication of the additional donations required to elevate your contribution to the next “level.”

There will once again be and Education and Research Fund Donors’ Lounge at the Annual Meeting. Individuals who have made a cumulative lifetime donation of $100 or more will have access to the Lounge. Comfortable seating, beverages and electronic charging stations will be available.

Consider donating to the Education and Research Fund today.

Upcoming AAPM Meetings Looking for a way to engage with medical physicists in your local area? Consider attending a local chapter meeting. Many chapter meetings offer MPCECs for participating. For a list of meetings, go to: http://www.aapm.org/meetings/chaptermeetings.asp Sold Out

SRS/SBRT/SABR: Safely and Accurately Delivering High-Precision, Hypofractionated Treatment - June 22 – 26, 2014, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont

Why attend the AAPM 2014 Summer School? In the last decade, SRS/SBRT has moved from a special procedure to widespread adaptation. Similarly, technology has evolved from frame-based systems to frameless, image-guided and motion-tracked procedures. Dosefractionation schemes and OAR tolerances have been established, and our knowledge of Radiation Biology in hypofractionated treatments is catching up to the clinical reality as well.

• During this Summer School, participants will gain a comprehensive knowledge base of state-of-the-art SRS/SBRT practice from clinical experts in the field. There will be a roundtable session for equipment-specific, focused discussion in addition to the lectures. By the AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

end of the school, participants will have the tools to implement and maintain a high-quality, safe SRS/SBRT practice in their clinic.

12 Self Assessment Modules (SAMs) will be included in this program (no extra fee).

The AAPM 56th Annual Meeting will be held July 20-24 in Austin, Texas. Note for 2014: • The full meeting program is now available. The President’s Symposium entitled “The Necessity of Innovation in Medical Physics” will take place on Tuesday, July 22 from 1:45 PM – 3:45 PM. • New! Partners in Solutions – an exciting new venue on the exhibit floor. Vendors will provide physics-level applications training classes in a special-purpose lecture room built on the exhibit floor. Topics this year are solutions for TG-142 imaging QA and CT scanner dose optimization capabilities. These are not sales pitches but practical information for the clinical physicist from the people who know the system in depth. CE credit will be offered.

•

The list of AAPM committee meetings is available online.

•

Make sure to register by June 4 to receive discounted registration fees.

The 2014 Night Out will be held at the Bob Bullock Texas State Museum, the only place large enough to tell the whole “Story of Texas!” Explore three floors of interactive exhibits and enjoy the local favorite and award-winning nuevo flamenco/world music band, Cadaques!

Austin is well known for food trucks, and we have the best local flavor lined up outside the museum with additional stations inside the museum serving a wide variety of foods. A menu is available online.

More information on the 56th AAPM Annual Meeting is available online.

Staff News Shayna Wise joined the team in February as the new Customer Service Representative. As the “voice of AAPM”, Shayna answers the main phone line, handles general inquiries, and assists with setting up WebEx TM meetings and conference calls.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

Our condolences The following members have passed away:

Saul Aronow - Newton MA Walter H. Barnes - Arlington TX Bengt E. Bjarngard - Winchester MA Harvey Casson - Moraga CA Louis H. Deiterman - Temple TX Benjamin M. Galkin - Voorhees NJ Robert A Jacques - Saint Louis MO Miguel A. Melchor - Alzira Spain J. Charles Smith - Kenockee, MI Don Tolbert - Beloit KS Our condolences are extended to their families. If you have information on the passing of members not listed above, please inform HQ ASAP so these members can be remembered during the Awards and Honors Ceremony at our upcoming Annual Meeting. We respectfully request the notification via e-mail to: 2014.aapm@aapm.org Please include supporting information so that we can take appropriate steps.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

Editor’s Column

Mahadevappa Mahesh, Baltimore, MD

From the Editor’s Desk

W

elcome to the 3rd issue of the 2014 AAPM Newsletter. This issue is fairly shorter with many regular contributors busy with the preparation for the upcoming Annual Meeting. Still the issue contains interesting articles updating the various activities pertaining to AAPM. I would like to draw your attention to the articles on the State Legislative Updates highlighting various bills that are currently in the pipeline or proposed in various state legislatures, Medical Physics Residency Common Application Process and about the history of ABR physics certification.

In addition to the regular contributions included in the Newsletter, this issue also contains updates on 2014 AAPM Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Summer School, CAMPEP news and activities of the International Affairs Committee.

Editor’s Note I welcome all readers to send me any suggestions or comments on any of the articles or new features to assist me in making the tablet edition a more effective and engaging publication and to enhance the overall readership experience.

Thank you.

Save the Date!

Proton Beam Therapy

June 14 –18, 2015 | Colorado Springs, CO http://www.aapm.org/meetings/2015SS/

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3| May/June 2014

Professional Liability Insurance Program Change in Name Please be advised that, effective January 1, 2014, our third-party insurance administrator will change its name from Marsh U.S. Consumer, a service of Seabury & Smith Inc., to Mercer Consumer, a service of Mercer Health & Benefits Administration LLC. Mercer is a global leader in talent, health, retirement and investments. Mercer and Marsh are both subsidiaries of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC).

This is an internal realignment within MMC only, allowing Mercer Consumer the ability to provide our membership with the best possible products and services. While you will notice the name will change on our website, in bills, and in other communications, you can expect a seamless transition, with no effect to your current insurance coverage or the services provided.

Information on the Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System mailed to AAPM members

The AAPM and ASTRO released information on the new Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). RO-ILS will facilitate safer and higher quality care in radiation oncology by providing a mechanism for shared learning in a secure and non-punitive environment.

Learn more:Â www.astro.org/ROILS.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3| May/June 2014

vc AAPM Clr Ad 6.75x4.75 13Dec12.pdf

1

12/11/13

11:06 AM

So Little Gives You So Much!

New and improved ACCU-GOLD+ Smallest sensor available today with improved stacked sensor technology.

Now, one sensor for radiography, fluoroscopy and mammography diagnostic measurements!

Capable of using both your Radcal ion chambers and Solid State Multisensors Rapid-Gold+ available for Solid State Multisensor measurements only.

Radcal

426 West Duarte Road Monrovia, CA 91016 USA

The Gold Standard in Radiation Measurement

T:

F: (626) 357-8863

www.radcal.com

Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Report

Debbie Gilley, College Park, MD

State Legislative Updates March 2014

A

t the beginning of each year many state legislators are busy introducing bills for consideration during the upcoming planned session. These bills will work their way through the committee process and if successful, make their way to the floor of each House and governors office to be implemented into legislation. In the United States, radiation protection and uses of radiation in medical regulations are shared between the federal and state government. So not only does the AAPM follow legislative activities in Washington, but the Government Relations staff also tries to follow state legislative activities.

In an effort to keep members up-to-date on state legislative and regulatory issues, the Government Relations team of the AAPM monitors new legislation and proposed regulations. There is an initiative through the Chapters to identify key members in each state to expedite the response to legislation that might be of interest to AAPM members. We are looking at legislation that is supportive of medical physicists and also those that might negatively impact the practice. Opportunities to modify or change regulations or impending rules can help further along the important role medical physicists play in patient and worker safety.

