AAPM Newsletter March/April 2016 Vol. 41 No. 2

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION of PHYSICISTS IN MEDICINE

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

AAPM NEWSLETTER Advancing the Science, Education and Professional Practice of Medical Physics

IN THIS ISSUE: ▶ President-Elect’s Report

▶ Research Spotlight

▶ Website Editor’s Report

▶ AAPM Southern California Chapter Midwinter Symposium

▶ Report from AAPM’s Working Group on the Prevention of Errors and more...

AAPM SCIENCE COUNCIL ASSOCIATES

Mentorship Program THE AAPM SCIENCE COUNCIL ASSOCIATES MENTORSHIP PROGRAM has been established to recognize and cultivate

TYPE: Grant OPEN: 2/22/16 DEADLINE: 4/1/16 NOTIFICATION: 4/30/16 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA • PhD candidates or early career Medical Physicists within 5 years of earning his/her doctoral degree • Must be a member of AAPM at the time of application (any membership category) and maintain membership for the duration of the award period.

Pending membership status not acceptable Prior Mentorship Program recipients are ineligible

outstanding researchers at an early stage in their careers, with the goal of promoting a long-term commitment to science within AAPM. The program uses the process of ‘shadowing’ to integrate the Associates into the scientific activities of the organization.

The program will include eight Associates, each assigned to shadow one member from the AAPM Science Council, Research Committee, Therapy Physics Committee, Imaging Physics Committee, or Technology Assessment Committee.

The Associate would participate in selected meetings of the Mentor’s Committee and would join and contribute to one Task Group (chosen with input from the mentor). The Associate would shadow AAPM-related activities of the mentor, including committee phone calls, abstract review, Young Investigator judging, committee activities at the Annual Meeting, etc.

SC Associates will participate in the program for one year, and would be funded for up to $4000 per Associate (to cover travel costs including flight, hotel, and meeting registration) to attend two consecutive AAPM Annual Meetings, including the pre-meeting activities associated with each Committee. The Science Council Associates would be announced, and a picture along with a short biosketch of each SC Associate posted on the AAPM website.

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS • Cover letter outlining current contributions to Medical Physics

•

• • • •

research, describing future career plans, and reasons for interest in the Mentorship program The Cover Letter should specify the committee(s) and/or committee member(s) of interest – e.g., Science Council, Research Committee, Therapy Physics Committee, Imaging Physics Committee, or Technology Assessment Committee, and/or member(s) therein CV (no more than 4 pages) Brief letter of support from supervisor APPLY AT: gaf.aapm.org DIRECT INQUIRIES: scamp@aapm.org

American Association of Physicists in Medicine | www.aapm.org

ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE 5 7 11 21 23 24 25 27 29 31 33 37 41 47 49

President-Elect’s Report Executive Director’s Column Treasurer’s Report Professional Council Report Education Council Report DICOM Update on P-RDSR Website Editor’s Report ABR News ACR Accreditation: FAQs For Medical Physicists Health Policy & Economic Issues Legislative & Regulatory Affairs Report Research Spotlight AAPM Southern California Chapter Midwinter Symposium Members in the News Report from AAPM’s Working Group on the Prevention of Errors

EVENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 2 2016 AAPM Science Council Associates Mentorship Program 4 AAPM Summer School 2016 6 AAPM Spring Clinical Meeting 2017

AAPM NEWSLETTER The AAPM NEWSLETTER is published by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine on a bi-monthly schedule.

AAPM is located at 1631 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-2818

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor Jessica B Clements, MS Kaiser Permanente E-mail: JessicaClements@gmail.com Phone: 818-502-5180 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: E-mail: nvazquez@aapm.org AAPM Headquarters Attn: Nancy Vazquez 1631 Prince Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (571) 298-1300

NAVIGATION HELP Previous/Next Article

PUBLISHING SCHEDULE The AAPM Newsletter is produced bi-monthly.

Next issue: May/June Submission Deadline: April 8, 2016 Posted Online: Week of May 1, 2016

Tap the arrows at the bottom of the page to go to the next or previous page.

EDITOR’S NOTE I welcome all readers to send me any suggestions or comments on any of the articles or new features to make this a more effective and engaging publication and to enhance the overall readership experience. Thank you.

www.aapm.org

CONNECT WITH US!

p

www.aapm.org

p

CONTENTS

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

LEAD NOT FOLLOW.

Medical Physics Leadership Academy June 12 –16, 2016 | Chantilly, VA This is a 4.5 Day Program with Lectures/Exercises in These Key Areas: •

Leadership in Visioning

•

Leadership in Communication

•

Leadership with People

•

Leadership in a Constrained Environment

•

Leadership in Practice

Leadership in Projects • Leadership in Finance •

This program has been planned by AAPM members, drawing from their broad experience. For added specialized expertise in Leadership Development training, Impact International has been engaged to help participants manage and master the processes of awareness, decision-making and action.

www.aapm.org/meetings/2016SS/

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

AAPM PRESIDENT-ELECT’S REPORT Melissa Martin, Gardena, CA

I

t is my pleasure to write this first column as your President-Elect from my office in sunny, warm Southern California. As I watched the weather report last night, I was reminded that a significant portion of the US is certainly not enjoying our seventy-degree sunshine at this time. I sometimes feel that our AAPM membership is similar to the U.S. weather — a wide range of conditions whether we are discussing rain/wind/snow/sunshine or our employment settings: large academic medical centers, community hospitals, consulting groups, or research activities for industry. Yet, one of our strengths as an organization is this range of activities of our members. Without the significant contributions of our research oriented members, those of us who are primarily clinical physicists would not have the new techniques or equipment with which to treat or image our patients. We must, as a profession of medical physics, realize our need for the entire cycle of this process of equipment development and implementation. To preserve our profession, we must work together and support each of the aspects of this field. We are fortunate in that most of us have enjoyed the benefits of the many hours that some of our former and current members have spent working on reimbursement codes for our services. Particular thanks go to Jerry White, Jeff Masten, and Jim Goodwin for their efforts on behalf of all of the clinical physicists.

The Economics Committee is continuing this effort to maintain the reimbursement for medical physics services at a high level during these changing reimbursement models. As the codes for therapy services change, it will be our own responsibility to justify our own existence and necessity to the functioning of our departments.

The first Chapter Meeting that I have participated in this year was my home chapter: the Southern California Chapter Midwinter Meeting on January 29th in beautiful Universal City (Los Angeles). The view from the top floor of the Sheraton Universal is always excellent, which matched the group of speakers. Steve Goetsch and Marianne Plunkett organized an outstanding program this year with presentations by Sonja Dieterich, Kristy Brock, Shirish Jani, Wayne Beckham, Art Olch, Eric Paulson, and Benjamin Fahimian. It will be my pleasure to participate in other chapter meetings around the U.S. throughout the coming year as we take a serious look at “who we are” and “what do we do.” The process being led by President Bruce Curran to look at our Governance Structure is vital to AAPM. We must evaluate the best use of our tremendous investment in resources at our new Headquarters in Alexandria, VA and our significant staff as well as all of the volunteer hours invested into this organization by our members. To start this process, the Strategic Planning Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on Governance Assessment met at our Headquarters the weekend of January 16-17th to work with our contractor on this initiative. Several smaller working groups were formed out of this meeting to update our Mission and Vision Statements as well as looking at the best realignment of committees, councils and the Board of Directors. Our consultants are assisting these groups to prepare their presentations for the upcoming Board of Directors Meeting following the Spring Clinical Meeting in Salt Lake City. This meeting was the first relatively large committee meeting to be held at our new Headquarters and our staff was superb in their support with special thanks to Angela Keyser, Michael Woodward, and Corbi Foster. The conference rooms and kitchen areas worked extremely well and we were, thankfully, one week before the gigantic winter blizzard. Timing is everything!!!

Another group that is currently very active is the Ad Hoc Committee on Unifying Publication Platforms led by John Hazle that is working with our journal editors to finalize a new contract for publishing both Medical Physics and the

www.aapm.org | 5

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

President-Elect, cont.

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. A selection and announcement of the publisher for both of these journals should be made soon. Assurance of the continuation and possible increase in the income stream to AAPM from our Journals is vital to our continued success.

We also recognize the value of our exhibitors and Corporate Partners to the success of AAPM. To further develop this vital relationship between industry and our professional membership, the Board of Directors approved at the July 2015 meeting the hiring of an additional staff person to solely work with our Corporate Partners and vendors. We welcome Phyllis Doak to our Headquarters Staff. She has been very busy developing proposals and programs that were suggested by the Ad Hoc Committee on Corporate Relations chaired by Rock Mackie. We are anxious to see how these programs can best be developed in the near future to offer our vendors opportunities to work more closely with our members to enhance the productivity of all concerned. One such activity that will take place at the upcoming Annual Meeting is the SAMs session that will allow our vendors to have members meet the vendor experts in their actual exhibit areas on the floor. These sessions will be offered at the time of the Annual Meeting registration and will be open to our membership until each session is filled. This idea has been enthusiastically supported by our vendors and we encourage our members to take advantage of this new opportunity to learn about new offerings from our sponsors.

I look forward to seeing many of you at your chapter meetings or at the Spring Clinical or Annual Meeting. Please let us know of your ideas or suggestions by using the BBS area. n

SAVE THE DATE! MARCH 18–21, 2017 Hilton New Orleans Riverside New Orleans, LA

6 | www.aapm.org

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S COLUMN Angela Keyser, Alexandria, VA

1631 Prince Street — Your New AAPM Headquarters

I

t has been a very exciting few months here at your AAPM Headquarters. One of the benefits to AAPM’s new building is the ability to host AAPM group functions here, avoiding the high costs of hotel audio visual/technical support and banquet catering fees. There are 20+ small meetings of AAPM’s councils and committees that will be hosted at HQ in 2016. We are off to a great start, with the following successful meetings held at HQ thus far!

•

December 10 — Mid-Atlantic Chapter Dinner Meeting

•

January 15–17 — Strategic Planning Committee, Ad Hoc Committee on Governance Assessment Meeting, and Executive Committee

•

January 19 — TG 278 Combined Residency and Research Training in Medical Physics Meeting

•

January 20 — Ad Hoc Committee on Unifying Publication Platforms

We’ve also had a member stop by who was vacationing in the area! We are looking forward to hosting council retreats in the near future. If your travels bring you to the Alexandria, Virginia area, please do stop by to visit your HQ team.

Research Seed Grant Application Deadline is March 25 Three $25,000 Research Seed Grants will be awarded to provide funds to develop exciting investigator-initiated concepts, which will hopefully lead to successful longer-term project funding from the NIH or equivalent funding sources.

Funding for grant recipients will begin on July 1 of the award year. Research results will be submitted for presentation at future AAPM meetings. Sponsored by the AAPM Science Council through the AAPM Education & Research Fund.

AAPM Graduate Fellowship Application Deadline is April 29 The fellowship is awarded for the first two years of graduate study leading to a doctoral degree in Medical Physics. Both BSc. and MS holders are eligible to apply. A stipend of $13,000 per year, plus tuition support not exceeding $5,000 per year is assigned to the recipient. Sponsored by the AAPM Education & Research Fund.

AAPM Meeting News Mark your calendars for three upcoming AAPM meetings: AAPM Annual Spring Clinical Meeting

March 5–8, 2016 The Grand America Hotel, Salt Lake City, Utah

The Spring Clinical Meeting program is available online. Also, note that several AAPM groups plan to meet during the 2016 AAPM Spring Clinical Meeting. A list of AAPM activities is available online. Please make time during the meeting to visit the vendors and thank them for their support of AAPM and the medical physics profession.

www.aapm.org | 7

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

Executive Director, cont.

AAPM 2016 Summer School

Medical Physics Leadership Academy June 12–16, 2016 Westfields Marriott Conference Center, Chantilly, Virginia View program and register now!

The deadline to register with discounted registration fee and reserve on-campus housing is May 4.

The AAPM Medical Physics Leadership Academy will offer advancing leadership development opportunities. Attendees will immerse themselves in a focused and hands-on environment for leadership and management skill development interwoven into the context of medical physics. The program is specifically designed with the needs and challenges of medical physicists in mind, in either therapy or imaging disciplines, and community, academic, or consulting work environments. Areas of focus include: • • • • • • •

Leadership in Visioning Leadership with People Leadership in Projects Leadership in Finances Leadership in Communication Leadership in a Constrained Environment Leadership in Practice

This program has been planned by AAPM members, drawing from their broad experience. For added specialized expertise in leadership development training, Impact International has been engaged to help participants manage and master the processes of awareness, decision-making, and action. Summer School attendees will practice these skills in small groups during exercises following each didactic presentation.

