Total body irradiation delivered using a dedicated Co-60 TBI unit: Evaluation of dosimetric uniformity and dose verification.

This work presents the dosimetric characteristics of Total Body Irradiation (TBI) delivered using a dedicated Co-60 TBI unit. We demonstrate the ability to deliver a uniform dose to the entire patient without the need for a beam spoiler or patient-specific compensation. Full dose distributions are calculated using an in-house Monte Carlo treatment planning system, and cumulative dose distributions are created by deforming the dose distributions within two different patient orientations. Sample dose distributions and profiles are provided to illustrate the plan characteristics, and dose and DVH statistics are provided for a heterogeneous cohort of patients. The patient cohort includes adult and pediatric patients with a range of 132-198 cm in length and 16.5-37.5 cm in anterior-posterior thickness. With the exception of the lungs, a uniform dose of 12 Gy is delivered to the patient with nearly the entire volume receiving a dose within 10% of the prescription dose. Mean lung doses (MLDs) are maintained below the estimated threshold for radiation pneumonitis, with MLDs ranging from 7.3 to 9.3 Gy (estimated equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2 ) of 6.2-8.5 Gy). Dose uniformity is demonstrated across five anatomical locations within the patient for which mean doses are all within 3.1% of the prescription dose. In-vivo dosimetry demonstrates excellent agreement between measured and calculated doses, with 78% of measurements within ±5% of the calculated dose and 99% within ±10%. These results demonstrate a state-of-the-art TBI planning and delivery system using a dedicated TBI unit and hybrid in-house and commercial planning techniques which provide comprehensive dosimetric data for TBI treatment plans that are accurately verified using in-vivo dosimetry.

Introduction to concept inventories for medical physics education.

Concept inventories are multiple choice exams designed with the intention to test core concepts on specific subjects and evaluate common misconceptions. These tests serve as a useful tool in the classroom to assess value added by the instructor's educational methods and to better understand how students learn. They can provide educators with a method to evaluate their current teaching strategies and to make modifications that enhance student learning and ultimately elevate the quality of medical physics education. The use of concept inventories in introductory college physics courses revealed important gaps in conceptual understanding of physics by undergraduate students and motivated a shift of physics teaching towards more effective methods, such as active learning techniques. The goal of this review is to introduce medical physicists to concept inventories as educational evaluation tools and discuss potential applications to medical physics education by development through multi-institutional collaboration.

AAPM Report 373: The content, structure, and value of the Professional Doctorate in Medical Physics (DMP).

The Professional Doctorate in Medical Physics (DMP) was originally conceived as a solution to the shortage of medical physics residency training positions. While this shortage has now been largely satisfied through conventional residency training positions, the DMP has expanded to multiple institutions and grown into an educational pathway that provides specialized clinical training and extends well beyond the creation of additional training spots. As such, it is important to reevaluate the purpose and the value of the DMP. Additionally, it is important to outline the defining characteristics of the DMP to assure that all existing and future programs provide this anticipated value. Since the formation and subsequent accreditation of the first DMP program in 2009-2010, four additional programs have been created and accredited. However, no guidelines have yet been recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. CAMPEP accreditation of these programs has thus far been based only on the respective graduate and residency program standards. This allows the development and operation of DMP programs which contain only the requisite Master of Science (MS) coursework and a 2-year clinical training program. Since the MS plus 2-year residency pathway already exists, this form of DMP does not provide added value, and one may question why this existing pathway should be considered a doctorate. Not only do we, as a profession, need to outline the defining characteristics of the DMP, we need to carefully evaluate the potential advantages and disadvantages of this pathway within our education and training infrastructure. The aims of this report from the Working Group on the Professional Doctorate Degree for Medical Physicists (WGPDMP) are to (1) describe the current state of the DMP within the profession, (2) make recommendations on the structure and content of the DMP for existing and new DMP programs, and (3) evaluate the value of the DMP to the profession of medical physics.

AAPM Task Group 298: Recommendations on certificate program/alternative pathway candidate education and training.

Entry into the field of clinical medical physics is most commonly accomplished through the completion of a Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Educational Programs (CAMPEP)-accredited graduate and residency program. To allow a mechanism to bring valuable expertise from other disciplines into clinical practice in medical physics, an "alternative pathway" approach was also established. To ensure those trainees who have completed a doctoral degree in physics or a related discipline have the appropriate background and didactic training in medical physics, certificate programs and a CAMPEP-accreditation process for these programs were initiated. However, medical physics-specific didactic, research, and clinical exposure of those entering medical physics residencies from these certificate programs is often comparatively modest when evaluated against individuals holding Master's and/or Doctoral degrees in CAMPEP-accredited graduate programs. In 2016, the AAPM approved the formation of Task Group (TG) 298, "Alternative Pathway Candidate Education and Training." The TG was charged with reviewing previous published recommendations for alternative pathway candidates and developing recommendations on the appropriate education and training of these candidates. This manuscript is a summary of the AAPM TG 298 report.