Below is a table capturing some of the pending legislation. Not all of it as written will impact the practice of medical physics, but if there were changes or additions to the legislation then this process would keep members informed of potential amendments to the original bill. Even with all the monitoring, changes have been made on the floor of the House or Senate that are not included in the original bill and we would not be informed about such changes unless we are notified about the issue. This is another reason we need to identify members who can be available within the state.

A key legislative proposal is the licensing of Medical Physicists in the state of Massachusetts.

House Bill 1894 was introduced last year and the Joint Committee on Public Health is reviewing the proposal. If it passes out of this committee it is possible that it could reach the floor of the House and Senate for a vote in 2014.

One of the “hot topics� this year is the breast density notification requirement for women undergoing mammography. Several states have introduced bills that will require this reporting.

This is the only reporting requirement at this time and there is no identified impact to the practice of medical physics.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

There are several states that have passed laws to set up patient safety committees. The state of Oregon created such a committee last year and solicited members for their advisory committee in December of 2013. Please note that the state of Florida has introduced a similar bill in 2014.

Below is a “snapshot “of some of the activities that the Government Relations team are following: State Legislative Activity As Of April 1, 2014

AZ

Mammography Results: Report to Patients (requires facility to inform the patient if they have dense breast)

AZ (R) SB -1225

CA

Amendments to the Radioactive Materials Regulations

CA (R) AB 452

CA

Amendments to the Radioactive Materials Regulations

CO

Dense Breast Notification

CT

Proposes changes to qualification of individuals performing nuclear medicine

Committee of the Whole Action 1 DP 0000 04/01/2014

Barto

Introduced

Brown

CA (R) AB IN committee 04/07/2014 1635 Brown (hearing cancelled) (this may be a In the Senate Committee of CO (R) HB Health and Human Williams 1126 Services Witness Testimony and/or Committee CT [R] HB 5537 -

None at this time, monitoring to assure no additions Significant, monitoring at this time, encourage QMP definition and equipment QA requirements Significant, monitoring at this time, encourage QMP definition and equipment QA requirements None, monitoring to assure no additions

Referred to the Joint Committee on Public Health 3/07/2014

Public Health Committee

None, may impact nuclear medicine providers

Mendelson

None at this time

DC

Medical Imaging Assistants Amendment DC (R) B20 Act of 2014 646

Public Introduction (04/03/2014)

FL

To implement the Department of Public Health's recommendations concerning FL (R) SB 1026 various revisions to the public health statutes.

Referred to Health Policy, Community Affairs and Appropriation Subcommittee on Health

Braynon

None, monitoring to assure no additions to the current version of the bill

Watson

None at this time, monitoring to assure no additions

FL

Hospital Patient Protection Law

FL (R)

Introduced to the House

HI

Create a pilot project to monitor radiation levels over the next 5 year

HI (R) SB 3049

Public hearing held 02/07/14.

Green

None, monitoring for environmental radiation at this time

IL

Dense Breast notification when performing mammography

IL (R) HB 3765

Senate referred to Assignments 04/02/2014)

McAuliffe

None, monitoring to assure no additions

IL

IL

Amends the Illinois Nuclear Safety House floor Amendment Moderate, may impact the cost IL [R] HB Preparedness Act. Provides that No. 1, referred to of ordering and receiving Sullivan 4687 specified shipping fees should not apply Environment Committee Cobalt 60 sources to shipments consisting entirely of (4/02/2014) Amends the Illinois Nuclear Safety Senate Floor Amendment IL (R) SB McConnau Eliminates state (tax) shipping Preparedness Act. Provides that Referred to Transportation 3270 ghay fee for transporting Co 60. specified shipping fees should not apply (04/07/2014) to shipments consisting entirely of

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

IL

KY

LA

MA

MA

MN

MN

Amends the Act to prohibit intentional radiation exposure to humans with a fluoroscopic radiation machine.

Senate Rule 3-9(a) Rereferred to Assignments 03/28/14

Chapin

None, prevents “screening� fluoroscopy examinations

Amend KRS 311.935 to update the KY (R) HB provision of information to patients 123 diagnosed with breast cancer on possible treatment options; require information

Floor Amendment withdrawn 03/31/2014)

Henderson

None, monitoring to assure no additions

MN (R) HF 2551

Added a new author Moran, 03/06/2014b and Abeler (3/10/2014)

Anzelc

None at this time

Referred to Health, Human Services and Housing (03/06/2014)

Pappas

None at this time

Rosen

Passed the House 03/06/2014, Enrolled 03/10/2014, Signed by the Governor

Moderate, legislation appears to exempt this equipment from the X-ray in the healing arts regulations. May no longer

Kirby

Moderate, certification may increase the need for QMP in order to provide RTT

IL(R) SB 3305

Read third time by title, LA (R) HB amended, roll-called on Licensing of Radiologic Technologists Abramson None 610 final passage, ordered to the Senate e 04/03/2014, New bill substituted MA (R) HB Significant, state licensure of referred to In Joint Practice of Medical Physics Basile 3973 Medical Physicists Committee Health Care Financing 03/25/2014 Joint Introduced in the House, MA (R) HB Committee None at this time, monitoring to on the House docket Breast Density Patient Notification 3733 assure no additions on Health 3/11/2014 Care Breast Density notification

Patient notice with mammogram results MN (R) SF requirements 2394

MN

Exemption for dental cone beam computerized tomography from the diagnostic imaging requirements

MS

Require a certificate of need for radiation therapy service

Referred to health, human MN (R) HF services and housing 2944 03/10/2014 MS (R) SB 2408

MO

Require radiation monitoring at any solid waste disposal area in Bridgeton

MO (R) SB 527

In the House first read

Wallingford

MO

Designation as March 27 Radiation Safety Awareness Day

MO (R) SB 527

Hearing conducted by Tourism and Natural Resource Committee on 04/03/2014

Moderate for facilities in Bridgeton, increase in the number of medical related alarms

Wallingford

None, just interesting to see a state put forth.

OR

Medical imaging and declared emergency

OR (R) HB Second read in the House 4074

Jensen and Greenlick

None, may impact patient dose from untrained medical personnel

RI

Dense Breast Notification and Education Act

RI (R) S 2522

Placed on Senate Calendar 04/01/2014

Doyle

None at this time

RI

Breast Cancer Act, (dense breast notification)

RI (R) H 7341

Committee recommended measure be held for further study 03/25/2014

Coderre

None at this time

SC

Mammography reports to include specific information concerning ultrasound

SC (R) S 422

Referred to Committee on Banking and Insurance hearing 04/02 2014

Lourie

None at this time

Approved by GovernorChapter 320 (effective 07/01/2014)

Stolle

None at this time, Name change for authorized accrediting organizations

VA

National accrediting organizations; Joint VA (R) HB Commission on Accreditation of 391 Healthcare

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

Government Relations’ map updated with new contact information for radiation control program directors.