AAPM 58th Annual Meeting & Exhibition July 31 – August 4, 2016 Washington, DC This year’s program focusing on “Communicating Our Value. Improving Our Future.” will be held in the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. We are working on a plan to offer tours of the new AAPM HQ building on Saturday, July 30 and Thursday, August 4, so stay tuned for details to follow!

New plans for the AAPM Night Out — The 2016 Night Out will not be a dinner event.

Instead, you are encouraged to meet your colleagues at the venue for limited light snacks and then make your way to one of the many restaurants in the area for dinner. Or, dine first and make your way to the event for a bite of something sweet at the end of the evening. This change has been made in an effort to contain costs, but still provide an opportunity for attendees to socialize with colleagues and see a bit of Washington, DC. Now, about the venue: Come see why TripAdvisor named The Newseum one of the top 25 museums! 15 galleries display 500 years of news history in a unique place where you can travel through time, history and, media. Displays include the largest piece of the Berlin Wall outside of Germany, a somber 911 Memorial, and daily print editions of newspapers from around the world. Several hands-on exhibits are open, and the top-floor terrace offers one of the best views of the Capitol.

8 | www.aapm.org

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

Executive Director, cont.

Each adult Night Out ticket will include one drink ticket, good for a beer or glass of wine. Again, you will be disappointed if you come to the Night Out expecting a meal. Please make your plans in advance and dine at a restaurant of your choice and favorite cuisine. We have compiled a list of restaurants located between the Convention Center and The Newseum, and encourage you to either make reservations on your own, or with help from the restaurant desk at the Convention Center. View restaurant list »

Staff News

Say hello to the newest members of the AAPM HQ Team — Phyllis Doak, Jaime Hoza and Rohan Tapiyawala. Phyllis, in her role as Corporate Partnership Manager, is working to develop and implement a new program that builds strong constituencies with AAPM’s corporate partners. Jaime is a member of the Meetings Team and will be providing support to the 20+ meetings expected in AAPM new HQ building in 2016. As the Front End Developer, Rohan is currently working with Website Editor George Kagadis to redesign aapm.org. n

THE RAYSAFE X2 OFFERS

▪ ▪ ▪

State-of-the-art sensor technology combined with a new user interface that is so simple to use Precise scatter/leakage measurements in the X-ray energy range with the new X2 survey sensor Full range of measurements for R/F, MAM, CT, Light, Survey and mAs applications

RaySafe X2 – in action Imagine a testing environment where you can plug in your test tool, not worry about settings nor sensor positioning nor other setup complications and get results fast. Then trust that you can do this reliably, measurement after measurement after measurement…

The RaySafe X2 delivers that experience and more. Customer after customer has switched to the RaySafe X2 and come away pleased.

Service organizations are standardizing on this device. Physicists too.

Why shouldn’t you?

L E SS E FFORT. M OR E INSIG HT.

www.raysafe.com

www.aapm.org | 9

p

p

NEW MEMBER SYMPOSIUM Tuesday, August 2 • 4:30pm – 6:00pm • Room 201, Level 2 • Walter E. Washington Convention Center

A

s a new member of AAPM, it is easy to feel overwhelmed by the size and complexity of the association and to be unaware of the benefits and opportunities available to members. At this year’s AAPM Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, we will host a New Member Symposium where you can learn more about the organization, member resources, opportunities to get involved, and about topics of particular interest to new professionals. We encourage you to take advantage of this great opportunity to learn valuable information and to grow your professional network.

Registered attendees will receive a raffle ticket.

Enter to win a complimentary registration for the 2017 Annual Meeting in Denver, CO!!

In addition, all new members who register for the Symposium will receive a drink ticket, good for one complimentary soda or beer served after the New Member Symposium during the social with committee chairs from four AAPM Councils: Science, Education, Professional and Administrative.

Get Your Picture Taken. There will be a photographer there to take pictures for your profile in the AAPM directory.

www.aapm.org/meetings/2016AM/

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

TREASURER’S REPORT Mahadevappa Mahesh, Baltimore, MD

Overhead: The Cost to Deliver on AAPM’s Mission

H

aving taken on the responsibilities as the Treasurer of AAPM, I thought it would be beneficial to share some of the fiscal aspects of our association. I have been interested in the financial status of AAPM for a while and now being Treasurer offers me a vantage point of having the resources (such as our financial staff) to fully understand the specifics. I plan to have a series of communications regarding fiscal matters that can ultimately serve as resource material to any AAPM member or officer interested in these topics.

In this issue, I will briefly discuss the topic ‘Overhead.’ I consider this an important topic as many of us are curious but never find the right venue to ask. It is also important for non-profit organizations, such as AAPM, to demonstrate how well the money is managed since every now and then we learn how certain organizations’ overhead is higher than what is considered normal to run a large institution. In fact, many social media websites are now thriving by simply maintaining information about an organization’s finances and overheads, rating them accordingly. With this background, here is the brief discussion on ‘Overhead’ in AAPM. The mission of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is “to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics.” At one time or another, we have all read and understood the mission statement and what that means to us individually as medical physicists. However, how much thought do we give to what it costs to deliver that mission?

Volunteer leadership recognizes that in order to fulfill its mission it is vital that AAPM have a solid infrastructure in place to support this mission. These administrative costs are vital if AAPM is to continue to deliver excellent services to its membership and constituents. While some may view these costs negatively or as a “necessary evil,” without the appropriate level of overhead costs, not-for-profits like AAPM would struggle to deliver the mission to which they are called.

What is Overhead?

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) places not-for-profit expenses into three broad categories: Program, Fundraising, and Management and General Costs. Overhead costs are generally identified as a combination of Fundraising and Management and General Costs. So let’s look a little more closely at what falls into each of these categories.

Program Costs are those associated with a direct program or activity of the organization. In the case of AAPM, those costs include membership related costs, publication costs for the journals, scholarships, costs associated with our various meetings, costs associated with our councils and committees, as well as all governance related costs.

Fundraising costs are associated with seeking, soliciting or securing charitable contributions.

By default, Management and General Costs are more of a catchall category and reflects all other costs associated with running an organization, facilitating shared programs. In the case of AAPM this would include staff salaries and benefits, facility related expenses, information systems costs, insurance, and other related costs.

www.aapm.org | 11

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

Treasurer, cont.

The chart below shows the distribution of overhead costs that includes all three categories discussed above.

How is the Overhead Allocated to Various AAPM Programs?

The allocation of overhead costs is required both by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as well as IRS Guidelines.

During the course of the year, the HQ Team documents their time spent working on various programs, which is then charged to that particular program. For instance, when the HQ Team handles logistics associated with the Annual Meeting or provides support to the journals or councils and committees, their actual time is documented in an online timekeeping database and charged to that particular activity. At year-end, the Finance Team summarizes the time and allocates a portion of overhead costs to the Program and Fundraising activities based on the direct time charges for the year. Those costs not directly associated with any program or fundraising activity remain in the overhead category. This includes time charged to finance or administrative functions, usage of time off, IT infrastructure work, staff training, staff meetings, etc.

12 | www.aapm.org

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

Treasurer, cont.

The allocation of overhead costs is vital to determine the true cost of various programmatic activities. While the direct program costs tell a portion of the picture, associated time spent and related overhead costs help determine the true cost of delivering the mission of AAPM. Furthermore, potential grantors and donors are looking to see an efficient use of funds. When reviewing an organization’s 990, donors want to see minimal administrative costs and the bulk of the spending in programmatic areas. Frequently watchdog groups and donors evaluate an organization’s efficiency by evaluating the following ratios: •

Program Expenses/Total Functional Expenses

•

Administrative Expense/Total Functional Expenses

•

Fundraising Expense/Total Functional Expenses

Organizations, which have high administrative expenses or low programmatic spending, receive low marks from these watchdog groups. Below you will find a table comparing the typical watchdog benchmark to AAPM’s 2014 results.

As you can see, AAPM outperformed the watchdog ratios in 2014 by a wide margin. n

AAPM (for year 2014)

Program Expense Ratio

Minimum 80%

87%

Overhead Ratio

Less than 20%

13%

p

www.aapm.org | 13

p

Watchdog Benchmark

T

he theme for 2016 and the AAPM Annual Meeting is “Communicating our Value. Improving our Future.” I have observed over recent years that the importance of the Medical Physicist to both the imaging and treatment processes has lessened in many institutions. We are losing/have lost our place as key players on the diagnosis and treatment teams, often relegated to the role of technicians in the eyes of our colleagues and administrators. This is true in academic/research arenas as well, where grant opportunities for improvements in technology and process, areas in which we are major players, have been on the decline. We need to reverse these trends in order to survive and thrive.

AAPM can help medical physicists achieve better recognition by providing tools and guidance in promoting our value to our institutions and colleagues. Medical Physics 3.0, the Medical Physics Leadership Academy and the 2016 Summer School on Leadership are all venues that have this goal (among others). Our Annual Meeting provides opportunities for sharing/improving your scientific knowledge, clinical skills, and professional leadership. Involvement in AAPM committees and task groups enables you to help shape our future, clinically, scientifically, and professionally.

These opportunities, however, are only of value if you take advantage of them and work to incorporate them into your research, clinical practice, or interactions with your colleagues. I echo John Boone’s words from 2015; “I invite you — indeed I challenge you — to take advantage of the outstanding opportunities offered at this summer’s meeting to reinvigorate your professional, [clinical, and scientific] excellence.”

—Bruce H. Curran, AAPM President

NEW AND EXCITING FEATURES THIS YEAR….

• Special 2-Day Program on Radiomics (Monday – Tuesday,

August 1-2).

• NEW Submission Types:

 Science Council Junior Investigator Award — An award recognizing outstanding scientific research by Junior Investigators has been established by the AAPM Science Council. The award is based on abstracts submitted to the Scientific Program of the AAPM Annual Meeting, judged according to criteria of significance, innovation, and the potential for major scientific impact in an area of cutting edge interest in medical physics. The award carries a monetary prize and is announced at the Awards & Honors Ceremony at the Annual Meeting. Select Junior Investigator Submission.  SPS Undergraduate Research & Outreach — The Society of Physics Students (SPS) Undergraduate Research & Outreach poster session highlights the work of undergraduate students with an interest in medical physics. The first author (and presenter) of all posters in this session must be an undergraduate at the time of submission. Posters should reflect either research related to medical physics or outreach to promote the importance of and relationship between physics in medicine. All joint SPS-AAPM undergraduate members are invited to submit.

• Distinguished Lectureships:

 Carson-Zagzebski Distinguished Lectureship — In the spirit of education and science, this year’s session will feature an overview of new and innovative noninvasive use of ultrasound in the treatment of disease presented by Kullervo Hynynen, PhD.  The Anne and Donald Herbert Distinguished Lectureship in Modern Statistical Modeling —This session will feature an overview of statistical modeling techniques used for analyzing the many types of research data and an exploration of recent advances in new statistical modeling methodologies.

• TG100 Certificate of Completion Course: Application of Risk

Analysis Methods to Radiotherapy Quality Management – See below for further details.

• Joint scientific symposium with the World Molecular Imaging

Society — Metabolic Imaging of Cancer • Joint scientific symposium with ESTRO — Advances in

Experimental Medical Physics • NEW Exhibit Hall Guided Tour: Join a guided tour of vendors

offering either microdosimeters for therapy applications or dosimeters for diagnostic imaging quality control. Tours will be led by AAPM members and will include a short introduction. SAMS credit will be offered. Pre-registration required.

All sessions and technical exhibits will take place in the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, 801 Mt Vernon Pl NW, Washington, DC. The education program and professional program will offer a significant opportunity to gain practical knowledge on emerging technical and professional issues.

This year, the scientific program will also offer a special twoday track on Radiomics.

TG100 Certificate of Completion Course: Application of Risk Analysis Methods to Radiotherapy Quality Management The course will consist of an all-day program on Wednesday followed by a workshop on Thursday, which provides further hands-on experience with tools of risk analysis and safety improvement. The course will run in Ballroom C concurrently with other AAPM program content. Upon fulfilling the requirements, participants will receive a certificate of completion. This mini-track, open to all registrants, will focus on describing a structured methodology of TG100 for analyzing clinical processes and for developing clinic - and site - specific quality management programs that more effectively and efficiently address work practices in individual clinics. The mini-track will consist of 6 sessions (including educational and scientific sessions, and proffered papers) which provide basic education as well as a survey of emerging and advanced concepts. The topics will be of interest to those working in diagnostic radiology as well as therapy physics.

