Search

Purpose: Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment have been well-studied in the fields of science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine. However, less is known about these topics and their effect within the profession of medical physics. We aimed to better understand and clarify the views and experiences of practicing medical physicists and medical physics residents regarding gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment.Methods and Materials: We conducted in-depth, semistructured, and confidential interviews with 32 practicing medical physicists and medical physics residents across the United States. The interviews were broad and covered the topics of discrimination, mentorship, and work/life integration. All participants were associated with a department with a residency program accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs and had appointments with a clinical component.Results: Participants shared views about gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment that were polarized. Some perceived that discrimination and harassment were a current concern within medical physics, while some either perceived that they were not a concern or that discrimination positively affected women and minoritized populations. Many participants shared personal experiences of discrimination and harassment, including those related to unequal compensation, discrimination against mothers, discrimination during the hiring process, gender-biased assumptions about behaviors or goals, communication biases, and overt and persistent sexual harassment.Conclusions: There is an urgent need to acknowledge, better understand, and address gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the field of medical physics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A substantial barrier to the single- and multi-institutional aggregation of data to supporting clinical trials, practice quality improvement efforts, and development of big data analytics resource systems is the lack of standardized nomenclatures for expressing dosimetric data. To address this issue, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 was charged with providing nomenclature guidelines and values in radiation oncology for use in clinical trials, data-pooling initiatives, population-based studies, and routine clinical care by standardizing: (1) structure names across image processing and treatment planning system platforms; (2) nomenclature for dosimetric data (eg, dose-volume histogram [DVH]-based metrics); (3) templates for clinical trial groups and users of an initial subset of software platforms to facilitate adoption of the standards; (4) formalism for nomenclature schema, which can accommodate the addition of other structures defined in the future. A multisociety, multidisciplinary, multinational group of 57 members representing stake holders ranging from large academic centers to community clinics and vendors was assembled, including physicists, physicians, dosimetrists, and vendors. The stakeholder groups represented in the membership included the AAPM, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), NRG Oncology, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children's Oncology Group (COG), Integrating Healthcare Enterprise in Radiation Oncology (IHE-RO), and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine working group (DICOM WG); A nomenclature system for target and organ at risk volumes and DVH nomenclature was developed and piloted to demonstrate viability across a range of clinics and within the framework of clinical trials. The final report was approved by AAPM in October 2017. The approval process included review by 8 AAPM committees, with additional review by ASTRO, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD). This Executive Summary of the report highlights the key recommendations for clinical practice, research, and trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Limited data exist regarding the range of heart doses received in routine practice with radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer in the United States today and the potential effect of the continual assessment of the cardiac dose on practice patterns.Methods and Materials: From 2012 to 2015, 4688 patients with breast cancer treated with whole breast RT at 20 sites participating in a state-wide consortium were enrolled into a registry. The importance of limiting the cardiac dose has been emphasized in the consortium since 2012, and the mean heart dose (MHD) has been reported by each institution since 2014. The effects on the MHD were estimated for both conventional and accelerated fractionation using regression models, with technique (intensity modulated RT [IMRT] vs 3-dimensional conformal RT), deep inspiration breath hold use, patient position (supine vs prone), nodal RT (if delivered), and boost (yes vs no) as covariates.Results: For left-sided breast cancer treated with conventional fractionation, the median MHD in 2012 was 2.19 Gy versus 1.65 Gy in 2015 (P<.001). The factors that significantly increased the MHD for conventional fractionation were increased separation relative to 22 cm (1.5%/1 cm), supraclavicular or infraclavicular nodal RT (17.1%), internal mammary nodal RT (40.7%), use of a boost (20.9%), treatment year before 2015 (7.7%), and use of IMRT (20.8%). For left-sided BC treated with accelerated fractionation, the median MHD in 2012 was 1.70 Gy versus 1.22 Gy in 2015 (P<.001). The factors that significantly increased the MHD for accelerated fractionation were separation (1.7%/1 cm), use of a boost (20.0%), year before 2015 (8.5%), and use of IMRT (19.2%). The factors for both conventional fractionation and accelerated fractionation that significantly reduced the MHD were the use of deep inspiration breath hold and prone positioning.Conclusions: The MHD for left-sided breast cancer decreased during a recent 4-year period, coincident with an increased focus on cardiac sparing in the radiation oncology community in general and a state-wide consortium specifically. These data suggest a positive effect of systematically monitoring the heart dose delivered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The NRG-BR001 trial is the first National Cancer Institute-sponsored trial to treat multiple (range 2-4) extracranial metastases with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Benchmark credentialing is required to ensure adherence to this complex protocol, in particular, for metastases in close proximity. The present report summarizes the dosimetric results and approval rates.Methods and Materials: The benchmark used anonymized data from a patient with bilateral adrenal metastases, separated by <5 cm of normal tissue. Because the planning target volume (PTV) overlaps with organs at risk (OARs), institutions must use the planning priority guidelines to balance PTV coverage (45 Gy in 3 fractions) against OAR sparing. Submitted plans were processed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core and assessed by the protocol co-chairs by comparing the doses to targets, OARs, and conformity metrics using nonparametric tests.Results: Of 63 benchmarks submitted through October 2015, 94% were approved, with 51% approved at the first attempt. Most used volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) (78%), a single plan for both PTVs (90%), and prioritized the PTV over the stomach (75%). The median dose to 95% of the volume was 44.8 ± 1.0 Gy and 44.9 ± 1.0 Gy for the right and left PTV, respectively. The median dose to 0.03 cm3 was 14.2 ± 2.2 Gy to the spinal cord and 46.5 ± 3.1 Gy to the stomach. Plans that spared the stomach significantly reduced the dose to the left PTV and stomach. Conformity metrics were significantly better for single plans that simultaneously treated both PTVs with VMAT, intensity modulated radiation therapy, or 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy compared with separate plans. No significant differences existed in the dose at 2 cm from the PTVs.Conclusions: Although most plans used VMAT, the range of conformity and dose falloff was large. The decision to prioritize either OARs or PTV coverage varied considerably, suggesting that the toxicity outcomes in the trial could be affected. Several benchmarks met the dose-volume histogram metrics but produced unacceptable plans owing to low conformity. Dissemination of a frequently-asked-questions document improved the approval rate at the first attempt. Benchmark credentialing was found to be a valuable tool for educating institutions about the protocol requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical physics consultation is critical to the safe and appropriate management of patients undergoing reirradiation. A rigorous and efficient workflow in radiation oncology departments is crucial to ensure the safety and quality of treatment. The need for this service is steadily increasing year after year with the increasing complexity of treatment. This article provides an overview of how the Retreatment Special Medical Physics Consult is performed at the University of Michigan, along with a detailed patient-specific example, the results of a survey of how other institutions approach this workflow, and recommendations for future work to improve this process., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)