There have been significant changes in the management of state radiation control programs.

Of the 50 states and District of Columbia there have been changes in 40 state radiation control program directors’ contact information. Some of these were simply telephone and email address changes and deletions but for 12 states there is a new director. Medical physicists are encouraged to contact the program directors in the states where they practice to continue to be informed on potential changes to regulations that may impact the profession. There are a variety of state regulatory changes that could impact your practice. The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) provided the current information. To access the latest information visit the website.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

New this year…

•

John R. Cameron Young Investigator Symposium will take place on Monday, July 21.

•

President’s Symposium: The Necessity of Innovation in Medical Physics – will take place on Tuesday, July 22.

•

Special 2-Day Program on Quantitative Imaging (Monday - Tuesday, July 21-22).

•

The Science Council Session – The Physics of Cancer (see below).

•

In addition to Symposia and regular Sessions, new Keynote Sessions on topics of special interest.

•

Imaging Society.

Imaging for

•

Proton Therapy.

•

Legendary live music

•

A burgeoning restaurant scene

•

•

Unique culture

•

… and a list of other things that you just have to experience for yourself to truly understand why Forbes named Austin ‘One of America’s Coolest Cities.’

Dedicated time in the meeting program for Visit the Vendors.

• • •

Partners in Solutions – an exciting new venue on the

•

Adapt-a-Thon - Texas Hold’em Invitational

•

•

Determination, Minimization and Communication of Uncertainties in Radiation Therapy

•

Recent Innovations Advances in Molecular Imaging •

•

Proton Beams Relative to Photon Beams Biomedical Informatics for Medical Physicists

•

MR Guided Radiation Therapy

•

Debate: To Measure or Not To Measure

•

The Science Council Session: The Physics of Cancer

•

Innovation in (Gold) Nanoparticles to

•

Innovation in Medical Physics and

•

The Status of Intensity Modulated Proton and Ion Therapy

•

Dual-energy CT Imaging in Diagnostic Imaging and Radiation Therapy

•

•

•

Imaging for Proton Treatment Planning and Guidance

Reconstruction •

Applications

•

•

Models of Risk from Low-dose Radiation

•

Developments in Monte Carlo Methods for Medical Imaging

•

•

In Memoriam of Ben Galkin: Virtual Tools for Validation of X-Ray Breast Imaging Systems

•

•

Technology in Diagnosis and Therapy

The Promise and Potential Pitfalls of Deformable Image Registration in Clinical Practice

Applications, and Challenges •

•

Imaging Symposium: Genomics and Image-omics for Medical Physicists •

•

High Intensity Focused Ultrasound Surgery and Therapy

•

Innovations in Clinical Breast Imaging

•

Medical Physicist’s Role in Digital Information Security: Threats, Vulnerabilities and Best Practices

Radiation Risks at Level of Few CT Scans:

•

Best Practice In Pediatric Imaging

•

Radiation Dose Reducing Strategies in CT, Fluoroscopy and Radiography

•

ACR Accreditation Updates in CT, Ultrasound, Mammography and MRI

•

Credentialing and Privileging Program

•

MRI Safety

•

Introduction and Panel Discussion

•

Methods and Contrast Recovery Across Multiple Cameras

•

Radiation

•

Radiography, Mammography and Fluoroscopy

• •

Art of Imaging: Diagnostic Ultrasound Image Artifacts

•

Stereotactic Breast Biopsy

•

Joint Practical Medical Physics – Imaging

•

Computed Tomography, Ultrasound and Nuclear Medicine

•

Proton Therapy I: Basics of Proton Therapy

•

Image Guided SBRT II: Challenges & Pitfalls

•

Proton Therapy II: Proton Stereotactic Radiotherapy

•

Innovation in Radiation Therapy Planning I: Knowledge Guided Treatment Planning

and Delivery

•

In Memoriam of Bengt Bjarngard: SBRT II: Small Field Dosimetry - TG155

Innovation in Radiation Therapy Planning II: Cloud Computing in RT

•

SRT I: Comparison of SRT Techniques

•

SRT II: Uncertainties in SRT

•

Innovation in Radiation Therapy Delivery: Advanced Digital Linac Features

• •

•

of Planning Strategies •

)

Pediatric Treatment Planning II: •

Complications •

•

Point-Counter Debate: Arc Based

Image Co-Registration I: Introduction and Review

•

HDR Brachytherapy II: Integrating Imaging with HDR

•

Physicists: Review of the Fundamentals and Automated Techniques

•

Assurance for Image Registration •

• • •

•

•

Imaging

)

Radiation Biology for Radiation Therapy Physicists

•

Innovations in Medical Physics Practice:

•

Activities: Models and Methods

•

and Immobilization Devices

•

Radiography

•

Teaching Medical Physics • Imaging Refresher for Standard of Care Radiation Therapy

• •

Credentialing

Informatics • Lean Tools and Methods

•

Professional Council Symposium: The

•

•

Communicating Risk

•

Physics

•

•

International Medical Physics Symposium: Increasing Access to Medical Physics

•

Clinical Training of Physics Residents:

• •

Paper

• •

Preparing for the ABR Diagnostic Medical

•

Building, Maintaining and Improving Physics Residency Program • Radiologists and Medical Physicists: •

Medical Physics Meets the Press: How to Talk to the Public Media • International Day of Medical Physics • ACR Radiology Leadership Institute • Globalization of Medical Physics •

Goals

Partners in Solutions offer a new way for physicists to interact with our vendors. Vendors will provide physics-level applications training classes in a special-purpose lecture room built on optimization capabilities. These are not sales pitches but practical information for the clinical

therapy physicists.

Important Announcement Regarding RSNA 2014:

AAPM HEADQUARTERS HOTEL CHANGE AAPM’s Headquarters will now be housed at

The Hyatt Regency Chicago 151 E. Upper Wacker Drive Please make note and consider this change in venue when making your hotel reservations for 100th

RSNA 2014

AAPM meetings and annual reception will be held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago.

Education Council Report

George Starkschall, Houston, TX

The Medical Physics Residency Common Application Process (CAP)

I

n my report in the previous AAPM Newsletter, I wrote about a proposal that will match residency program applicants with residency programs. John Antolak, Chair of the Medical Physics Residency Training and Promotion Subcommittee, and John Gibbons, Chair of the Education and Training of Medical Physicists Committee have been actively working at making a matching program a reality. As I noted in my previous article, our present free-for-all system has some flaws. Incidents have been noted of programs forcing residency applicants to accept or reject an admissions offer at or near the time of their interview, depriving them of the opportunity to evaluate additional residency programs. A matching program, analogous to the medical residency match, provides a mechanism that is fair to both the residency candidates and the residency programs. Participation in a matching program ensures that residency program applicants, as well as residency programs, get their most desirable choices.

I have asked John and John to describe for you in this month’s Newsletter article the proposed residency program match. I would especially urge residency program directors to read this discussion and support and participate in a residency program match.