The mini-track will also serve as the certificate course at this year’s meeting, which provides an in-depth review of a particular topic with verification of learning objectives through online homework. Attendees may enroll in the certificate program for an additional fee. Enrollment in the program entitles participants to dedicated seating in the mini-track sessions as well as additional online materials. Following the meeting, certificate program participants will be required to take an online examination which covers the material presented throughout the day-long mini-track. Enrollees who demonstrate satisfactory attendance at the course and successful completion of the online examination (available after the meeting) will receive a framed certificate of completion for this course.

SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM Therapy Track Symposia • The Joint AAPM-ESTRO Symposium: Advances in Experimental Medical Physics • Radiation and Immunotherapy: How to Ignite Long Term Anti-Cancer Response • Radiation Countermeasures Research and Development • Session in Memory of Robert J. Shalek: High Resolution Dosimetry from 2D to 3D to Real-time 3D • Motion Management in Proton Therapy • Connecting Radiation Physics with Computational Biology • The Challenges of Predicting RBE Effects in Particle Therapy and Opportunities for Improving Cancer Therapy • Research Opportunities with Digital Linear Accelerators

Proffered Abstract Submissions • Photon Therapy — SBRT/SRS • Photon External Beam Therapy • Immobilization Technology • Electron Beam Therapy • Brachytherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals • Particle Therapy (Protons and Heavy Ions) • Outcome Modeling and Assessment • Patient Safety and Quality Improvement • Informatics • Radiobiology and Small Animal Systems • Radiation Protection and Shielding • Targeted Radionuclide Therapies

www.aapm.org/meetings/2016AM

SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

Imaging Track Symposia • Radiation and Cancer: Reality, Extrapolations, Myths & Practice • Model Observer Design and its Validation for Task-based Evaluation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis • Quantitative Assessment of CT Systems with Iterative Image Reconstruction Algorithms • Joint Imaging-Radiomics Symposium: Low-dose CT Grand Challenge • Advances in Image-guided Neurointerventions — Clinical Pull and Technology Push • Advances in Dedicated Breast CT • Advances in Preclinical Imaging

Proffered Abstract Submissions • Science Council Session — Imaging for Particle Therapy • Imaging in Treatment Planning and Adaptive Radiation Therapy • MRI in Radiation Therapy • Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) • Motion and Uncertainty Assessment and Management • Treatment Response Assessment • Image Guidance for Surgical and Other Interventions (not Radiation Therapy) • Radiobiology and Small Animal Systems • Ultrasound for Therapy Guidance • Therapeutic Ultrasound

Proffered Abstract Submissions • Radiography/Fluoroscopy • Multi-detector CT • Cone-beam CT • Mammography/Tomosynthesis • Nuclear Medicine, PET and PET/MR • MRI • Pre-Clinical (Small Animal) Imaging Systems • Optical • New and Emerging Technology • Multi-Modality Imaging • PACS/Informatics • Ultrasound for Diagnostic Imaging

Radiomics (Special 2 Day Program)

Joint Imaging/Therapy Track Symposia • Session in Memory of Jean Pouliot: Next-Generation Deformable Image Registration • High Impact Technologies for Low Resource Environments • CT Ventilation • Image-guided interventions • Dual Energy CT in Radiation Therapy • The EPID Strikes Back • Brachytherapy • RIP ITV • The Joint WMIS-AAPM Symposium: Metabolic Imaging of Cancer

Symposia • Radiomics: Segmentation & Feature Extraction Techniques • Harmonization & Robustness in Radiomics • State-of-the-Art in Radiomics in Radiology and Radiation Oncology • Imaging Genomics Associations and Biological correlates of Radiomics • Challenges in Radiomics and Big Data • Moving Radiomics Forward: Funding, Regulatory Issues, and Clinical Translation Proffered Abstract Submissions • Quantitative Image Analysis (CAD, Computerized Assessment of Prognosis, etc.)

• Treatment Response • Robustness and Variability • Association with Genomics • Clinical Translation • Data Mining • Feature Extraction • Data Harmonization • Statistical Models and Methods

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM Therapy Track

Imaging Track

• SBRT Workflow Overview

• Nuclear Medicine Physics and Testing

• SBRT Case Study Panel Discussion — Lung

• DBT Physics Basic to Advanced

• SBRT Case Study Panel Discussion — Liver

• Recent Advances in Virtual Tools for Validation of 3D/4D

• SBRT Case Study Panel Discussion — Spine

Breast Imaging Systems (TG234)

• SRS Efficiency: Multi-Met & New Methods

• CT Systems Course

• Image Guidance Technologies and Management Strategies

• Body Tomosynthesis

• TG180: Imaging Dose During RT

• Imaging Informatics

• In Memoriam of Jan van de Geijn: Knowledge-based

• Diagnostic QA/QC Hands-on Workshop

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Planning Basics of Proton Therapy Educational Point Counter/Point: Has Photon RT Hit the Limits?

Opportunities for Big Data in Radiation Oncology How to Identify and Resolve Potential Clinical Errors Before They Impact Patients Treatment: Less Learned MRgRT Online Adaptive Radiotherapy - Considerations for Practical Clinical Implementation AAPM-AMPR-SEFM Joint Course on Challenges and Advantages of Small Field Radiation Treatment Techniques Prostate HDR Three Dimensional Dosimetry Key Dosimetry Data — Impact of New ICRU Recommendations New Task Groups for External Beam QA: An Overview TG167 — Clinical Recommendations for Innovative Brachytherapy Devices and Applicators TG-191: Clinical Use of Luminescent Dosimeters Implanted Markers for Radiation Therapy and TG 199 Update Statistics Pitfalls Anne and Donald Herbert Distinguished Lectureship on Modern Statistical Modeling

• MRI Physics • Carson/Zagzebski Distinguished Lectureship: Image Guided

Ultrasound Therapy • Challenges and Opportunities for Nuclear Medicine

Theranostics • Shear-wave Imaging and a QIBA US Biomarker Update • Pediatric Image Quality Optimization • Radiation Dose Monitoring and Protocol Management • Pitfalls: Reliability and Performance of Diagnostic X-Ray

Sources

Practical Medical Physics • Overcoming the Challenges of Motion Management in

Current Lung SBRT Practice • Practical Implementation of Deep Inspiration Breath Hold

Techniques for Breast Radiation Therapy • Planning and Delivering HDR Savi APBI Treatments • Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA • Practical Statistics for Medical Physicists • Open Source Hardware in Medical Physics and its Potential

to Accelerate Innovation • An Introduction to Research and Clinical Development Using

Treatment Planning System APIs • A Cliff’s Notes Version of Proton Therapy • Optimizing the Treatment Planning Process • A Practical Guide to Radiation Safety Surveys • Identifying Image Artifacts, Their Causes, and How

to Fix Them

PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM Therapy Track Symposia • New Member Symposium • Medical Physics Leadership Academy • International Symposium: Patient Dose Reduction in Diagnostic Radiology • Opportunities for Medical Physicists In Developing Countries • Diversity and Inclusion in Medical Physics • Ethics Symposium: Do the Right Thing • The Gadget: Making of the Atomic Bomb • Compliance with the AAPM CT Clinical Practice and Joint Commission Guidelines • Work of ICRP, NCRP and Others and How They Impact on Medical Physicists • CDRH/FDA Regulatory Processes and Device Science Activities • Certificate Extension Process for DBT and the Medical Physicist’s Role [DBT #1] • MERCER Liability & Insurance • Interoperability in Radiation Oncology: IHE-RO Committee Update • The Pursuit of Radiation Oncology Performance Excellence • Session in Memory of Franca Kuchnir: Excellence in Medical Physics Residency Education

• Teaching Radiology Residents: What, How, and Expectation • Writing Good Multiple Choice Questions • Fostering a Successful Career in Research • Post-graduate Training of the Next Generation of Academic

Medical Physicists • To Which Journal Shall I Submit My Manuscript • Medical Physics Workshop • Financial Perspectives on Scientific Publishing • Preparing for the ABR Diagnostic and Nuclear Medical

Physics Exams • Preparing for Parts 2 and 3 of the ABR Therapy Medical Physics Exam • The American Board of Radiology Maintenance of Certification Process • 4-hour HAZMAT Training for the Medical Physicist Proffered Abstract Submissions • Professional Practice of Medical Physics • Education (Clinical) • Legislation and Regulation • Administration and Management • Compliance and Quality Management

PARTNERS IN SOLUTIONS Partners in Solutions returns again this year with vendors providing physics-level presentations on topics selected by AAPM in a special-purpose lecture room built on the exhibit floor. These sessions provide practical information for the clinical physicist from the people who know the systems in depth! CE credit is available. This year’s topics are: • Imaging: Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. The three PinS

sessions will cover the manufacturer- and model-specific features and requirements of the DBT systems currently approved by FDA. Together with other sessions offered during the Annual Meeting program, these will allow attendees to meet the FDA initial training requirements for DBT (8 hours of training including manufacturer-specific features of each approved system).

• Therapy: MR Simulation. MRI techniques are becoming

increasingly used in treatment planning, image-guided radiation therapy, and treatment evaluation, and it is important that medical physicists understand the underlying processes of the systems they are using. Presentations from three manufacturers will feature details of their fast MR imaging techniques, functional MR imaging techniques, and MRI distortion correction and quality assurance techniques, including their pros and cons. An increased awareness of how MRI simulation tools work will allow attendees to better understand and apply their results.

58th Annual Meeting & Exhibition Walter E. Washington Convention Center

JULY 31–AUGUST 4 | WASHINGTON, DC AAPM 2016 DATES TO REMEMBER March 10 at 5PM Eastern, 8PM Pacific Time

Deadline for receipt of 300 word abstracts and supporting data.

This deadline recognizes other conference schedules. There will be NO EXTENSION OF THIS DEADLINE. Authors must submit their abstracts by this time to be considered for review.

March 23

Meeting Housing and Registration available online.

By April 18

Authors notified of presentation disposition.

By May 10

Annual Meeting Program available online.

June 22

Deadline to receive Discounted Registration Fees.

WWW.AAPM.ORG/MEETINGS/2016AM

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

PROFESSIONAL COUNCIL REPORT Dan Pavord, Poughkeepsie, NY

S

ince this is my first article as Professional Council Chair, I want to start by thanking those that came before me. Per Halvorsen, Doug Pfeiffer, and James Goodwin have all made significant contributions to AAPM and I have appreciated working with them and learning from them. I look forward to continued collaboration as our roles change.

It seems that the weather and the healthcare industry are becoming more unpredictable and subject to change. There will be many challenges ahead as we navigate through our healthcare landscape, regardless of your practice environment. Professional Council will continue existing efforts and be involved with several important initiatives that will position our medical physics profession over the coming years to demonstrate the value we bring to patient safety and quality.

The continued development of Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPGs) is a great example of how we can demonstrate value and as James Goodwin mentioned in the last edition, they are beginning to be adopted by other organizations. It is crucial that AAPM is the organization for defining best practice in medical physics.

One thing that seems clear, is that if we wish to stay relevant in healthcare, we will need to expand our leadership roles and focus more on safety and quality and less on more “technician-like” tasks. The Medical Physics Leadership Academy (MPLA) is another great initiative designed to help our members learn and develop these skills for their own professional advancement. EXCOM stressed the importance of leadership in a recent letter regarding the formation of the MPLA. The 2016 AAPM Summer School (June 12-16 in Chantilly, VA) will serve as a kickoff for the MPLA. Registration will have opened by the time you read this and I encourage you to attend. This will be an early opportunity to begin acquiring the skills needed to become a leader within your practice area as well as in your volunteer endeavors, be those within AAPM or other organizations.

Another imperative is to get more young members involved in AAPM so that their voice will be heard and we can begin to train a new generation of leadership within the organization. To assist in that regard, I would like to encourage members who have never been on a committee, subcommittee, or task group to contact the chair of a group that you are interested in joining and ask to become a guest member of the group. This is a great way to become familiar with how the organization gets work done. It also provides an opportunity to demonstrate your commitment and to make contacts that will assist you in your professional development.

Although at times we feel some uncertainty about our future as it relates to healthcare, we should recognize this is also an exciting time of opportunity as we look to redefine our roles as medical physicists. As Chair of Professional Council, I will be focused on those activities that will improve safety and quality, will advance our position in healthcare, and will demonstrate our value. n

www.aapm.org | 21

p

p

2016 RESEARCH SEED FUNDING GRANT T

hree $25,000 grants will be awarded to provide funds to develop exciting investigator-initiated concepts, which will hopefully lead to successful longer term project funding from the NIH or equivalent funding sources. Funding for grant recipients will begin on July 1 of the award year.