Development of an in vivo technique for dose verification at the prone breast board / skin interface.

Due to the limited height of commercial prone breast boards, large or pendulous breasts may contact the base layer of the board during simulation and throughout the course of treatment. Our clinic has historically identified and marked this region of contact to ensure reproducible setup. However, this situation may result in unwanted hotspots where the breast rests atop the board due to electron scatter. In this study, we performed in-vivo dosimetric measurements to evaluate the surface dose in regions of contact with the immobilization device. The average dose and hotspot were identified and evaluated to determine whether plan modifications were necessary to avoid excess skin toxicity at the skin/breast board interface. The film method results were validated against a commissioned in vivo OSLD dosimetry system. Radiochromic film measurements agreed with OSLD readings (n = 18) overall within 1%, σ = 6.4%, with one deviation of >10%. Pertinent information for the physician includes the average, maximum, and minimum doses received at the film interface. Future readings will not require OSLD verification. Physicians now have access to additional spatial data to correlate skin toxicity with doses delivered at the skin/breast board interface. This new technique is now an established procedure at our clinic, and can inform future efforts to model enhanced methods to calculate the dosimetric effects from the prone breast board in the treatment planning system.

MVCT versus kV-CBCT for targets subject to respiratory motion: A phantom study.

The use of kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) or megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) for image guidance prior to lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is common clinical practice. We demonstrate that under equivalent respiratory conditions, image guidance using both kV-CBCT and MVCT may result in the inadequate estimation of the range of target motion under free-breathing (FB) conditions when standard low-density window and levels are used. Two spherical targets within a respiratory motion phantom were imaged using both long-exhale (LE) and sinusoidal respiratory traces. MVCT and kV-CBCT images were acquired and evaluated for peak-to-peak amplitudes of 10 or 20 mm in the cranial-caudal direction, and with 2, 4 or 5 s periods. All images were visually inspected for artifacts and conformity to the ITV for each amplitude, period, trace-type, and target size. All LE respiratory traces required a lower threshold HU window for MVCT and kV-CBCT compared to sinusoidal traces to obtain 100% volume conformity compared with the theoretical ITV (ITVT ). Excess volume was less than 2% for all kV-CBCT contours regardless of trace-type, breathing period, or amplitude, while the maximum excess volume for MVCT was 48%. Adjusting window and level to maximize conformity with the ITVT is necessary to reduce registration uncertainty to less than 5 mm. To fully capture target motion with either MVCT or kV-CBCT, substantial changes in HU levels up to -600 HU are required which may not be feasible clinically depending on the target's location and surrounding tissue contrast. This registration method, utilizing a substantially decreased window and level compared to standard low-density settings, was retrospectively compared to the automated registration algorithm for five lung SBRT patients exposed to pre-treatment kV-CBCT image guidance. Differences in registrations in the super-inferior (SI) direction greater than the commonly used ITV to PTV margin of 5 mm were encountered for several cases. In conclusion, pre-treatment image guidance for lung SBRT targets using MVCT or kV-CBCT is unlikely to capture the full extent of target motion as defined by the ITVT and additional caution is warranted to avoid registration errors for small targets and patients with LE respiratory traces.

The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gauge the experiences of applicants and program directors (PDs) in the Medical Physics (MedPhys) Match (MPM) and to determine the most important characteristics and factors that influence decision-making for applicants and programs when screening, interviewing, and ranking in the MPM. Opinions were also solicited from applicants and PDs on the status of medical physics residencies and the selection process, such as the availability of residency positions and satisfaction with the match process. METHODS: A survey was sent to all applicants registered for the 2015-2018 MPM and to all PDs registered for the 2015-2017 MPM. Survey questions asked about the pre-interview screening, interview, and ranking stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools. RESULTS: An increasing percentage of applicants are female and/or hold a PhD as their highest degree. The over all number of interview invitations per applicant has increased, leading some applicants to decline interviews with the top reasons being cost of travel and scheduling conflicts. The top considerations for applicants in ranking programs were residency program/institution reputation, program structure/organization, and facilities/equipment available. The primary considerations identified by PDs for ranking applicants included impressions from the interview, personality fit, and clinical potential. While two-thirds of applicants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that a residency position was difficult to obtain, roughly one-third of PDs agree that the current residency placement rate is a problem. CONCLUSION: Four years of survey data on the experiences of applicants and PDs participating in the MPM is useful to future participants navigating the residency match system. It is hoped that the data will be helpful to inform improvements and to enhance understanding of the residency match system and how it shapes our profession.