George Starkschall, PhD Chair, AAPM Education Council

The Medical Physics Residency Common Application Process (CAP) and a Potential National Match Program Competition for the best physics residency programs and applicants has been fierce for many years. Several years ago, the AAPM Working Group on Coordination of Medical Physics Residency Programs (WGCMPR) established a voluntary gentleman’s agreement 1 in an attempt to make the process fair to both the applicants and programs. The gentleman’s agreement set an initial offer date, which would ensure that applicants who received multiple offers could evaluate them simultaneously, and that programs would not lose preferred candidates to other programs extending early offers. Unfortunately, many feel that the gentleman’s agreement is no longer effective, primarily because more and more programs are choosing not to abide by the agreement.

In 2011, WGCMPR created the Common Application Process (CAP), a web-based application system for residency programs. The primary advantage for applicants is that they only have to AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

fill in application data once when applying to several residency programs. The CAP Program has been a tremendous success, with over 250 applicants and 40 programs participating this year. The CAP was planned as the first step towards a matching system, similar to the system used by the National Residency Match Program (NRMP). NRMP is the organization responsible for matching US medical students with participating residency programs, and a basic description of the algorithm used by NRMP can be found on their website 2. The algorithm has undergone a lot of scrutiny, showing that the results are stable. A relatively detailed analysis of the algorithm can be found in JAMA 3.

In a conventional match system, applicants and programs rank each other in order of preference. Program rankings are used to decide between multiple applicants that offer themselves to the program. In each round of the matching algorithm, any applicants that have not yet matched are “offered” to their highest-ranking program. If that program does not yet have an applicant, they are tentatively matched to the program. If the program has a tentative match, the new applicant’s rank on the program’s list is used to decide between the current tentative match and the newly-offered match. The higher-ranking applicant is the tentative match and the lower-ranking applicant is put back into the applicant pool to try to match with other programs in their rank list. The algorithm continues until all unmatched applicants run out of potential matches in their rank lists.

Because of the significant problems in the current resident recruiting process, many residency programs have been asking AAPM to adopt a match system. The time is now upon us. The AAPM WGCMPR and its parent committees are trying to make this happen in time for next year’s major recruitment season.

The AAPM had previously approached NMRP about running a match for medical physics residency programs. Although they have informed us that they work exclusively with physicians, they referred us to National Matching Services, Inc. (NMS), which runs matches outside of the U.S. medical field. NMS advertises “Efficient, fair, and stable Matching Programs for clearing competitive recruitment markets” and has been in this business for more than 35 years 4. They have worked with NRMP in the past, and currently run matching programs for Psychology, Pharmacy, Optometry, Dental Fellowships, Neuropsychology, Osteopathy, as well as all Canadian medical residency programs.

Recently in collaboration with Dan Bourland from the Society of Directors of Academic Medical Physics Programs (SDAMPP), we discussed our needs with NMS. Based on what NMS can offer, we feel that implementing a match system for the next major recruiting season is very feasible. NMS has several match agreement templates that we can use as a starting point for our own match agreement, and we are free to make it as simple or as complicated as we need. Having the CAP already in place makes it much easier for NMS to add the match to our existing system.

The current plan is to only have a Match system for those programs that recruit for the AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

standard (July) start date. There will be a period of time where the CAP system will not be available to those programs recruiting for other start dates. Applicants that do not get matched will then be able to apply to those programs recruiting for other start dates without the fear of violating the Match agreement. If your program’s start date is close to the standard date (e.g., June-Sept), you could still choose to participate in the match system. You would just have to make your start date clear to the applicants.

In order for a matching system to work, we need to have a large number of programs enrolled.

NMS has indicated that 75% is a good target to be successful, and we expect participation to be high, based on the feedback we have received from many residency program directors.

Furthermore, the incentive to join will rise as the participation grows: Since applicants (and programs) will have to sign a generic agreement that they will not recruit (or be recruited) outside the match system, those who elect not to participate will find a much smaller pool of programs (or applicants) than was previously available.

One of the biggest questions that still needs to be sorted out is what happens to programs or applicants that violate their match agreement. In order for this agreement to be meaningful, there have to be well-defined and meaningful consequences. Otherwise, there will be no incentive for programs or applicants to not recruit (or be recruited) outside the match system, and we will be no better off than we are now. NMS indicated that having a sponsoring organization fully behind the effort could be very important to the success of a matching program. Therefore, we are seeking support from AAPM, SDAMPP, and CAMPEP, with the hope that one or more of these organizations will be able to make the match agreement more enforceable than the previous gentleman’s agreement. In order to be able to have everything in place in time, we need to make a firm commitment very soon, so we will be contacting program directors very soon to get their support.

We believe that the best interests of programs and applicants are served by having a high rate of participation in a match agreement. Putting a match system into place has the potential to create order from chaos, and we feel that there are many applicants and programs that desperately want something better than what we have now.

John A. Antolak Chair, Medical Physics Residency Training and Promotion Subcommittee John P. Gibbons Jr. Chair, Education and Training of Medical Physicists 1. http://www.aapm.org/org/committees/committee/article.asp?id=3340 2. http://www.nrmp.org/res_match/about_res/algorithms.html 3. http://www.pitt.edu/~daz1/1jama.html 4. https://natmatch.com AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

Professional Council Column

Per Halvorsen, Newton, MA

Professional Council News and Announcements 2014 Professional Survey The annual AAPM Professional Survey is well underway, and by now you have probably received two requests for your participation. If you haven’t already completed the survey, I strongly encourage you to do so. The Professional Survey is an important resource for many members and helps inform AAPM committees and Councils of important trends in our profession. Remember that the AIP Statistics service handles all the “raw data” – individual respondents’ data is NOT visible to the AAPM volunteers who oversee the survey or to the parent committee/Council. Our role is limited to writing the survey questions and monitoring overall rates of participation – the AIP processes all responses and provides the aggregated analysis back to the Professional Survey Subcommittee.

AAPM’s Support for Accreditation Programs With the increasing prominence of accreditation of clinical practices and the growing number of accreditation programs, we recently strengthened our focus on supporting all such accreditation programs. Two new Accreditation Subcommittees have been formed, one for Imaging (chaired by Tyler Fisher) and one for Therapy Accreditation (chaired by Steven deBoer). We have invited each accreditation program to nominate one medical physicist member to the relevant subcommittee, and both subcommittees will hold their first meetings in Austin – feel free to attend their meetings if you have an interest in this topic. The Board also recently approved Professional Policy 27, formally declaring the AAPM’s support for practice accreditation of all imaging and therapy facilities.

Professional Policies Assigned to Professional Council for Review The following Professional Policies are due to sunset at the end of 2014 and have been assigned to the Professional Council for review. They are: • • •

PP 15-B Conflict of Interest PP 18-B-- Statements on the Description of Involvement of Medical Physicists in Clinical Procedures PP 20-C -- Civilian or Government Physicist Employees’ Professional Activity

If you have any suggestions for changes to these policies, please send them to Lynne Fairobent at lynne@aapm.org no later than June 1st for consideration by Professional Council as we review and prepare our recommendations to the Board.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

SAVE THE DATE!