Research results will be submitted for presentation at future AAPM meetings. The award is not intended to provide salary support for the applicant, however any other research-related expenses, including travel to scientific meetings, will be supported.

Travel expense should be included in the submitted budget. At the end of the 12-month period a report must be forwarded to the AAPM, along with itemized expenses. The award will not support indirect costs. Any unspent funds should be returned to the AAPM. Sponsored by the AAPM Science Council through the AAPM Education and Research Fund.

Application Requirements: a) Five-page description of research project (including figures and tables), separated as follows: b) Specific aims c) Background and significance d) Preliminary results e) Research plan f) Literature cited g) Budget h) Letter of support from division/department chair demonstrating support for the project and authorization of time and resources to complete the proposed research. i) CV (no more than 4 pages).

Note that sections (e) and (f) do not count towards the five-page limit.

As the competition for the seed grant is high, eligible applicants are encouraged to also submit their applications for other awards, e.g. www.cancer.gov/researchandfunding/training/.

Review Criteria 50% Scientific merit of proposal (significance, innovation, environment, and soundness of approach) 25% Potential for project to develop into a major project fundable by NIH, DOE, DOD, etc.

A list of Award Recipients can be found at: www.aapm.org/education/edfund.asp.

25% Background of investigator

Eligibility:

Award duration: July 1, 2016 – August 30, 2017

• 5 years or less since awarding of Ph.D.

(All supporting documents are due by the application deadline.)

• Must be a member of the AAPM at the time

of application. (any membership category) Pending membership status not eligible.

• No previous grants >$50,000 as principle investigator.

• Previously funded projects are ineligible.

• Prior Seed Grant recipients are ineligible.

FOR MORE DETAILS, VISIT:

Application Deadline: March 25, 2016

Recipients notified by: May 15, 2016

www.aapm.org/education/GrantsFellowships.asp

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

EDUCATION COUNCIL REPORT Jim Dobbins, Durham , NC

I

n this, my first article as the incoming Chair of Education Council (EC), I would like to highlight several things that should be of interest to the membership of AAPM. These items will include a look ahead at some of the priorities for the coming year, as well as ways in which the membership can contribute to the mission of our Council.

First, I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work of George Starkschall, who served as Chair of Education Council for six years. George exhibited the kind of exemplary service that makes an organization such as AAPM so effective. George was on top of hundreds of details about our many committees, subcommittees, and task groups. In fact, as I step into this role, one of the things that impresses me most about George’s years of service is how adept he was at being engaged with the multitudes of details about so many groups. He guided the Council with wisdom on many of the challenging issues of the day, and he left large shoes to fill. So, George, please know that we thank you for your outstanding service to AAPM, our members, and our students.

Second, I would like to provide a glimpse into some of the items that we will tackle this year. This is not an exhaustive list, because we have not yet met at our annual retreat, and therefore, we have not had the chance as a full Council to establish our overall set of priorities for the year. But these are some of the items that I would like for us to work on.

(1) Collection and analysis of data on the number of trainees, residency positions, and the success of our graduates in finding employment. Some of these data are already being collected by SDAMPP and by the AAPM Professional Council, and EC will work closely with them both to address this important issue. We continue to hear questions raised by our members about the relative numbers of students and jobs and we would like to collect and analyze reliable data to better answer that question of how well calibrated we are as a field on the output of our educational programs.

(2) Expansion of the number of residency slots. We have made tremendous progress in the past few years in developing the number of residency slots needed to meet the mandated residency requirements for ABR certification that commenced in 2014. Estimates vary in the number of residency slots required per year, but one number that has often been quoted is that roughly 175 residency slots per year would be required to meet the needs of the marketplace. Beginning in 2008, AAPM convened a yearly summit meeting to address the requirements to meet the then 2012 and 2014 changes to ABR certification requirements. In 2008, we had about 25 residency slots annually in the U.S., meaning that we were off by about a factor of seven in what would be required in 2014. Through considerable effort on the part of a number of individuals in the intervening years, we have increased that number to the point where we are about at 80-90% of where we need to be. EC will work this year to continue to close the gap on the remaining needed residency slots, including a special interest in developing the additional number of diagnostic (or nuclear/diagnostic) residencies required. Collection of reliable data on available jobs, as mentioned above, will help right size the number of the remaining needed residencies.

www.aapm.org | 23

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

Education Council, cont.

(3) Determining the education needs for the future of medical physics. Medicine is undergoing considerable changes, and it is very likely that the role of physics in the enterprise of medicine may be different 20 to 30 years from now than what it is today. We need to be working collectively on establishing a strong future for physics in medicine in general, and more particularly for EC, looking at the educational implications of changes that will be part of where medical physics is heading in future decades. EC will coordinate with the Working Group on Future Research and Academic Medical Physics (WG FUTURE) on the educational components of these future trends.

Last, I want to let you know how you can contribute to the success of the Education Council this year. If you have an idea or question pertaining to education — whether regarding education of medical physicists, our colleagues, or the general public — please email me or the chair of the relevant EC committee. We are eager to hear your ideas.

I also want to thank the members of our committees and subcommittees for their efforts on behalf of EC. It is their substantial work that makes our Council effective. We all look forward to working on behalf of the membership of AAPM this year on important issues in education, and in future editions of the Newsletter I will ask various committee chairs to highlight the efforts of their respective committees. n

DICOM UPDATE ON P-RDSR Donald Peck, Detroit , MI For non-oncology therapeutic applications, the current DICOM Information Object Definitions (IOD) used for measuring the radiation dose indices is the Radiation Dose Structured Report (RDSR). The RDSR contains only information about the irradiation system or information the system can determine, i.e. radiation output, geometry, x-ray source, detector system, etc. Yet, these modality IOD do not include sufficient information about the patient, which is required to adequately estimate the radiation dose to the patient. In addition, there are multiple methodologies and models that can be used to estimate patient dose and these methods are rapidly changing. Once an estimate of the radiation dose absorbed by a patient is performed, storing and transferring the method used, the parameters involved in the method and the resulting dose estimate in a standard format will facilitate recording such information.

DICOM WG28 Physics has developed a IOD to contain the information concerning the recording of the estimated radiation dose to a patient.

This includes radiation dose from CT, projection X-Ray and radiopharmaceutical administration. The approach taken here for the Patient Radiation Dose Structured Report (P-RDSR) is to define a new Structured Report object template and SOP Class.

The P-RDSR (i.e. Supplement 191) is now in the Public Comment phase of the DICOM process (until March 24, 2016). All AAPM members that are interested in reviewing and/or commenting on this can contact Donald Peck, Chair DICOM WG28 for more information.

24 | www.aapm.org

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

WEBSITE EDITOR’S REPORT George C. Kagadis, Rion, Greece

I

would like to first congratulate Jessica Clements on her recent appointment as the AAPM Newsletter Editor. I wish her every success in that difficult task which has been carefully taken care of by Mahesh Mahadevappa the last nine years.

We are all getting prepared for the AAPM Annual Meeting, which this year is going to take place in Washington, DC (July 31 – August 4). The 58th Annual Meeting & Exhibition website is now up and ready to receive your submissions.

The AAPM Virtual Library now has 1,527 videos available (as of February 10, 2016) to our membership. All of the educational material is concurrently available in AAPM’s AWS and Vimeo. When somebody tries to access a video he/she is first connected to Vimeo and if, due to his/her institution’s policy cannot access Vimeo, he/she then has the ability to view it on our AWS. All the traffic is maintained through our website. We currently have all past meetings material uploaded in our Virtual Library dating back to 2001.

I am pleased to report that as of February 10, 2016 we have 39,778 images posted to AAPM’s Flickr, 4,053 likes on Facebook, 9,019 members on LinkedIn, and 4,671 followers on Twitter. Our website is mainly visited by people in the U.S. (72% of the sessions), Canada (4% of the sessions), and Japan (2% of the sessions). The majority of our site visits are through Windows (71%) and MacOS (14%). With regard to our friends accessing our website through their mobile, the main operating systems are iOS (61%), Android (32%), and Windows (5%).

I hope you find the AAPM website useful, visit it often and send me your feedback or email me directly. n

www.aapm.org | 25

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

ABR NEWS Jerry D. Allison, Geoffrey S. Ibbott, J. Anthony Seibert and Michael Herman, ABR Medical Physics Trustees

Preparation for the ABR Maintenance of Certification Cognitive Exam Background

The ABR Maintenance of Certification (MOC) cognitive exam has the following important purposes: •

Encourage the medical physics diplomate to stay current with new developments in medical physics.

•

Encourage the medical physics diplomate to review key medical physics concepts.

•

Provide data for regulators and policy experts to show that the profession self-regulates in an effective way.

Many studies have shown that without regular review, knowledge slowly erodes over time. Further, without constant effort, important new knowledge is not assimilated. The purpose of the cognitive exam is to help physicists avoid these two problems.

The exam is designed to encourage continuous preparation rather than intense study during the few months prior to the examination. Best results are obtained if the diplomate spends a small amount of time studying on a regular basis.

Preparation begins with understanding the exam, which consists of 150 questions, most in standard multiple-choice format. Approximately 30 percent of the questions cover traditional medical physics information, and 70 percent cover more recent material. The traditional information is commonly called “walking around” material, which clinical physicists should know at all times. The newer material is taken from a study guide that is frequently updated and is available on the ABR website.

Each question is referenced to an item in the study guide. The exam focuses on material that is important to the clinical physicist and has become relevant in approximately the last decade. This material is selected by a committee of working clinical physicists in each specialty. The committees are organized to include both MS and PhD physicists, as well as physicists working as consultants, in private hospitals, and in academic practices. Each year the committees review the specialty as a whole and determine which documents to add and remove from the list of documents used to develop the exam. It is important to note that for each specialty, the entire domain of the specialty is sampled. If you work in an institution that does not cover the entire domain, you should pay special attention to keeping your knowledge current in areas not addressed in your clinical environment.

The questions selected for the exam are designed to be clinical in nature; this has been validated by independent review of the exam. These reviews have suggested that less than one percent of the questions would be classified as not clinically relevant. The exam is also criterion based, meaning that a passing standard is set by a panel of experts.

This panel also includes individuals selected to include both MS and PhD physicists, as well as physicists working as consultants, in private hospitals, and in academic practices. A criterion-based exam means a set passing score is derived

www.aapm.org | 27

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

ABR, cont.

from a standard. Anyone whose score is above the standard passes, and there is no curve. While the passing rates for first-time takers have been slightly below 90 percent, the failure rate after multiple attempts is less than four percent. We would like the failure rate to be even lower and hope that a better approach to preparation will improve the performance of diplomates.

The exam must have been passed in the last 10 years for the diplomate to remain in the “meeting MOC requirements” category. If the exam has not been passed within 11 years, the diplomate will lose his or her certification. The exam may be taken in any year, and most diplomates choose to take it prior to year 10. There may be multiple reasons for this choice, but certainly it gives the diplomate an opportunity to repeat the exam if all does not go well.

The exam is administered in October at Pearson VUE centers throughout the U.S. and Canada, at one center in Europe, and at one in Asia. The Pearson VUE centers are widely available, but they give exams for many groups and tend to fill up quickly. Once you decide to take the exam, you should register as soon as possible. The ABR office can help you with this.

A Long-Term Plan to Improve Your Performance Since the purpose of the exam is to continuously improve your performance, preparation for the exam also should be continuous rather than episodic. While each diplomate will have his or her own approach to this, there are some general hints that can be helpful.

At least once a year, you should review your study guide and select new or unfamiliar items. Adult learning research suggests that active techniques are the best way to learn material. For example, it might be helpful to highlight material in the document that has clinical relevance. Thus, highlighted material could be used to generate questions for your selfstudy. Testing yourself also has been shown to be an effective way to retain material. If you can find a study partner, you could quiz each other. Working on this an hour or two a week can be very effective. As your question bank increases, you can review much of the material in the study guide on a regular basis. You should also use the study guide to plan your annual continuing education activities, using attendance at meetings or the AAPM online resources.

Finally, Self-Directed Educational Projects (SDEPs) provide an excellent resource and are powerful tools for improving your knowledge of medical physics. When you find documents in the study guide that are especially pertinent to your practice, you should consider turning them into an SDEP. In addition, SDEPs may be counted for either Continuing Education (CE) or Self-Assessment CE (SA-CE) credit. For more information on SDEPs, go here.