Dosimetric evaluation of incorporating the revised V4.0 calibration protocol for breast intraoperative radiotherapy with the INTRABEAM system.

In breast-targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) clinical trials (TARGIT-B, TARGIT-E, TARGIT-US), a single fraction of radiation is delivered to the tumor bed during surgery with 1.5- to 5.0-cm diameter spherical applicators and an INTRABEAM x-ray source (XRS). This factory-calibrated XRS is characterized by two depth-dose curves (DDCs) named "TARGIT" and "V4.0." Presently, the TARGIT DDC is used to treat patients enrolled in clinical trials; however, the V4.0 DDC is shown to better represent the delivered dose. Therefore, we reevaluate the delivered prescriptions under the TARGIT protocols using the V4.0 DDC. A 20-Gy dose was prescribed to the surface of the spherical applicator, and the TARGIT DDC was used to calculate the treatment time. For a constant treatment time, the V4.0 DDC was used to recalculate the dosimetry to evaluate differences in dose rate, dose, and equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2) for an α/ß = 3.5 Gy (endpoint of locoregional relapse). At the surface of the tumor bed (i.e., spherical applicator surface), the calculations using the V4.0 DDC predicted increased values for dose rate (43-16%), dose (28.6-23.2 Gy), and EQD2 (95-31%) for the 1.5- to 5.0-cm diameter spherical applicator sizes, respectively. In general, dosimetric differences are greatest for the 1.5-cm diameter spherical applicator. The results from this study can be interpreted as a reevaluation of dosimetry or the dangers of underdosage, which can occur if the V4.0 DDC is inadvertently used for TARGIT clinical trial patients. Because the INTRABEAM system is used in TARGIT clinical trials, accurate knowledge about absorbed dose is essential for making meaningful comparisons between radiation treatment modalities, and reproducible treatment delivery is imperative. The results of this study shed light on these concerns.

Evaluation of the dosimetric impact of manufacturing variations for the INTRABEAM x-ray source.

INTRODUCTION: INTRABEAM x-ray sources (XRSs) have distinct output characteristics due to subtle variations between the ideal and manufactured products. The objective of this study is to intercompare 15 XRSs and to dosimetrically quantify the impact of manufacturing variations on the delivered dose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The normality of the XRS datasets was evaluated with the Shapiro-Wilk test, the accuracy of the calibrated depth-dose curves (DDCs) was validated with ionization chamber measurements, and the shape of each DDC was evaluated using depth-dose ratios (DDRs). For 20 Gy prescribed to the spherical applicator surface, the dose was computed at 5-mm and 10-mm depths from the spherical applicator surface for all XRSs. RESULTS: At 5-, 10-, 20-, and 30-mm depths from the source, the coefficient of variation (CV) of the XRS output for 40 kVp was 4.4%, 2.8%, 2.0%, and 3.1% and for 50 kVp was 4.2%, 3.8%, 3.8%, and 3.4%, respectively. At a 20-mm depth from the source, the 40-kVp energy had a mean output in Gy/Minute = 0.36, standard deviation (SD) = 0.0072, minimum output = 0.34, and maximum output = 0.37 and a 50-kVp energy had a mean output = 0.56, SD = 0.021, minimum output = 0.52, and maximum output = 0.60. We noted the maximum DRR values of 2.8% and 2.5% for 40 kVp and 50 kVp, respectively. For all XRSs, the maximum dosimetric effect of these variations within a 10-mm depth of the applicator surface is ≤ 2.5%. The CV increased as depth increased and as applicator size decreased. CONCLUSION: The American Association of Physicist in Medicine Task Group-167 requires that the impurities in radionuclides used for brachytherapy produce ≤ 5.0% dosimetric variations. Because of differences in an XRS output and DDC, we have demonstrated the dosimetric variations within a 10-mm depth of the applicator surface to be ≤ 2.5%.

Physician review of image registration and normal structure delineation.