2015

SPRING CLINICAL MEETING March 7 – 10 • Hyatt Regency St. Louis at the Arch • St. Louis, Missouri

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

ACR Accreditation FAQs

Priscilla F. Butler, Reston, VA

ACR Accreditation: Frequently Asked Questions for Medical Physicists

D

oes your facility need help on applying for accreditation? In each issue of this Newsletter, I’ll present frequently asked questions (FAQs) of particular importance for medical physicists.

You may also check out the ACR’s accreditation web site portal for more FAQs, accreditation applications and QC forms.

The American College of Radiology’s new QC requirements for the Ultrasound and Breast Ultrasound Accreditation Programs are effective June 1, 2014 for all accredited facilities or facilities applying for accreditation. The new requirements call for Acceptance Testing and Annual Surveys to be performed by a qualified medical physicist (or “appropriately trained personnel with ultrasound imaging equipment experience” who has been approved by the lead interpreting physician) as well as routine QC by appropriately trained sonographers or service engineers. On June 1, 2014, as part of the accreditation application, facilities must demonstrate compliance with the ACR requirements for QC by providing: • •

Reports from the most recent ultrasound Annual Survey performed by the medical physicist or designee Documentation of corrective action (if the Annual Survey and/or QC data identified performance problems)

Please feel free to contact us at ultrasound-accred@acr.org or breastultrasound-accred@acr.org if you have questions about ultrasound or breast ultrasound accreditation.

Quality and Safety.

Q.

Is acceptance testing a mandatory requirement?

A.

While not required, there is value to be gained by a clinical practice in doing acceptance testing, if only to verify to the practice that the equipment will perform as expected when purchasing new imaging systems. It would provide a performance baseline for comparison against the annual survey. This may also be used to establish a timeline for completion of the annual survey.

Q.

Is semiannual QC testing required?

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

A.

No, although strongly recommended to ensure continual acceptable performance of US equipment, semiannual QC will no longer be required for ACR US or Breast Ultrasound accreditation effective June 1, 2014.

Q.

Is annual QC testing required?

A.

Yes; an annual survey is required. Please go to www.acr.org for details on what testing is required to be performed in the annual survey.

About the author: Priscilla F. Butler, M.S. is the Senior Director and Medical Physicist, for ACR Quality and Safety.

AAPM 2014 ELECTIONS The 2014 AAPM elections will open for online voting on June 11, 2014.

Deadline to submit your vote electronically: July 2, 2014

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

MACHINE MLC IMAGING

QA

RITCognition™ (patent pending) New in V6.2: The RIT Cerberus system has been expanded to include a FILE HUNTER feature in addition to the powerful file watcher capability. File hunter allows you to search swiftly through directory structures for files meeting your criteria and then automatically processes them through analysis and reporting. Combine the newly streamlined Cerberus interface with the Artificial Intelligence capabilities of RIT Cognition true automated analysis!

Model Training System Updated Models

Training Sets

Clients upload new anonymized image recognition data.

Clients download updated models.

Elekta Hancock Test New in V6.2: This unique test that measures both leaf position and jaw setback on Elekta machines has more refinements to make it even more accurate and robust. We have added independent control over jaw and leaf thresholding to give you even more control over the analysis along with a number of algorithm choices to match your precise situation.

3D Stereotactic Alignment Test New in V6.2: We added the ability to choose amongst a number of alternate coordinate systems in this routine so that the results are relevant to your system’s configuration.

RIT EPID New in V6.2: We have added HD MLC versions of tests so that you can enjoy the same speed and accuracy analyzing your HD picket fence patterns as you do with your Millennium MLCs. We have also automated the recognition of the pixel value polarity so no more requirement to scale images from your True Beam machines.

RIT Version 6.2 Is Here - Download Now Download RIT software upgrades, documentation and even demo images.

Call 719-590-1077, option 2 or email sales@radimage.com.

radimage.com

ABR News

Jerry Allison, Geoffrey Ibbott and J. Anthony Seibert

O

n the 80th anniversary of medical physics certification, it’s interesting and informative to review our evolution in the form of a timeline: 1934 The ABR was incorporated in January 1934 in Washington, D.C. 1934 The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) recommended that a certification process for physicists be established, and an RSNA group met in December 1934 to create a physics registry. An examining board was formed, including Robert Newell and Otto Glasser, with Gioacchino Failla as chair. Seventeen radiation physicists were certified and subsequently served as an examining board. Several of these radiation physicists later served on the Manhattan Project.

1936 RSNA adopted a proposal that any member of the board could examine an applicant and submit a report on the examination to the other board members for approval. Lauriston Taylor was on the board and kept the correspondence and records at the National Bureau of Standards.

ABR invited physicists as examiners for radiologist candidates. The examiners included Gioacchino Failla, James Weatherwax, Edith Quimby, Otto Glasser, and Marvin Williams.

1941 A motion “to express willingness to entertain a proposal to certify physicists in radiology” was defeated by the ABR Board.

1946 (November) The ABR Credentials Committee recommended that the Board should supervise and sponsor AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

the certification of radiation physicists.

An Ad Hoc Committee (Usrus Portmann, Edwin Ernst, and Ross Golden) met with the RSNA physics group to discuss details of physicist certification.

1947 The Ad Hoc Committee reported, “Physicists consulted by your committee were unanimously of the opinion that they would prefer to have the ABR organize a procedure for examination and certification of physicists so that those who pass the examination in physics receive a certificate in radiation physics from the ABR.” In the absence of formal training programs, the first eligibility requirements for ABR certification in physics included: • • •

4 or more years of college 2 years of radiation physics study A total of 8 years of training and practical experience

1949 In 1949, the ABR granted certificates to the 34 physicists approved by the RSNA Registry of Certified Physicists and conducted the first (oral) examinations in radiation physics for four physicist applicants. Oral examination panels in radiation physics included three certified radiation physicists and one ABR trustee. Initially, there was not a written examination.

Certificates could be granted in radiological physics, x-ray and radium physics, and medical nuclear physics.

1957 A written physics examination was designed and scheduled for first use. After consultation with outside experts to determine the difficulties and costs, the ABR Board “backed away” from a written examination for several years.

1975 (June) The first ABR written exam in physics was administered in June 1975. The 78 applicants sought certification in these fields: • • •

7 in diagnostic radiologic physics 9 in medical nuclear physics 37 in radiologic physics (combined diagnostic, medical nuclear, and therapeutic physics) AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

!

W E N

Quality Reports

™

Plan Quality Assessment - The Missing Link

Your Priorities.

Your Goals.

Your Objectives.

A proven method to measure plan quality is here.

Quality Reports is the only solution that measures plan quality and efficiently documents the intended and delivered treatment.