There are, of course, many ways adult learners study and retain material. You should design your own program to meet your individual needs. The cognitive exam is an important part of the MOC process, and its purpose is to encourage diplomates to continuously improve their knowledge of medical physics. The best performance on the exam is achieved by continuously learning and reviewing the material. n

28 | www.aapm.org

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

ACR ACCREDITATION: FAQS FOR MEDICAL PHYSICISTS Priscilla F. Butler, MS, Senior Director and Medical Physicist ACR Quality and Safety

D

oes your facility need help with 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 website portal (click “Accreditation”) for more FAQs, accreditation applications, and QC forms.

The following questions are for the ACR Radiation Oncology Accreditation Program. Please feel free to contact us if you have questions about radiation oncology accreditation.

Q. Does the American College of Radiology (ACR) offer any Practice Quality Improvement (PQI) certification for individual medical physicists?

A. Yes. On May 29, 2015 the American Board of Radiology (ABR) approved the PQI called M-P PEER. M-P PEER is similar to R-O PEER which is offered to the radiation oncologists.

Q. What are the minimum requirements to participate?

A. If your practice is applying for ACR Radiation Oncology Practice Accreditation (ROPA), one or two medical physicists may be eligible to participate in M-P PEER. Each participating medical physicist will need to make available, during the ROPA on-site survey, two cases that are documented and checked by that physicist.

Q. Will there be an opportunity for multiple medical physicists to participate in M-P PEER as a group project?

A. Yes. The application will be available in March 2016. Contact an ACR staff person for more information.

Q. Where can I find out more information about M-P PEER? A. Please visit our website. n

VENDOR-SPECIFIC HOMOGENEITY TESTING PROCEDURES The Magnetic Resonance Subcommittee has posted information on how to perform Homogeneity testing on different vendor systems. The information can be found on the Subcommittee Wiki site.

The information is intended as a complement to the homogeneity testing in the ACR MRI QA manual, and will be updated periodically.

www.aapm.org | 29

p

p

Penn’s Medical Physics Programs Penn’s Medical Physics Programs integrate theory, application and medical ethics training to prepare the medical physics leaders of tomorrow. Our innovative courses feature: • CAMPEP-accredited master’s degree and post-grad certificate programs • World-class imaging and therapy facilities • Research opportunities at the University of Pennsylvania The Medical Physics Programs seek students with a strong background in physics or a physical science and a passion for the advancement of therapeutic medicine through technology. If you know a student, employee or colleague who is ready for this rigorous course of study, visit:

www.upenn.edu/mpp

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

HEALTH POLICY & ECONOMIC ISSUES Blake Dirksen, Coralville IA, Chair of the Professional Economics Committee

The Importance of Correct Coding and an Up-To-Date Charge Master

R

eimbursement for the work we do is a very complex system of codes, payers, rules, and bureaucracies. While it is easy to get lost in the details of CPT coding rules and RVU values we cannot forget that the system functions best when we code correctly and have an updated facility charge master. Stable reimbursement from our payers and Medicare only results from accurate data from clinicians.

Payment in the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (HOPPS) is built on previously submitted claims data. For example, the outpatient payments in 2016 are based upon hospital claims data from 2014. These claims data include both the CPT codes describing the work performed as well as charge values from a facility’s charge master. The charge master is a hospital’s list of billable events (e.g. procedures, supplies, drugs) and the dollar values associated with that event. For example, a hospital’s charge master may include a continuing physics consult (77336) with a charge of $500.00.

Grossly simplified, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) use claims submitted, factor in a hospital cost to charge ratio, and are then able to determine a reimbursed value for a particular service. Services and their associated CPT codes that are clinically similar and require similar resource cost are assigned to an Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC). All services within an APC are generally paid at the same prospectively fixed rate for the calendar year based on their geometric mean cost. The accuracy of outpatient payments is based upon accurate coding, cost reporting, and pricing in the charge master by hospitals. It is very important that the charge master be updated correctly and regularly. Updates to charge masters are typically handled by an organization’s finance department, however, they typically are not aware of the nuances of code bundling or packaging and its impact on payment.

Let’s look at a CPT change for 2016 as an example. Starting in 2016 the work of the dose calculation (77300) is bundled into the new HDR brachytherapy treatment delivery codes (77770-77772). This means that you can no longer bill the dose calculation code (77300) but the work should still be performed. If no change is made to update the charge for the HDR brachytherapy treatment delivery code to include the cost of the dose calculation, then two years from now, when this year’s claims data is used for HOPPS rate setting, reimbursement will decrease.

To help prevent this drop in reimbursement, hospitals must update their charge master to reflect the work of the dose calculation within the cost of the HDR brachytherapy treatment delivery code. This will lead to more stable reimbursement in the future.

Perhaps at this point you are wondering what you can do as a Medical Physicist. Our jobs are not to be medical coders or set payment rates, but we can help keep reimbursement stable by giving a quick update to department managers or finance teams about what codes are newly packaged or bundled each year. In my experience the hospital finance department is eager to work with department level staff as they rarely have an understanding of the nuances of radiation oncology coding, and so I encourage you to reach out.

Policies change each year, and our committee will continue to send out updates. More detailed information can be found in the 2016 ASTRO Radiation Oncology Coding Resource and the Government Affairs section of the AAPM website, where information on 2016 CPT© code changes can be found. Also, please do not hesitate to reach out to the AAPM Professional Economics Committee with any questions. n

www.aapm.org | 31

p

p

2016 AAPM GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP T

he fellowship is awarded for the first two years of graduate study leading to a doctoral degree in Medical Physics. Both BSc. and MS holders are eligible to apply.

A stipend of $13,000 per year, plus tuition support not exceeding $5,000 per year is assigned to the recipient.

The amount of tuition support granted will be at the discretion of the AAPM. The award will be paid to the recipient’s institution and distributed in accordance with the institution’s disbursement procedures. It is AAPM’s policy that none of the funds may be diverted to the institution’s “facilities”, “administrative”, or other overhead categories and the full $13,000 stipend must be provided to the recipient.

Sponsored by the AAPM Education and Research Fund.

on a 4.0). Each applicant must have submitted an application for graduate study to one of the accredited programs with subsequent acceptance.

Required Supporting Documentation: •

All post-secondary study transcripts (Official Transcripts Only)

•

Copy of Graduate Record Exam results (If applicable)

•

TWO Reference Letters

•

Acceptance letter from intended CAMPEP Accredited Program

•

CV including GPAs and Publications (Use CV Template)

Merge all files into one PDF and upload the complete application (PDF).

Send supporting documentation to: American Association of Physicists in Medicine One Physics Ellipse College Park, MD 20740 ATTN: Jacqueline Ogburn Application Deadline: April 29, 2016

A list of Award Recipients can be found at: www.aapm.org/education/edfund.asp.

(All supporting documents are due by the application deadline.)

Each applicant must be a graduate of an undergraduate program in physics or equivalent majors (e.g. engineeringphysics, math-physics, or nuclear engineering or applied physics) from an accredited university or college in North America. The undergraduate grade point average must be greater than 3.5 (Based

Recipient Notified on: June 2, 2016

FOR MORE DETAILS, VISIT: www.aapm.org/education/GrantsFellowships.asp

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

LEGISLATIVE & REGULATORY AFFAIRS REPORT Lynne Fairobent and Richard Martin, Alexandria, VA

Federal Spending Bill Fosters Transition from Film X-Ray to Digital Radiography

I

n December, Congress passed an Omnibus Appropriations bill which allocates funding to all federal agencies for the 2016 fiscal year. Legislators often use this annual process to attach unrelated policy provisions to this must-pass bill as a method for passing bills that are generally too small to receive their own vote. One such provision would significantly reduce Medicare payments for the technical component of traditional film x-ray imaging to incentivize a transition to digital radiography.

Beginning in 2017, Medicare will reduce payments for the technical component (TC) of x-rays taken using film by 20 percent. In addition, beginning in 2018 there will be a seven percent reduction in the technical component of x-rays taken using computed radiography technology (CRT). This cut will remain at seven percent until 2023. Beginning in 2023, the (CRT) reduction will rise to 10 percent. Although both methods receive a reimbursement cut over this time period, the film x-ray cut is much larger than that of CRT. CMS defines computed radiography technology as “cassette-based imaging which utilizes an imaging plate to create the image involved.” This provision also authorizes CMS to use a modifier to implement this change. This applies to the TC whether payment is based on the physician fee schedule or the hospital outpatient prospective payment system.

This policy reflects previous efforts in Congress to reduce certain x-ray payments. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA-5) introduced a bill in May of 2015, H.R. 2550, the Medical Imaging Modernization Act of 2015, which called for the same payment cuts. This language was also included in the House-passed H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act. The passage of the Omnibus in December finalized this policy.

State Legislative Updates by Richard Martin The AAPM Government Relations Office follows state legislative activities that may impact the practice of medical physicists. January marks the beginning of new lawmaking sessions for state legislatures. Some bills from the previous year may be carried over for consideration this year. In addition, legislators will introduce new bills for consideration. As we monitor the progress of bills through the state legislatures, we look for opportunities to advance the important role medical physicists play in patient and worker safety.

Some of the key issues we are following in state legislatures are: Licensing/Credentialing of Medical Physicists and Other Radiation Medicine Professionals. This issue continues to be our major interest in state legislation. Several states, including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Missouri, and New Hampshire are considering bills to license or certify medical radiation professionals.

In Massachusetts, a key legislative proposal introduced in 2014 for the licensing of Medical Physicists remains under consideration. House Bill 1894 was introduced in 2014, and it was reintroduced in 2015 by Rep. Garballey (DEM) as House Bill 2197. This legislation is now numbered as HB 189 (Garballey-DEM) and HB 171 (Cusac-DEM)

www.aapm.org | 33

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, cont.

At AAPM’s urging, the text of the bill was modified to include a definition for “Qualified Medical Physicist.” In addition, the language describing the make-up of the State Board for Medical Physics was modified to include nine members consisting of five licensed medical physicists (one from diagnostic radiological physics, two from therapeutic radiological or radiation oncology physics, one from medical nuclear physics and one from medical health physics), three licensed physicians (one from diagnostic radiology, one from radiation therapy or radiation oncology, and one from nuclear medicine), and a representative of the public at large.

Three AAPM members, Fred Fahey, Martin Fraser, and Per Halvorsen, testified at the December 1, 2015 hearing before the Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee. There was no opposition at the hearing, and the testimony appeared to be well-received. AAPM is continuing its advocacy on behalf of medical physicists pending the outcome of the hearing. AAPM’s Massachusetts lobbyist is now in the process of setting up meetings with the committee chairs to advance this legislation.

In 2015, Alaska Rep. Tuck (DEM) introduced House Bill 29, which provides qualifications for licensing of radiologic technologists and limited radiologic imagers. That bill was referred to committee and has been updated for 2016.

Pennsylvania HB 358 (Readshaw-DEM), North Carolina H 833 (Insko-DEM), and its companion Senate bill, S 498 (Meredith-REP), and New Jersey (licensing of magnetic resonance imaging technologists) A 37(Conaway-DEM) have been updated for 2016. We will look to see if any of these move this year after languishing in the last session.

Newly introduced bills include Arizona SB 1096 introduced by Sen. Barto (REP) seeking certification of mammography technologists, nuclear medicine technologists, radiation therapy technologists, CT technologists, and Bone densitometry technologists, which has been referred to committee. In California Rep. Mullin (DEM) introduced a bill (AB 1092) requiring registration resonance imaging technologists on February 1, 2016.

In addition, Missouri Rep. Higdon (REP) introduced HB 1604 for licensing of advanced radiology practitioners or technologists, which was referred to the Committee on Professional Registration and Licensing on January 20, 2016. New Hampshire Sen. Carson (REP) introduced SB 330 seeking licensure and regulation of magnetic resonance technologists, nuclear medicine technologists, radiation therapists, radiographers, radiologist assistants, and sonographers. This bill has been referred to the Committee on Executive Departments and Administration.

In Virginia, Rep. O’Bannon (REP) introduced HB 1273, which was referred to the Committee on Health Welfare and Institutions on January 20, 2016. That bill would expand Department of Health authority to regulate x-ray machines and provide for the registration of private x-ray machine inspectors.

We are looking for opportunities to advocate on behalf of medical physicists in these bills.

Proton and Advanced Technology Insurance Coverage New technology continues to drive introduction of new bills — often addressing insurance coverage issues. Last year, Oklahoma Rep. Cooksey (REP) introduced a bill, (House Bill 1515), seeking to prohibit insurance plans from holding proton therapy to a higher standard of care than other therapies in making coverage decisions. That bill was signed into law by the governor on April 17, 2015.

Following Oklahoma’s success, similar bills were introduced this year in Virginia and Tennessee. In Virginia, Rep. David E. Yancey (REP) introduced HB 978, which has been continued until 2017 in the Commerce and Labor Committee on

34 | www.aapm.org

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, cont.