INTRODUCTION: Image registration and delineation of organs at risk (OARs) are key components of three-dimensional conformal (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning. This study hypothesized that image registration and OAR delineation are often performed by medical physicists and/or dosimetrists and are not routinely reviewed by treating physicians. METHODS: An anonymous, internet-based survey of medical physicists and dosimetrists was distributed via the MEDPHYS and MEDDOS listserv groups. Participants were asked to characterize standard practices for completion and review of OAR contouring, target volume contouring, and image registration at their institution along with their personal training in these areas and level of comfort performing these tasks. Likert-type scales are reported as Median [Interquartile range] with scores ranging from 1 = "Extremely/All of the time" to 5 = "Not at all/Never." RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-seven individuals responded to the survey. Overall, respondents indicated significantly less frequent physician review (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3]), and less confidence in the thoroughness of physician review (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3], P < 0.01) of OAR contours compared to image registration. Only 19% (95% CI 14-24%) of respondents reported a formal process by which OAR volumes are reviewed by physicians in their clinic. The presence of a formal review process was also associated with significantly higher perceived thoroughness of review of OAR volumes compared to clinics with no formal review process (2 [2-3] vs 3 [2-4], P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite the critical role of OAR delineation and image registration in the 3DCRT and IMRT treatment planning process, physician review of these tasks is not always optimal. Radiotherapy clinics should consider implementation of formal processes to promote adequate physician review of OARs and image registrations to ensure the quality and safety of radiotherapy treatment plans.

Commissioning of a dedicated commercial Co-60 total body irradiation unit.

We describe the commissioning of the first dedicated commercial total body irradiation (TBI) unit in clinical operation. The Best Theratronics GammaBeam 500 is a Co-60 teletherapy unit with extended field size and imaging capabilities. Radiation safety, mechanical and imaging systems, and radiation output are characterized. Beam data collection, calibration, and external dosimetric validation are described. All radiation safety and mechanical tests satisfied relevant requirements and measured dose distributions meet recommendations of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Report #17. At a typical treatment distance, the dose rate in free space per unit source activity using the thick flattening filter is 1.53 × 10-3 cGy*min-1 *Ci-1 . With a 14,000 Ci source, the resulting dose rate at the midplane of a typical patient is approximately 17 and 30 cGy/min using the thick and thin flattening filters, respectively, using the maximum source to couch distance. The maximum useful field size, defined by the 90% isodose line, at this location is 225 × 78 cm with field flatness within 5% over the central 178 × 73 cm. Measured output agreed with external validation within 0.5%. End-to-end testing was performed in a modified Rando phantom. In-house MATLAB software was developed to calculate patient-specific dose distributions using DOSXYZnrc, and fabricate custom 3D-printed forms for creating patient-specific lung blocks. End-to-end OSLD and diode measurements both with and without lung blocks agreed with Monte Carlo calculated doses to within 5% and in-phantom film measurements validated dose distribution uniformity. Custom lung block transmission measurements agree well with design criteria and provide clinically favorable dose distributions within the lungs. Block placement is easily facilitated using the flat panel imaging system with an exposure time of 0.01 min. In conclusion, a novel dedicated TBI unit has been commissioned and clinically implemented. Its mechanical, dosimetric, and imaging capabilities are suitable to provide state-of-the-art TBI for patients as large as 220 cm in height and 78 cm in width.

Cochlear implantation in patients with otosclerosis of the otic capsule.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of cochlear implantation of patients with otosclerosis of the otic capsule. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case series of 6 patients (7 ears). PATIENTS: 6 patients (7 ears), 5 patients with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss; 1 patient with mild to profound sensorineural hearing loss, with radiologic evidence of otosclerosis. All patients were adult males, with or without history of stapes surgery. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation of 7 ears. 5 patients with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss received the Nucleus Contour Advance peri-modiolar electrode array with binaural implantation performed in one patient. One patient with mild to profound sensorineural hearing loss received a Cochlear® Nucleus Hybrid L24 device. METHODS: Preoperative temporal bone CT, audiometric and speech perception testing scores were reviewed, confirming presence of otosclerosis of the cochlea as well as cochlear implant candidacy. Speech perception testing included CNC words, HINT sentences and AZ Bio scores to measure hearing outcomes post implantation. RESULTS: All recipients of the contour advance device had a significant improvement in hearing at both 3 and 6month follow up.The hybrid device recipient experienced loss of residual hearing in the implanted ear without improvement at 3months and mild improvement at 6months. CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation has proven to be effective in the treatment of patients with sensorineural hearing loss, including those with otosclerosis of the cochlea.Hybrid candidacy in the setting of otosclerosis of the cochlea may require consideration of alternative electrode devices, most likely a peri-modiolar device.

Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this survey study is to investigate behaviors in conflict with the ethical standards of the Medical Physics Residency (MedPhys) Match (MPM) process as stated in the MPM rules (a) and with the nondiscrimination regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (b), in addition to other behaviors that may in other ways erode the fairness of the system. METHODS: A survey was sent to all applicants and program directors registered for the 2015 and 2016 MPM. Survey questions asked about application, interview, and postinterview experiences, match results, and overall satisfaction with the process. RESULTS: Thirteen percent of 2015 respondents and 20% of 2016 respondents were asked by at least one program how highly they planned to rank them or which program they would rank first. Thirty-seven percent of 2015 and 40% of 2016 program directors indicated that candidates communicated to the program their rank intent, with 22.0% in 2015 and 12.5% in 2016 being told that their program would be ranked first. Twenty-three percent of 2015 respondents indicated being asked by at least one program during the interview about children or plans to have children; including 19% of males and 33% of females. In 2016, these values were 28% overall, 22% male, and 36% female. Fifty-seven percent of 2015 respondents who were asked this question indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 27.3% of males and 88.9% of females. In 2016, 42.9% of all respondents indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 10.0% of males and 80.0% of females. CONCLUSIONS: In the first two years of the MPM, there were widespread instances of ethical violations and discriminatory questioning during the interview process. Educating both interviewers and candidates on the MPM rules and general EEOC guidelines should decrease these instances and increase the fairness of the residency selection process.

Navigating the medical physics education and training landscape.

PURPOSE: The education and training landscape has been profoundly reshaped by the ABR 2012/2014 initiative and the MedPhys Match. This work quantifies these changes and summarizes available reports, surveys, and statistics on education and training. METHODS: We evaluate data from CAMPEP-accredited program websites, annual CAMPEP graduate and residency program reports, and surveys on the MedPhys Match and Professional Doctorate degree (DMP). RESULTS: From 2009-2015, the number of graduates from CAMPEP-accredited graduate programs rose from 210 to 332, while CAMPEP-accredited residency positions rose from 60 to 134. We estimate that approximately 60% of graduates of CAMPEP-accredited graduate programs intend to enter clinical practice, however, only 36% of graduates were successful in acquiring a residency position in 2015. The maximum residency placement percentage for a graduate program is 70%, while the median for all programs is only 22%. Overall residency placement percentage for CAMPEP-accredited program graduates from 2011-2015 was approximately 38% and 25% for those with a PhD and MS, respectively. The disparity between the number of clinically oriented graduates and available residency positions is perceived as a significant problem by over 70% of MedPhys Match participants responding to a post-match survey. Approximately 32% of these respondents indicated that prior knowledge of this situation would have changed their decision to pursue graduate education in medical physics. CONCLUSION: These data reveal a substantial disparity between the number of residency training positions and graduate students interested in these positions, and a substantial variability in residency placement percentage across graduate programs. Comprehensive data regarding current and projected supply and demand within the medical physics workforce are needed for perspective on these numbers. While the long-term effects of changes in the education and training infrastructure are still unclear, available survey data suggest that these changes could negatively affect potential entrants to the profession.

Single fraction radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spine metastasis: A dosimetric comparison of multiple delivery platforms.

There are numerous commercial radiotherapy systems capable of delivering single fraction spine radiosurgery/SBRT. We aim to compare the capabilities of several of these systems to deliver this treatment when following standardized criteria from a national protocol. Four distinct target lesions representing various case presentations of spine metastases were contoured in both the thoracic and lumbar spine of an anthropomorphic SBRT phantom. Single fraction radiosurgery/SBRT plans were designed for each target with each of our treatment platforms. Plans were prescribed to 16 Gy in one fraction to cover 90% of the target volume using normal tissue and target constraints from RTOG 0631. We analyzed these plans with priority on the dose to 10% of the partial spinal cord and dose to 0.03 cc of the spinal cord. Each system was able to maintain 90% target coverage while meeting all the constraints of RTOG 0631. On average, CyberKnife was able to achieve the lowest spinal cord doses overall and also generated the sharpest dose falloff as indicated by the Paddick gradient index. Treatment times varied widely depending on the modality utilized. On average, treatment can be delivered faster with Flattening Filter Free RapidArc and Tomotherapy, compared to Vero and Cyberknife. While all systems analyzed were able to meet the dose constraints of RTOG 0631, unique characteristics of individual treatment modalities may guide modality selection. Specifically, certain modalities performed better than the others for specific target shapes and locations, and delivery time varied significantly among the different modalities. These findings could provide guidance in determining which of the available modalities would be preferable for the treatment of spine metastases based on individualized treatment goals.