Free Webinars Tuesdays at 12pm ET | April 22nd - May 27th

• 4 in therapeutic and diagnostic physics • 21 in therapeutic radiologic physics Forty-five applicants passed the first written exam: • 7 in diagnostic radiologic physics • 6 in medical nuclear physics • 19 in radiologic physics • 2 in therapeutic and diagnostic physics • 11 in therapeutic radiologic physics Among the 45 ABR diplomates who passed the first written examination were some luminary medical physicists: • • • • • • • • • •

Jon Trueblood Paul Carson Lawrence Rothenberg James Deye Charles Wilson Stewart Bushong James Hevezi Robert Phillips Raymond Rossi James Purdy

Oral examiners were expanded from three physicists and one radiologist to five physicists and one radiologist. Oral examination periods were reduced from 45 minutes to 30 minutes.

Dr. Jack Krohmer, Chairman of the ABR Physics Credentials Committee, reported to the ABR Board of Trustees that “as a first effort the written exam in physics in June 1975 was a very successful one.”

1980s AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

A need for standardized didactic training in medical physics was addressed in the 1980s.

Accreditation of medical physics educational programs in North America began as a “service” offered by the AAPM through the AAPM Commission on Accreditation of Educational Programs for Medical Physicists. Lawrence Lanzl reported to the AAPM Board of Directors in 1983 that “one program has been accredited (test case), and there have been two verbal inquiries concerning accreditation.” In 1984, he reported that an annual list of accredited programs was published in the Medical Physics Journal. A review of Medical Physics for 1984, 1985, and 1988 indicates that the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (1983, David Raeside, director); the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (1985, Russell Ritenour, director); and Wayne State University (circa 1988, Colin Orton, director) were the first three education programs in medical physics accredited by the AAPM Commission on Accreditation of Educational Programs for Medical Physicists.

1990s It was eventually recognized that accreditation should, more properly, be independent of professional organizations, and the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Educational Programs (CAMPEP) was formed and incorporated in Illinois in 1994. CAMPEP was initially sponsored by three U.S. organizations, including the now defunct American College of Medical Physics. The Canadian College of Physicists in Medicine (CCPM) joined the list of sponsors in 2001 and was replaced by the Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists (COMP) in 2010. RSNA and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) joined in 2012.

A need for standardized clinical training in medical physics was recognized in the 1990s.

AAPM Report No. 44, Academic Program for Master of Science Degree in Medical Physics, 1993, indicated: A special question concerns “clinical” training. Ultimately a majority of medical physicists practice their training in a clinical environment, most notably in radiation therapy. This situation may eventually lead to “certification” or “licensure.” Without excessive elaboration, formal academic training can never hope to provide nor is it necessarily the proper environment for clinical training. Every attempt is made to provide a foundation for a smooth transition to clinical applications in the suggested program. The final solution to this recurrent problem may reside with a “residency” program similar to the postgraduate training for clinical physicians.

A succeeding report, AAPM Report No. 79, Academic Program Recommendations for Graduate Degrees in Medical Physics, 2002, further indicated that: The best mechanism (for clinical training) is embodied in residency training. Such training programs are now being accredited by CAMPEP. AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

1997 The first residency program accredited by CAMPEP was Washington University School of Medicine.

2002 In 2002, the ABR announced a policy whereby a prerequisite for certification in radiologic physics after 2012 would be completion of a CAMPEP-accredited educational program.

Additionally, in 2002, the ABR replaced the issuance of lifetime certificates in medical physics with time-limited certificates. The ABR physics trustees reported in the March/April 2002 AAPM Newsletter: Beginning this year (2002), certification in diagnostic radiological physics, medical nuclear physics, and therapeutic radiological physics by the American Board of Radiology (ABR) will result in issuance of a ten-year time-limited certificate. To sustain their certification beyond the ten-year limit, physicists will need to engage in the ABR’s program for Maintenance of Certification (MOC).

2007 At a Special AAPM Board of Directors Meeting in Chicago on March 31, 2007, it was moved that: It is the policy of the AAPM that graduation from an accredited clinical residency program should be a requirement for qualifying for board certification, with an implementation date to be negotiated with the certification boards. Motion seconded. 29 approved, 1 opposed.

Motion passed.

At the AAPM Meeting in Chicago on July 26, 2007, there was an ad hoc “directors of medical physics programs” meeting to discuss a new professional society to advance the cause of medical physics education, the Society of Directors of Academic Medical Physics Programs (SDAMPP). At their meeting, the ad hoc group approved unanimously a motion: The directors of medical physics education programs petition the AAPM Board of Governors to table implementation of the AAPM policy statement relating to the requirement for completion of a CAMPEP residency program for eligibility to take the ABR examination in physics until a thorough review of the implications of this policy can be made.

The American Board of Radiology Physics trustees and associate executive director called a summit meeting with CAMPEP, medical physics society leaders, and program directors to AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

discuss new requirements for eligibility to take the ABR physics board exam. This meeting took place in Dallas in August 2007.

It was subsequently reported in the November/December 2007 AAPM Newsletter: ABR Summit on CAMPEP Requirements for Board Certification in Radiologic Physics (summary statement provided by ABR Trustees and AED G. Donald Frey, Geoffrey S. Ibbott, Richard L. Morin and Stephen R. Thomas [AED]) In 2002, the ABR announced a policy whereby a prerequisite for certification in radiologic physics after 2012 would be completion of a CAMPEP- accredited educational program.

In recognition of the fact that half of this lead-in time had now passed, the ABR convened a Summit meeting for the purpose of obtaining the perspective and opinions of associated organizations and stakeholders concerning options for transition from the current eligibility requirements.

On August 17, leaders from the AAPM, CAMPEP, ACR, ACMP, CCPM, the ABR and directors of CAMPEP accredited programs (both medical physics graduate programs and residencies) met at a Summit Meeting on CAMPEP Requirements for Board Certification in Radiologic Physics. After presentations from representatives of CAMPEP, the AAPM, and the ABR and ample discussion the general consensus of the Summit was that the ABR should require a clinical residency for candidates applying for certification after 2012. The Summit’s conclusions are not binding upon the ABR, but it is expected that an official policy statement on this topic will be issued by the ABR by the end of October 2007.

In October 2007, at a meeting of the ABR Board of Trustees, a new policy regarding eligibility requirements for the ABR medical physics certification exams was adopted. From the minutes of the ABR Trustees Meeting, October 13, 2007: New Policy on CAMPEP Accreditation for Physics Education • Beginning in 2012, in order to take the Part 1 examination, candidates must be enrolled in or have graduated from a CAMPEP-accredited education program (e.g., MS, PhD, or residency).

• Beginning in 2014, in order to take the Part 1 examination, candidates must be enrolled in or have completed a CAMPEP-accredited residency program. [This was subsequently clarified to state that in order to take the Part 2 examination, candidates must have completed a CAMPEP-accredited residency program, for candidates applying to take Part 1 for the first time in 2014 or later.]

• ABR procedures require application submission by September 30 of the year before the exam.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

• Residency Length: Currently 3 years. Voted to reduce required residency length for graduates of CAMPEP-accredited MS or PhD programs to 2 years.

Board certification of medical physicists has evolved appropriately over the decades. Current processes are compliant with the expectations of the American Board of Medical Specialties for credentialed health professionals. Current ABR medical physics board-certification standards assure the public that ABR diplomates demonstrate the requisite knowledge, skill, and understanding of medical physics to the benefit of patients.