January 28, 2016. The Senate version of that bill, SB 639, was passed by indefinitely in committee on February 1, 2016.

In Tennessee, Sen. Beavers (REP-TN) introduced SB 1773, which has been referred to the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee.

New Jersey Sen. Bucco (REP) introduced S 64 to require coverage for positron emission tomography for the specific purpose of diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease.

In Hawaii, two bills seeking coverage for embryo, oocyte and sperm cryo-preservation are under consideration. Radiation therapy is cited in the bill text as one source of fertility damage in cancer patients. This legislation would benefit radiation therapy patients who wish to have children post-therapy. See HB 673 (Har-DEM), SB 781 (Shimabukuro (DEM).

Breast Density Notification/Mandated Insurance Coverage for Alternate Breast Cancer Screening. Bills that require providers to notify women undergoing mammography regarding dense breast tissue findings continue to make their way through state legislatures. Some bills require insurers to provide coverage for alternate breast cancer screening procedures for women who have dense breast tissue.

States now considering bills addressing patient notification for dense breast tissue include Florida (HB 521; Jones-DEM and SB 266; Ring-DEM), Iowa (SF 80; Jochum-DEM and HF 171; Winckler-DEM), Kentucky (HB 20; DuPlessis-REP), Rhode Island (H 5687; NaughtonDEM), South Carolina, (S 339; Lourie DEM), Vermont (S 157; Benning-REP); Washington (SB 5040; O’Ban-REP); and West Virginia (SB 281; Ferns-REP).

Certificate of Need (CON) Laws. CON laws continue to be in flux. These laws seek to restrain health care facility costs through mandating coordinated state-wide planning schemes. AAPM’s Government Relations staff reviews CON legislation for provisions that may impact medical physicist practices, or radiation therapy/diagnostic facilities or services.

Some states are proposing new CON laws or seeking modification of existing laws.

Last year South Carolina Rep. Smith (REP) introduced House Bill 3250 that would amend the state’s CON law to include new and emerging technology for consideration of need. This amendment could be significant for radiation therapy and diagnostic serves because of the rapidly technology environment. The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, where it languished. This bill, however, remains in play this year, with an update in text last month.

Michigan Sen. Jones (REP) introduced SB 741 that would eliminate the use of cone beam imaging equipment from the definition of “covered service.” This bill was referred to the Committee on Health Policy on February 3, 2016.

A number of CON-related bills are being addressed in Virginia. Rep. O’Bannon (REP) introduced HB 193 that would eliminate CON requirements for new imaging services or equipment. Two additional bills, Rep. Peace’s (REP) bill, HB 689, and Sen. Newman’s (REP) bill, SB 561, have been introduced. All of these bills are being addressed in committee.

In addition, Rep. Stole (REP) introduced HB 1083 that would eliminate magnetic source imaging, and nuclear medicine imaging from CON requirements. On January 27, 2016 a subcommittee recommended laying this bill on table. The Senate version, SB 641 introduced by Sen. Stanley (REP) was referred to the Committee on Education and Health.

We will keep you updated on the progress of these bills and other CON legislation.

A table capturing pending state legislation that may impact the practice of medical physics is available here.

If you have questions, please contact Richard Martin, Esq. n

www.aapm.org | 35

p

p

A P R I L 1 6 TH 2016

Q U A L I T Y, S A F E T Y, A N D TG-100: THE CLINICAL HANDS-ON WORKSHOP This hands-on workshop is an initiative of the Penn-Ohio Chapter Co-sponsored by the AAPM

If you read the TG-100 report and want to apply the recommended tools in your clinic – this is for you!

If you are looking for 8 CME credits in a single day– this is also for you!

If you need 8 SAMs credits for your MOC – this is definitely for you!

Objective: To develop competence with the tools of AAPM TG-100 within a full day interactive workshop Format: Hands-on Lectures: Faculty activities.

Exercises: Participant activities.

Discussion: Faculty and Participant activities Target audience: Medical Physicists, Radiation Oncologists, Dosimetrists, IT personnel and Administrators.

Approval request for credit hour has been made to CAMPEP, The ABR and MDCB. Faculty: Peter Dunscombe, PhD, FAAPM

Saiful Huq, PhD, FAAPM, FInstP

Prof. and Director of Medical Physics UPMC CancerCenter University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

Emeritus Professor University of Calgary - Canada

TH DATE: SATURDAY, APRIL 16TH , 2016 th

Registration by April 8 , 2016 at http://chapter.aapm.org/pennohio/ Location:

Workshop Organizers:

CROWNE PLAZA CLEVELAND 5300 Rockside Rd. Independence, Ohio, 44131 PH: (216) 524-0700

Past-President: Valdir C. Colussi 216-286-3958

valdir.colussi@UHhospitals.org

President: David Jordan

216-286-6911

david.jordan@UHhospitals.org

President-Elect: Kurt Blodgett

412-359-4664

kblodget@wpahs.org

Treasurer: Michael Ohm

216-476-7054

ohmm@ccf.org

$92/night room rate If booked by 03/16/16

Secretary: Ramon (Alf) Siochi

304-581-1756

rasiochi@hsc.wvu.edu

Board Represent,: Keli Wilson

412-604-2053

wilsonkc2@upmc.edu

www.crowneplaza.com/clevelandsouth

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

FUNDING OF PRECISION MEDICINE RESEARCH AND THE ROLE OF MEDICAL PHYSICS Highlights From Today’s Cutting Edge Medical Physics Research

I

ncreased government funding, the evolution of precision medicine, and recent advances in medical imaging may provide unique new opportunities for Medical Physicists to leverage their knowledge and skills in the battle against cancer.

Research Spotlight

According to Robert Jeraj, PhD (University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center), medicine is changing at an accelerated pace. Unprecedented advances in molecular biology, biomedical imaging, and information technology have opened up new possibilities in the area of precision (or personalized) medicine, in which diagnostics and treatments can be tailored to specific diagnoses and their unique manifestations in individual patients.

Particularly in oncology, the application of precision medicine offers tremendous hope for improving outcomes, but it also poses great challenges. Jeraj explains, “Cancers are genetically heterogeneous, undergoing constant evolution as they progress, which allows them to build resistance to treatments.” Not only do biological features of cancers differ from patient to patient, but they also vary within primary tumors and at different metastatic sites in the body.1 It has become increasingly clear that tissue biopsies and serum assays alone cannot sufficiently capture this spatial and temporal diversity of tumor biology, but molecular imaging can. So, a precise, spatially-localized, molecularly-based evaluation of disease that incorporates genomics, supplemented by an assessment of phenotypical properties through medical imaging, will be essential. Dr. Jeraj emphasizes that this relatively recent enhanced understanding of the heterogeneity of cancer and the human genome is driving “a transformational change in cancer research” and that Medical Physicists will have an opportunity to play a significant role in this process.

Funding of Precision Medicine Where will the resources for this new era of cancer research come from? Biomedical funding in the United States has become an increasing problem over the past 15 years. As the amount of monies requested from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for investigator-initiated research grants increased from $4.4 billion in 1998 to more than $13 billion in 2011, the actual funds awarded during that time only increased from $1 billion to $2 billion.2 When federal budget sequestration went into effect in 2013, government agencies that fund research and development saw their budgets cut by 5.1 to 7.3 percent, and these levels were to remain unchanged through 2021.3 Not only that, but since the NIH needed to continue funding existing research, the weight of the sequester fell particularly heavily on new research proposals.

However, thanks to a recent agreement to roll back federal budget sequestration for two years, and to a fiscal year 2016 spending bill signed into law in December 2015, there will be $80 billion in additional across-the-board government spending in 2016 and 2017, which will permit Congress to allocate more dollars to science.4

www.aapm.org | 37

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

Research Spotlight, cont.

This may be bolstered by the new initiatives announced by President Obama in his last two State of the Union addresses.

In January 2015, he announced the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI). He called for $215 million in 2016 to support the Initiative, including $130 million to be allocated to the NIH to build a national, large-scale research participant group, and $70 million to be allocated to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to fund research efforts in cancer.5 The cancer-focused component of PMI was to be designed to address some of the obstacles that have been encountered in “precision oncology,” including unexplained drug resistance, genomic heterogeneity of tumors, limited knowledge about the use of drug combinations, and insufficient means for monitoring treatment responses and tumor recurrences.6 More recently, during his recent 2016 State of the Union Address, President Obama called on Vice President Joe Biden to lead the National Cancer Moonshot, a $1 billion initiative “to eliminate cancer as we know it.” The purpose of the initiative is to provide the funding necessary for researchers to accelerate the development of new cancer detection methods and treatments. The Moonshot initiative will begin with $195 million in new cancer funding through the NIH in 2016.7 In addition, the President will ask for $755 million in new multi-year spending, mainly for the NIH, to be spent on additional research into vaccines, genomic analysis, cancer detection, cancer immunotherapy, and combination therapies. Yet, despite this encouraging news, Dr. Jeraj cautions that it remains to be seen how sustainable these government funding initiatives will be over the long-term.

Role of Medical Physics How will this impact the field of medical physics? According to Dr. Jeraj, research in medical physics has traditionally focused on three areas: (1) radiation therapy, (2) diagnostic imaging, and (3) image-guided interventions. That is changing. Medical physics research is now expanding to include other areas, such as quantitative imaging, and radiogenomics.

Jeraj notes that the field of molecular imaging is growing particularly rapidly, offering a number of new advantages over anatomic imaging. These techniques can be used to characterize and measure the cellular and molecular properties of tumors in-vivo. They can be used to probe tumors by tagging them with substances that can be imaged (for example, positron emitters), measuring the metabolic activity of certain disease processes by assessing the rate of incorporation of tags as reflected by the intensity of their signals. By recognizing the heterogeneity of tumors (spatially) and the fact that this heterogeneity may change over the course of a disease (temporally), the field of molecular imaging is opening the door to therapeutic imaging, in which responses to treatment can be monitored throughout the disease process, allowing transitions to alternative therapies targeting non-responding or resistant areas of cancer.

Dr. Jeraj described two clinical research examples in which molecular imaging is being used: •

In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), tissue biopsies have been poor predictors of response. However, in a national ECOG-ACRIN trial, led by Dr. Jeraj, FLT PET/CT scanning will be used to investigate the accuracy of proliferative response in predicting survival, particularly early in the disease.8 (Figure)

•

In metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), a group including Dr. Jeraj (oral communication, February 2016) has found that cancer cells have many different driving mutations, which result in a heterogeneous and unpredictable response to treatments. NaF PET/CT scanning, coupled with advanced Quantitative Total Bone Imaging (QTBI) analysis, has been used to assess this heterogeneity, creating the possibility of more specific targeting of therapy.

38 | www.aapm.org

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

Research Spotlight, cont.

In fact, Jeraj observes that many biomarkers for Quantitative Imaging (QI) analysis have already been developed and are being used to assess heterogeneity, something that was not previously possible with standard imaging techniques.

The next step in the use of molecular imaging, says Jeraj, will be to pursue more prospective trials, involving a wide variety of cancers, using the technique to look at early responses to treatment and to identify areas of tumors that are not responding. Those resistant areas can then be biopsied using image-guidance, after which tumor tissue genomics can be analyzed to help identify alternative treatments for those areas.

Implications for the Future Dr. Jeraj points out that the move towards increased funding for precision medicine research is “a call for Medical Physicists to move into the future.” He notes that while Medical Physicists have traditionally focused on aspects of physics related to radiation oncology and biomedical imaging, there is a now a need for the field to leverage its strengths and diversity and to evolve in order to address the cancer research challenges of the future. With that in mind, he notes that the AAPM Working Group on Future Research and Academic Medical Physics (FUTURE) is already exploring new dimensions in educational programs, focusing on areas such as cancer biology, molecular genetics, and data mining. This will provide the means by which the next generation of Medical Physicists can not only participate in, but also have a significant impact on, the evolution of precision medicine and cancer research.

Figure. Use of FLT PET scan in patients with AML, 2 weeks pre- and post-therapy. Negative (Upper) scan at 2 weeks predicted complete remission, while positive (Lower) scan predicted resistant disease.8

www.aapm.org | 39

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

Research Spotlight, cont.

References: 1. Johnson BE, Mazor T, Hong C, et al. Mutational analysis reveals the origin and therapy-driven evolution of recurrent glioma.

Science. 2014;343(6167):189-193.

2. Sally Rockey; NIH Office of Extramural Research. Extramural Nexus Rock Talk: More applications, many more applicants. http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/08/09/more-applications-many-more-applicants/. Published August 9, 2012. Accessed February 5, 2016.