RESOURCES: The American Board of Radiology (75 Years of Serving the Public), Otha W. Linton, 2009, ISBN-10: 1-890705-14-4 AAPM Board Minutes August 4, 1983, New York AAPM Board Minutes July 19, 1984, Chicago AAPM Board Minutes August 15, 1985, Seattle AAPM Board Minutes (Special Meeting), March 31, 2007, Chicago AAPM Board Minutes, July 26, 2007, Chicago AAPM Report No. 44. Academic Program for Master of Science Degree in Medical Physics, 1993 AAPM Report No. 79, Academic Program Recommendations for Graduate Degrees in Medical Physics, 2002 March/April 2002 AAPM Newsletter November/December 2007 AAPM Newsletter Minutes of the ABR Trustees Meeting, October 13, 2007 Medical Physics, Vol. 11, No. 2, Mar/Apr 1984 Medical Physics, Vol. 12, No. 5, Sep/Oct 1985 Medical Physics, Vol. 15, No. 6, Nov/Dec 1988 AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

http://www.theabr.org/about-landing http://www.campep.org/about.asp

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

PIPSPRO!SOFTWARE

1351-20, 11/13 PIPSproâ„¢ Software

CAMPEP News

Wayne Beckham, Victoria, Canada

CAMPEP News and Announcements

A

s I write this article, the Board has just returned from their Spring Retreat meeting held in Houston on the 11th – 12th April. It was my first Board meeting as President and I have to say the prospect of chairing a meeting involving 9 or so hours of duration involving a group of strong minded, highly intelligent individuals was daunting indeed. I was delighted therefore at the conclusion of the meeting with the customary motion to adjourn that we had not only got through our large agenda, but to the very end the Board were fully engaged and had provided excellent and very thoughtful advice allowing us to continue to fine tune our systems designed to ensure high quality medical physics education. All in all this was a very productive retreat.

Training Academy

RADIATION SAFETY TRAINING

NEW - NEW - NEW! The successful Medical Radiation Officer Safety Course is now Virtual.

Take the Course On-Line or Attend a Live Session or Both (Hybrid) CAMPEP Accredited

Live Courses Las Vegas NV, Gaithersburg MD

1-800-871-7930 Complete online catalog at www.moellerinc.com/academy

Offering Medical Physics and Radiation Safety Consulting Services

The CAMPEP application with the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is moving forward.

The process of application is iterative with CHEA providing feedback along the way. A final item we are dealing with is developing a mechanism for publically displaying, via the CAMPEP website, summaries of Board accreditation actions.

In addition CHEA requires public disclosure of any graduate or residency programs that have any non-compliances with CAMPEP standards following accreditation review. Let me be clear, these disclosures do not imply the program concerned is not accredited, but rather they have pending standards requirements that they are actively working to resolve.

Prior to this information being posted we will be communicating with all program directors to describe the form of this information. For the few programs with non-compliance issues they will be given an opportunity to resolve these, and failing resolution the specific information that will be will be posted will be shared.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

The Graduation Education Program Committee (GEPRC) and Residency Education Program Committee (REPRC) have also been working hard to align their review processes with our new standards. This has resulted in production of report templates for the reviews that refer specifically to the standards and therefore allows a logical assessment of program elements against each one. You can look forward to seeing reports if your program is being reviewed from now on.

I just want to take a moment now to acknowledge the commitment and dedication of the volunteers who allow CAMPEP to be an effective organization. To the many graduate, residency, and continuing education program reviewers- your work is critical. To the members of the three review committees and their chairs- the medical physics community I’m sure appreciates your efforts. Remember folks, many of these people have day jobs as well. My thanks to you all!

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

International News

Eugene Lief, White Plains, NY

News from the International Affairs Committee 1. International Affairs Subcommittee Last year a new International Information Subcommittee (IIS) was created by the AAPM International Affairs Committee (IAC). Fang-Fang Yin is the Chair of IIS. The charge of the IIS is to facilitate information exchange for the further development of international ties in Medical Physics. We plan to have a significant expansion to the IAC information webpages.

The material that we plan to add includes: -links to our sister societies abroad -regulations and work methodologies in other countries to be used as a reference -training programs in Medical Physics abroad -schedules of refresher courses in other countries -licensing issues overseas -possible avenues in international collaboration -exchange programs -online educational materials -personal contact information, etc.

We see the informational aspect of our work as a global task. The IIS will establish working relations with international medical physics organizations and our sister societies in other countries. The result of this work will be a systematic collection of international information and placing it in the form of links to AAPM website. This will serve multiple purposes: better understanding of the global status of our profession, use of materials and methodology for reference purposes, education, development of new regions and even part-time job prospectives.

These tasks will be handled more efficiently with the help of other physicists and members of the international community. We are soliciting comments, new ideas and suggestions of new information that could be included on the website. We are interested in your comments, new suggestions, and possibly other information sources that could be suggested by our colleagues.

Please, send your suggestions to Fang-Fang Yin at fangfang.yin@duke.edu and myself at eugenelief@hotmail.com.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

2. International Sessions at the Annual AAPM Meeting in Austin There are three international sessions in the Professional Track and one international session in the Educational Track planned for the Annual Meeting in Austin. The following are descriptions provided by the session Chairs: 2A. International Day of Medical Physics, 7/21/14, 11:15 - 12:15 (Madan Rehani) The International Organization for Medical Physics (IOMP) which represents medical physicists in about 80 countries decided to designate November 7th, the birth date of Marie Curie, as the International Day of Medical Physics (IDMP). The first celebration was in 2013 and subsequently it will be celebrated each year. The IDMP theme will be different each year. The theme for 2013 was “Radiation exposure from medical procedures, ask the Medical Physicist!” A number of countries are informed about events on IDMP to help give wide attention to medical physics globally.

2B. International Medical Physics Symposium, 7/23/14, 7:30 - 9:25 (Wil Ngwa) In response to a world in which cancer is growing towards a global health challenge, there is now a greater need for US Medical Physicists and other Radiation Oncology professionals across institutions to work together and be more globally engaged in the fight against cancer.

There are currently many opportunities for Medical Physicists to contribute to alleviating this pressing need, especially in helping enhance access to Medical Physics Education/ training and Research Excellence across international boundaries, including emphasis on low and middle income (LMIC) countries, which suffer from a drastic shortage of accessible knowledge, and quality training programs in radiotherapy. Many Medical Physicists are not aware of the range of opportunities that, even with small efforts, could have a high impact.

Faculty at the two CAMPEP-accredited Medical Physics Programs in New England: the University of Massachusetts Lowell and Harvard Medical School have developed a growing alliance to increase Access to Medical Physics Education/training and Research Excellence (AMPERE), and have facilitated greater active involvement by U.S. Medical Physicists in helping the global fight against cancer and cancer disparities. In this symposium, AMPERE Alliance Members and partners from Europe and Africa will present and discuss the growing global cancer challenge, the dearth of knowledge/research and other barriers to providing life-saving radiotherapy in LMIC, mechanisms for meeting these challenges, the different opportunities for participation by Medical Physicists, including students and residents, and how participation can be facilitated to increase AMPERE for global health.

2C. “Globalization of Medical Physics” Symposium, 7/23/14, 1:45 - 3:45 (Eugene Lief) Following the successful 2012-2013 International Professional Symposium, IOMP and AAPM representatives suggested at a 2013 ICMP meeting in Brighton to create a permanent joint AAPM-IOMP session at all subsequent AAPM meetings and a similar session at annual EFOMP meetings. The session will be moderated by IAC and IEAC Chairs and include presentations of IAC, IEAC, International Organization for Medical Physics (IOMP), European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics (EFOMP), International Atomic AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

Energy Agency (IAEA), International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) members and other physicists covering various aspects of international collaboration such as educational, professional, and scientific issues. Each year the session will be dedicated to one or several related aspects of international collaboration, the topics will vary from year to year.

2D. Session in the Educational Track (Cari Borrás) This workshop in the Educational Session is organized by the WGNIMP, the Work Group within the IEAC in charge of executing formal educational exchange programs between the AAPM and other medical physics societies. Currently, there are two formal agreements, one between the AAPM and the Spanish Medical Physics Society (SEFM) and another one between the AAPM and the Russian Medical Physics Society (AMPR). Part of the agreements involve holding joint educational sessions during the scientific congresses of each society. In 2011, AAPM members traveled to the SEFM Congress in Seville to discuss CT dosimetry; in 2013, other AAPM members went to the SEFM Congress in Caceres to exchange advances on magnetic resonance and ultrasound imaging with their Spanish counterparts. The last Joint Event in the United States was at the AAPM 2012 Annual Meeting, in Charlotte, NC, on the subject of new technologies in radiation therapy. This year the workshop, to be held in Austin, will explore the current status, challenges and issues related to the education of radiation therapy physicists here in the US, in Spain and in Russia. Medical physicists from each one of these countries, designated by each society, will present national, regional, and international educational requirements and explore the role of universities, professional societies and examination boards, such as the American Board of Radiology. Minimum standards will be agreed upon.

3. European Conference on Medical Physics 8th European Conference on Medical Physics (ECMP2014) in Athens, Greece, on September 11th-13th, 2014, will be hosted by the Hellenic Association of Medical Physics (HAMP) together with the European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics (EFOMP). There will be many interesting presentations by leading European scientists. There is a joint EFOMPAAPM session dedicated to further development of international ties between American and European Medical Physicists. Please, see details at the conference website.

4. A New ISEP Course in Radiation Therapy in Estonia A new workshop in Radiation Therapy in Tallinn (Estonia) will be arranged by AAPM-ISEP in collaboration with IOMP, EFOMP, and IAEA on June 16-20, 2014. There will be five days of an intense lecture program with hands-on sessions, visits to local hospitals, and a social program. Please, see details at the website. The local organizer, AAPM member Eduard Gershkevitsh (eduardger@yahoo.co.uk), can answer specific questions about the registration and course details.

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

LINAC QA Solutions by PTW

The Right Choice – Any Day, Any Time.

High-quality test devices for a wide range of testing needs All relevant TG-142 QA tests supported Single user interface for maximum ease of use

WWW.PTWNY.COM

TG-142 testing made safe and simple!

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

Knowing what responsibility means

Congratulations to the recipients of the following awards,

achievements & honors in 2014!

William D. Coolidge Award: Thomas Rockwell Mackie, Ph.D.

Edith Quimby Lifetime Achievement Award: Howard I. Amols, Ph.D. Bruce H. Curran, MEng Edward Nickoloff, Ph.D.

Marvin D. Williams Award: Herbert Mower, Ph.D.

Honorary Membership: James A. Brink, MD Sarah S. Donaldson, MD

The following are named Fellows in 2014 for their distinguished contributions to the AAPM: Samuel G. Armato, III, Ph.D. John E. Bayouth, Ph.D. Luc Beaulieu, Ph.D. Chandra M. Burman, Ph.D. Christopher H. Cagnon, Ph.D. Maria F. Chan, Ph.D. George X. Ding, Ph.D. Joseph Hanley, Ph.D. George C. Kagadis, Ph.D. Marc L. Kessler, Ph.D. Shidong Li, Ph.D. Firas Mourtada, Ph.D. Harald Paganetti, Ph.D. Joann I. Prisciandaro, Ph.D. Stephen A. Sapareto, Ph.D. Steven G. Sutlief, Ph.D. Lu Wang, Ph.D. AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

Fellows in 2014 for their distinguished contributions to the AAPM (continued) Barry W Wessels, Ph.D. Qing-Rong Wu, Ph.D. Quiwen Wu, Ph.D.

Paul M. Meaney Amir H. Golnabi Neil R. Epstein Shireen D. Geimer Margaret W. Fanning John B. Weaver Keith D. Paulsen “Integration of microwave tomography with magnetic resonance for improved breast imaging,” by Paul Meaney.

Medical Physics 40, 103101 (2013).

Farrington Daniels Paper Award (dosimetry): A. Kyle Jones Louis K. Wagner

“On the (f)utility of measuring the lead equivalence of protective garments,” A. Kyle Jones.

Medical Physics 40, 063902 (2013).

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics Paper Awards: The Editor In Chief Award of Excellence for an Outstanding General Medical Physics Article in 2013 entitled:

Commissioning measurements for photon beam data on three TrueBeam linear accelerators, and comparison with Trilogy and Clinac 2100 linear accelerators, Gloria P. Beyer.

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 14, 93 (2013).

The Award of Excellence for the Best Medical Imaging Article in 2013 entitled:

Coronary calcium quantification using contrast-enhanced dual-energy computed tomography scans, Didem Yamak, William Pavlicek, Thomas Boltz, Prasad M. Panse, Metin Akay.

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 14, 3 (2013).

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014

The Award of Outstanding Radiation Oncology Article in 2013 entitled:

Prostate rotation detected from implanted markers can affect dose coverage and cannot be simply dismissed, Qingyang Shang, Lawrence J. Sheplan Olsen, Kevin Stephans, Rahul Tendulkar, Ping Xia. Journal ofApplied Clinical Medical Physics, 14, 3 (2013).

The Award of Excellence for the Best Radiation Measurements Article in 2013 entitled:

Comprehensive evaluation and clinical implementation of commercially available Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm, Aizhen Zhang, Ning Wen, Teamour Nurushev, Jay Burmeister, Indrin J. Chetty.

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 14, 2 (2013).

You are Invited All of the award, achievement and honor recipients will be recognized during the 2014 AAPM Annual Meeting in Austin, Texas at the Awards and Honors Ceremony and Reception.

Please join us in congratulating all of the recipients: DATE: Monday, July 21, 2014 TIME: 6:30 PM PLACE: Austin Grand Ballroom Hilton Austin, 6th FL

AAPM Newsletter | Volume 39 No. 3 | May/June 2014