3. Reif R, Barrett C. Science must be spared Washington’s axe. Financial Times.

February 25, 2013. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/ s/0/14e4e522-7f7d-11e2-97f6-00144feabdc0. html. Accessed February 5, 2016.

4. Mike Henry; American Institute of Physics.

2016—A year of budget relief for science. https://www.aip.org/commentary/2016-yearbudget-relief-science. Published January 29, 2016. Accessed February 5, 2019.

5. National Institutes of Health. About the precision medicine initiative cohort program. https://www.nih.gov/precision-medicineinitiative-cohort-program. Published November 17, 2015. Accessed February 5, 2016.

6. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:793-795.

7. White House Fact Sheet: Investing in the National Cancer Moonshot. https://www. whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/01/ fact-sheet-investing-national-cancer-moonshot.

Published February 1, 2016. Accessed February 5, 2016.

SNC Machine™

AUTOMATE YOUR QA Increased Objectivity for a Smarter Workflow

Compliance without complication. That’s what SNC Machine offers. For TG-142 and VMAT imaging and mechanical tests, you get precision and accuracy data in absolute terms—and in a fraction of the time manual testing demands. Less inaccuracies, less inefficiencies. More streamlined processes and better performance, all around.

Visit sunnuclear.com/SNCMachine to learn more.

8. Vanderhoek M, Juckett MB, Perlman SB, Nickles RJ, Jeraj R. Early assessment of treatment response in patients with AML using [18F] FLT PET imaging. Leuk Res. 2011;35(3):310-316.

The Research Spotlight highlights projects, people, and emerging science in medical physics.

The article is arranged and edited by Dr. Taly Gilat Schmidt on behalf of the AAPM Research Committee. n © 2016 Sun Nuclear Corporation. All rights reserved.

40 | www.aapm.org

p

p

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

AAPM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER MIDWINTER SYMPOSIUM Laura Cerviño, La Jolla, CA and Dan Scanderbeg, La Jolla, CA

T

he AAPM Southern California Chapter held its annual Midwinter Symposium at the Sheraton Universal in Los Angeles, California on January 29, 2016. Attendance at the meeting surpassed prior years’ attendance, with a total of 155 people attending (83 members and non-members, 26 students/postdocs/residents, 14 state and county workers, and 32 vendor representatives).

Steven Goetsch, Chapter Education Chair and Marianne Plunkett, Chapter Education Co-Chair, put together a great program, which included speakers from seven different institutions giving scientific and clinical presentations. Sonja Dieterich, from UC Davis, spoke about detector selection and clinical skills for small field dosimetry. Wayne Beckham, from British Columbia Cancer Agency, spoke about POSI, a prospective outcomes evaluation and support initiative at their institution. Kristy Brock, from the University of Michigan Medical Center, spoke about adaptive radiotherapy strategies Eric Paulson through dose accumulation with deformable image registration, and provided recommendations from the upcoming TG132 report. Art Olch, from Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, shared their clinical experience with daily patient quality assurance using EPID based exit dosimetry. Shirish Jani, from Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego, spoke about some of the latest advances and progress in SRS/SRT. Eric Paulson’s talk gave an overview of MRI-guided linear accelerators. Finally, Benjamin Fahimian, from Stanford University, presented the first in-human treatment of ventricular tachycardia with STAR (stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation).

In addition to clinical and scientific talks, AAPM President-Elect Melissa Martin presented some of the AAPM perspectives from the National Level, including association structure (committees, councils), finances, and segregation of members into membership levels, gender, specialty, education level, etc. Melissa Martin continuously encouraged junior members to participate within the association.

Attendants at the symposium had the opportunity to network during breakfast, lunch, and coffee breaks, which were all included with the registration fee. There were also a number of talks during lunch featuring the platinum sponsors highlighting some of their latest innovations and products.

The meeting organizers would like to thank the attendants, speakers, and sponsors of the event for an outstanding meeting and look forward to next year’s meeting.

Platinum Level Sponsors: Brainlab, Inc.; Elekta, Inc,; ScandiDos; Standard Imaging, Inc.; Sun Nuclear Corporation; Varian Medical Systems.

Gold Level Sponsors: Accuray; Bard Medical Division, Brachytherapy; C-Rad, Inc.; IBA Dosimetry; Landauer, Inc.; LAP of America, LLC; Mim Software Inc.; Mobius Medical Systems, Inc.; Philips Healthcare; PTW New York; Radcal Corporation; Radiological Imaging Technology, Inc.; RaySearch Labs, AB; Qfix-Systems; Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.; The Phantom Laboratory, Inc.; Theragenics Corporation; University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

Symposium Attendants

www.aapm.org | 41

p

p

focus on

our future thank AAPM wishes to acknowledge and thank the

following individuals for their 2015 contributions: AAPM Education & Research Fund Rami Abu-Aita Bipin Cygler Anthony Alaimo Mazin Alkhafaji Hassaan Alkhatib Howard Ira Amols Michael Andre Jacqueline Andreozzi Erin Angel David Applebaum Tatsuya Arai Michalis Aristophanous Samuel Armato Elwood Armour Sankar Arumugam Prakash Aryal Alfred Asprinio Shahid Awan Bing Bai Morris Bank Jonathan Bareng J. Ed Barnes Magdalena Bazalova-Carter Stewart Becker Teri Bedard Clyon Wayne Bell Jon Berens Charles Bischof

Olivier Blasi Anna Bliss Jonathan Boivin William Boone Nancy Boote Evan Boote Amy Bornholdt Maxence Borot Thomas Bortfeld J. Daniel Bourland Arthur Boyer Maria-Ester Brandan David Brett A. Bertrand Brill Kristy Brock Karen Brown Stephen Brown Crystal Bull Shelley Marie Bulling Harry Bushe Wayne Butler Kari Cann Rex Cardan Gene Cardarelli Laura Cervino Vorakarn Chanyavanich Paule Charland Jean Jacques Chavaudra Yan Chen Yie Chen Xudong Chen

you!

Hao Chen Huaiyu Heather Chen-Mayer Joey Cheung Alice Cheung Emmanuel Christodoulou Kenneth Chu John Phillips Clewlow Lora Cognata Jeffrey Colvin Leigh Conroy Nathan Corradini Kevin Corrigan Wesley Culberson Seth Cupp Michael Curry Maximian Felix D’Souza Antonio Damato Indra Das Giridhari Dash Jaydev Dave Jesus Davila Stephanie Degenkolb Domenico Delli Carpini Dharmin Desai Colleen Desrosiers Nicole Detorie Anees Dhabaan Sonja Dieterich George Ding David Djajaputra Derek Dolney

focus on

our future AAPM Education & Research Fund (cont.)

Hang Dong Lei Dong Joseph Driewer Nancy Dubois Donald Dubois Jason Edwards Issam El Naqa Scott Emerson Ravimeher Errabolu Carlos Esquivel Sean Bedilion Fain Juan Filomia Jennifer Hann Fisher David Followill Eric Ford Colleen Fox Martin Fraser Eric Frederick Derek Freund Lei Fu Hubert Gabrys Kenneth Ganezer Jonas Garding Jeffrey Garrett Richard Geise Ryan Geiser William Geisler Stavroula Giannouli Joseph Giardina John Gibbons Markus Glitzner Christine Gnaster Steven Goetsch David Lloyd Goff Lee Goldman Daniel Gollnick Raul Gonzales James Goodwin Paul Goodwin Michael Gossman Michael Grams Edward Graves Anne Greener Bennett Greenspan Jimm Grimm

Guillaume Grousset Suveena Guglani Hong Guo Emily Hale Per Halvorsen Homayoun Hamidian Russell Hamilton Justin Hanlon Oliver Hanson Wendy Harris Vijay Harwalkar Robert Hearn Bret Heintz Shawn Heldebrandt Joseph Hellman Michael Herman Maynard High Simeon Hodges David Hoffman Mark Hoffman David Holdford Chi Huang Emily Hubley Kristina Huffman Margie Hunt Geoffrey Ibbott Mark Ingram Razvan Iordache Shima Ito Mary Ellen Jafari Sachin Jambawalikar Lihui Max Jin Peter Johnsamson Ariel Johnson Derrick Johnson Joshua Johnson Amirh Johnson Loretta Johnson Bernard Jones Leendert Simon Jonker Chandra Prakash Joshi Sonal Joshi Kalpana Kanal Haejin Kang Tania Karan Alireza Kassaee James Kavanaugh

Timothy Keys Angela Keyser Gokhan Kirlik Assen Kirov Brandon Koger Michael Kowalok Alexandre Krechetov Wendy Kresge Andrew Krill Jon Kruse Marta Kruszyna Roger Ladle M. Terry LaFrance Joerg Lehmann Peter Leon Daphne Levin JinSheng Li X. Allen Li Shidong Li Guang (George) Li Bruce Libby Liyong Lin Mu-Han Lin C. Clifton Ling Yu Liu Michael Liu Salmen Loksen Joel Thomas Love Daniel Low Hsiao-Ming Lu Zhengfeng Lu Birgit Mueller Thomas Mackie Mahadevappa Mahesh Lesley Ann Malone Anant Mandapaka Christopher Marshall Mary Martel Jimmy Martin Rachael Martin Martha Matuszak Nichole Maughan Jacqueline Maurer Joseph McDonald James McDonough Malcolm McEwen Sarah McKenney

focus on

our future AAPM Education & Research Fund (cont.)

Rachel McKinsey Michael McNitt-Gray Daniel McShan Ali Meigooni Matthew Meineke Christopher Melhus Deborah Merzan Albert Mesa Richard Michaels Ivaylo Mihaylov Brett Miller Hayley Miller Ira Miller Robin Miller Julie Miller Olivier Morin Eduardo Moros Bart Morris Nader Moshiri Sedeh Guangwei Mu Lee Myers Dinesh Kumar Mynampati Joel Nace Michele Nash Venkataramanan Natarajan David Nelson Yury Niatsetski Tianye Niu Prashanth Nookala Patrik Nowik James O’Rear Takeshi Ohno Arthur Olch Jasmine Oliver Lawrence Oresick Jorge Organista Colin Orton Shuichi Ozawa Sandra Paige Stephanie Anne Parker Brent Parker Norris Parks E. Ishmael Parsai Kishor Patel

Daniel Pavord Daniel Pawlak Yong Peng Qi Peng Shashi Perera Angelica Perez-Andujar Joseph Perl Stephen Peterson Paula Petti Douglas Pfeiffer Christopher Pham Doug Philip Gregory Pierce Tina Pike Bhaskaran Pillai Robert Pizzutiello Marianne Plunkett Brian Pogue Jerimy Polf David Powers Michael Price Ryan Price Nathan Pung Nicole Ranger Bimba Rao Prema Rassiah-Szegedi John Ready Chester Reft Nicholas Remmes Erin Rheiner Susan Richardson Madison Rilling Alexandra Rink Miguel Rios Scott Robertson Anna Rodrigues Tino Romaguera John Rong Rachel Ross Thomas Ruckdeschel Megan Russ Kelly Ryan Krishnendu Saha Narayan Sahoo Ehsan Salari Javier Santos Sean Santoscoy

Stephen Sapareto Arman Sarfehnia Vikren Sarkar Vythialingam Sathiaseelan Daniel Scanderbeg Alan Schoenfeld Raymond Schulz Alexander Scott Ioannis Sechopoulos Anil Sethi Jan Seuntjens Shakil Bin ShaďŹ que Zalak Shah Naimuddin Shaikh Efrat Shekel Ren-Dih Sheu Yoichiro Shimizu Deborah Shumaker Jeffrey Siewerdsen Dustin Simonson Douglas Simpkin Jennifer Smilowitz Chad Smith Angela Smith Koren Smith Michael Snyder Andrew Soldner Mitchell Sommerville Haijun Song Dima Soultan Kelly Spencer Stacy-Ann Stephenson Donna Stevens Joshua Stoker Radka Stoyanova Sven-Erik Strand Keith Strauss Matthew Studenski Michelle Svatos Aaron Svoboda Larry Sweeney John B. Sweet John W. Sweet Timothy Szczykutowicz Rie Tanaka Shikui Tang Philip Tchou

focus on

our future AAPM Education & Research Fund (cont.)

Ching-Ling Teng James Terry Emilie Theophile Francois Therriault-Proulx Stephen Thomas Sean Thomas Toner Suzanne Topalian Ronald Tosh Erik Tryggestad Tzu-Chi Tseng Kenneth Ulin Astrid van der Horst Christine Van Dyk Jacob Van Dyk Richard Van Metter Rafaela Varela Rohena Linda Veldkamp Tessa Vike Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy Andries Visser Alisa Walz-Flannigan Dongxu Wang Steven Wang Hao-Cheng Wang Yagang Ray Wang Xiaoyang Betsy Wang John Washington Christopher Watchman Elizabeth Watt Michael Weldon Jered Wells Ning Wen Richard Wendt Marilyn Wexler Gerald White Thomas White Brian Wichman Krishni Wijesooriya Charles Willis Robert John Wilson John Wong Qiuwen Wu Qing-Rong Jackie Wu Yulong Yan

Susu Yan Yaxiang Yang Jun Yang Claus Chunli Yang Wensha Yang Ching-Chong Jack Yang Mei-Yu Yeh Michael Yester Ce YI Fang-Fang Yin Adam Yock Jeongmin Yoon Ellen Yorke Ning Yue Pengpeng Zhang Jun Zhang Di Zhang Hualin Zhang Xiping Zhang Qinghui Zhang Andy Zhu Ningsheng Zhu Tong Zhu Timothy Zhu Ling Zhuang Jeananne Zink

AAPM Endowed Education & Research Fund B. (Wally) Ahluwalia Mazin Alkhafaji Evan Boote Arthur Boyer Carlos Caballero Sha Chang Jean Jacques Chavaudra Zhe (Jay) Chen Wesley Culberson J. Adam Cunha Maximian Felix D’Souza Richard Dunia Carlos Esquivel Karl Farrey D. Jay Freedman Cal Glisson Steven Goetsch

David Lloyd Goff Michael Gossman Bennett Greenspan Madhup Gupta Nilendu Gupta Homayoun Hamidian Russell Hamilton Jung Ho Michael Jacobs Sunil Kavuri Erica Kinsey Assen Kirov Roger Ladle Liyong Lin Hsiao-Ming Lu Eugene Mah Sharon McMillan Tariq Mian Ivaylo Mihaylov Raj Mitra Mary Moore Tianye Niu Mark Oldham Brent Parker Stephanie Anne Parker Kishor Patel Richard Popple Lihong Qin Chester Reft Mark Rivard Kelly Ryan Erno Sajo Christopher Serago Douglas Shearer Almon Shiu Sean Thomas Toner Earl Trestrail Rafaela Varela Rohena Linda Veldkamp William Wedding Michael Weldon Jered Wells William West Thomas White Robert John Wilson Jeongmin Yoon Ning Yue

focus on

our future Anne & Donald Herbert Endowment John Geary, III Donald Herbert Douglas Shearer Thomas White

African Affairs SC Wolfgang Baus Maximian Felix D’Souza Ravimeher Errabolu Olabode Thomas Ogunleye Stefano Peca

Asia/Oceania SC Vorakarn Chanyavanich Kalpana Kanal Xiang Kong Shidong Li Lihong Qin

Bruce Curran Lynne Fairobent G. Donald Frey Oliver Hanson Edward Jackson Jennifer Lynn Johnson Richard Michaels Robert Nishikawa Barbara Orton Jatinder Palta Baldev Patyal Ervin Podgorsak J. Anthony Seibert Renu Sharma Larry Sweeney Russell Tarver William West Mark Bennett Williams Andy Zhu

Future Graduate Program

Vorakarn Chanyavanich Kalpana Kanal Xiang Kong Shidong Li Lihong Qin

Harry Bushe Michael Curry Jonathan Farr Bhujanga Lankipalli Stefano Peca Chester Reft Thomas White

D. Jones Members Memorial

Glasser Members Memorial

Larry Sweeney Thomas White

Thomas White

E. Webster Members Memorial

International ScientiďŹ c Exchange Program Philippines

Douglas Shearer Thomas White

Raymond Wu

Ed Fund Members Memorial

International Affairs Committee Programs Contribution

Cameron Memorial

Thomas White

European Affairs SC Joanna Cygler

Five Year Pledge Program Hassaan Alkhatib Anthony Blatnica David Carlson

Parham Alaei Hassaan Alkhatib Jean Jacques Chavaudra E. Ishmael Parsai Kishor Patel Donna Stevens Jacob Van Dyk Thomas White

John Hale Memorial Fund Mary Moore Thomas White

Krohmer Memorial Jennifer Hann Fisher James Goodwin Chester Reft Douglas Shearer Thomas White

Latin American Affairs SC James Kavanaugh David Thompson Rafaela Varela Rohena

Laughlin Memorial Laurence Clarke Jennifer Hann Fisher Margie Hunt Mary Moore Chester Reft Jean St. Germain Thomas White Qinghui Zhang

Loevinger Memorial Thomas White

Middle East Affairs SC Waleed Al-Najjar Ismail AlDahlawi Issam El Naqa Osama Mawlawi E. Ishmael Parsai

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

MEMBERS IN THE NEWS Ervin Podgorsak, Montreal, QC and Martin Yaffe, Toronto, ON

Two AAPM Members Invested into the Order of Canada

T

Martin Yaffe (L) and Ervin Podgorsak (R) at the Canadian Governor General’s residence, Ottawa, Canada, February 12, 2016.

p

www.aapm.org | 47

p

wo Canadian medical physicists and long-standing AAPM members were recently honored by the Government of Canada for their notable contributions to society throughout their careers. Ervin Podgorsak, C.M., Ph.D., FAAPM, Professor Emeritus at McGill University, and Martin Yaffe, C.M., Ph.D., FAAPM, Senior Scientist at the University of Toronto were officially invested as Members of the Order of Canada during the investiture ceremony held on February 12, 2016 at the Governor General’s residence at Rideau Hall in Ottawa, Canada. The Order of Canada was created on July 1, 1967 to honor Canadians that have exemplified the highest standards of citizenship and have enriched the lives of their fellow Canadians through their life’s work. Over the years, about 6,000 individuals from all walks of society have been invested into the Order. Drs. Podgorsak and Yaffe join other notable Canadian medical physicists honored during previous Order of Canada investiture ceremonies: Harold Johns in 1978, Sylvia Fedoruk in 1987, and Jack Cunningham in 2005.

The International Organization for Medical Physics (IOMP) was founded in 1963 by four of the large medical physics organizations of the time - from UK, USA, Canada and Sweden. IOMP is charged with a mission to advance medical physics practice worldwide by disseminating scientific and technical information, fostering the educational and professional development of medical physics and promoting the highest quality medical services for patients. Over the years IOMP supported the formation of many medical physics organizations throughout the world and currently has over 20,000 members in over 80 countries. IOMP also formed 6 Regional Organization – Federations of societies from specific geographical regions.

IOMP.pdf 1 2/9/2016 1:48:57 PM

IOMP Officers

C

M

IOMP Committee Chairs

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

The IOMP Journal Medical Physics International addresses various education/training, professional and related issues. The main topics of the MPI Journal are organised in the following areas: - IOMP Publications - Professional topics - Education/Training topics - Invited lectures - Technology Innovation - Review Articles - Tutorial Articles - How to The MPI Journal is soliciting papers on topics in the education/training of medical physicists and on topics related to medical physics professionalism and professional activities and concerns.

Medical Physics World (MPW/eMPW) is the official bulletin of the International Organization for Medical Physics, targeting over 20,000 medical physics professionals in 80 countries around the world.

Medical Physics World was founded in 1984.

During these over 30 years of existence MPW was chaired by some of the leading professionals in the field of Medical Physics & Engineering. Following a major recent renovation Medical Physics World is now one of the main informational resources of IOMP, reaching medical physicists around the world.

MPW publications scope: - IOMP ExCom reports - IOMP Committees Reports - Official Documents - Scientific Publications - Professional Publications - Official Meetings, Conferences, Reports

AAPM Newsletter • Volume 41 No. 2 MARCH | APRIL 2016

REPORT FROM AAPM’S WORKING GROUP ON THE PREVENTION OF ERRORS Eric Ford, Seattle, WA and Peter Dunscombe, Calgary, AB, Canada

The AAPM’s Safety Profile Assessment Tool: An Update

A

s many of you will recall, the Safety Profile Assessment Tool was an initiative of the AAPM’s Working Group on the Prevention of Errors, with significant input from representatives of other radiotherapy professional organizations.

The Tool was released in July 2013 and has been fully described elsewhere (Practical Radiation Oncology 5, 127-134, 2015). Uptake since release has been strong. As of December 31, 2015, 512 participants have used the SPA tool and there were 182 completed surveys in the confidential database. Although 12 countries are represented in the database, the majority of surveys, 162, have been completed in the United States. Analysis of the 114 entries from U.S. centers as of December 2014 has been presented previously (Practical Radiation Oncology DOI). One of the strong conclusions from this analysis confirms, as many of us might suspect, that documentation, even of safety critical procedures, requires more attention. There is a wealth of other information in the database which is discussed in the publication above.

The purpose of this brief note is firstly to serve as an update of the SPA project. Uptake of the Tool is certainly encouraging given the relatively modest resources, many of which were provided by AAPM, which went into Tool development. It is also hoped that this brief note will encourage you to explore the opportunity of employing the Tool in your own center if you haven’t done so already. Once you fully complete the survey you will see your clinic’s results presented relative to others who have participated and you will also be directed to an annotated bibliography which provides further information and background. All the features incorporated in the Tool are intended to facilitate safety and quality improvement in your clinic. An additional incentive to participate is that SPA is approved for use in Practice Quality Improvement projects as part of MOC requirements.

The Tool is designed for multidisciplinary use. Your colleagues and trainees in other disciplines might be interested in taking the lead in local quality/safety improvement initiatives so please let them know about its availability. The Tool is by no means limited to use by physicists.

The safety and quality of the treatments we deliver remain the top priority of the radiotherapy community. The AAPM’s Safety Profile Assessment Tool, a very tangible component of an effective Safety Culture, is a practical and accessible aid to providing the best clinical outcomes for the patients we serve.

www.aapm.org | 49

p

p

THE AAPM EXPANDING HORIZONS

Travel Grant

TYPE: Grant OPEN: 5/1/16 DEADLINE: 9/1/16 NOTIFICATION: 10/3/16 APPLICATION MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED • Personal statement describing long term career goals, motivation to attend the selected meeting, and expected scientific value of attendance on the applicant’s dissertation project or future research (2 pages maximum).

•

Curriculum Vitae.

•

Letter of recommendation from the applicant’s supervisor or department head confirming that additional travel expenses will be covered.

•

Budget indicating expected expenses.

THE AAPM EXPANDING HORIZONS TRAVEL GRANT will award up to fifteen $1,000 travel grants per year for the purpose of providing additional support for student and trainee travel to conferences that are not specifically geared toward medical physics. The travel grant program is designed to provide an opportunity to broaden the scope of scientific meetings attended in order to introduce students and trainees to new topics which may be of relevance to medical physics research and which may subsequently be incorporated into future research in order to progress the field in new directions.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA • Must be a member of AAPM in good standing at the time of application •

Must be a current graduate student, post-doctoral candidate, or resident

•

Proposed meeting must not be specifically-related to medical physics

•

Examples of ineligible conferences include: • AAPM Annual Meeting • AAPM Spring Clinical Meeting • AAPM Chapter Meetings • American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting • Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Annual Meeting • Any meeting that the applicant’s group is regularly attending, this will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

•

Examples of eligible conferences include: • American Physical Society (APS) Annual Meeting • Biophysics Society (BPS) Annual Meeting • Physical Sciences in Oncology Centers (PSOC) Annual Meeting • Radiation Research Society (RRS) Annual Meeting • World Molecular Imaging Conference (WMIC)

APPLICATION PROCESS • APPLY AT: gaf.aapm.org • DIRECT INQUIRIES: exhg@aapm.org

American Association of Physicists in Medicine | www.aapm.org

PLANNING TO ATTEND

RSNA 2016?

Be Sure to Book Your Room at the AAPM Headquarters Hotel:

The Hyatt Regency Chicago 151 E. Wacker Drive AAPM Meetings and Annual Reception will be held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago RSNA 102nd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting November 27 – December 2, 2016 Chicago, IL April 27: Member Registration and Housing Opens, 10:30 AM CT June 1: General Registration and Housing Opens, 10:30 AM CT

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICISTS IN MEDICINE | WWW.AAPM.ORG

UPCOMING AAPM MEETINGS: June 12–16, 2016 AAPM Summer School Medical Physics Leadership Academy Chantilly, VA July 31–August 4, 2016 AAPM 58th Annual Meeting & Exhibition Washington, DC

AAPM | 1631 Prince Street | Alexandria, VA 22314 | 571-298-1300 | www.aapm.org