Search

This study investigates the effect of the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program on children's health outcomes using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation over the period 1994 to 2005. The TANF policies have been credited with increased employment for single mothers and a dramatic drop in welfare caseload. Our results show that these policies also had a significant effect on various measures of children's medical utilization among low-income families. These health measures include a rating of the child's health status reported by the parents, the number of times that parents consulted a doctor, and the number of nights that the child stayed in a hospital. We compare the overall changes of health status and medical utilization for children with working and nonworking mothers. We find that the child's health status as reported by the parents is affected by the maternal employment status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The task group (TG) for quality assurance of medical accelerators was constituted by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine’s Science Council under the direction of the Radiation Therapy Committee and the Quality Assurance and Outcome Improvement Subcommittee. The task group (TG-142) had two main charges. First to update, as needed, recommendations of Table II of the AAPM TG-40 report on quality assurance and second, to add recommendations for asymmetric jaws, multileaf collimation (MLC), and dynamic/virtual wedges. The TG accomplished the update to TG-40, specifying new test and tolerances, and has added recommendations for not only the new ancillary delivery technologies but also for imaging devices that are part of the linear accelerator. The imaging devices include x-ray imaging, photon portal imaging, and cone-beam CT. The TG report was designed to account for the types of treatments delivered with the particular machine. For example, machines that are used for radiosurgery treatments or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) require different tests and/or tolerances. There are specific recommendations for MLC quality assurance for machines performing IMRT. The report also gives recommendations as to action levels for the physicists to implement particular actions, whether they are inspection, scheduled action, or immediate and corrective action. The report is geared to be flexible for the physicist to customize the QA program depending on clinical utility. There are specific tables according to daily, monthly, and annual reviews, along with unique tables for wedge systems, MLC, and imaging checks. The report also gives specific recommendations regarding setup of a QA program by the physicist in regards to building a QA team, establishing procedures, training of personnel, documentation, and end-to-end system checks. The tabulated items of this report have been considerably expanded as compared with the original TG-40 report and the recommended tolerances accommodate differences in the intended use of the machine functionality (non-IMRT, IMRT, and stereotactic delivery). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report describes the current state of flattening filter-free (FFF) radiotherapy beams implemented on conventional linear accelerators, and is aimed primarily at practicing medical physicists. The Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed a writing group to assess FFF technology. The published literature on FFF technology was reviewed, along with technical specifications provided by vendors. Based on this information, supplemented by the clinical experience of the group members, consensus guidelines and recommendations for implementation of FFF technology were developed. Areas in need of further investigation were identified. Removing the flattening filter increases beam intensity, especially near the central axis. Increased intensity reduces treatment time, especially for high-dose stereotactic radiotherapy/radiosurgery (SRT/SRS). Furthermore, removing the flattening filter reduces out-of-field dose and improves beam modeling accuracy. FFF beams are advantageous for small field (e.g., SRS) treatments and are appropriate for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). For conventional 3D radiotherapy of large targets, FFF beams may be disadvantageous compared to flattened beams because of the heterogeneity of FFF beam across the target (unless modulation is employed). For any application, the nonflat beam characteristics and substantially higher dose rates require consideration during the commissioning and quality assurance processes relative to flattened beams, and the appropriate clinical use of the technology needs to be identified. Consideration also needs to be given to these unique characteristics when undertaking facility planning. Several areas still warrant further research and development. Recommendations pertinent to FFF technology, including acceptance testing, commissioning, quality assurance, radiation safety, and facility planning, are presented. Examples of clinical applications are provided. Several of the areas in which future research and development are needed are also indicated.

Task Group 101 of the AAPM has prepared this report for medical physicists, clinicians, and therapists in order to outline the best practice guidelines for the external-beam radiation therapy technique referred to as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The task group report includes a review of the literature to identify reported clinical findings and expected outcomes for this treatment modality. Information is provided for establishing a SBRT program, including protocols, equipment, resources, and QA procedures. Additionally, suggestions for developing consistent documentation for prescribing, reporting, and recording SBRT treatment delivery is provided.

Despite the widespread use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for approximately a decade, a lack of adequate guidelines for documenting these treatments persists. Proper IMRT treatment documentation is necessary for accurate reconstruction of prior treatments when a patient presents with a marginal recurrence. This is especially crucial when the follow-up care is managed at a second treatment facility not involved in the initial IMRT treatment. To address this issue, an American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) workgroup within the American ASTRO Radiation Physics Committee was formed at the request of the ASTRO Research Council to develop a set of recommendations for documenting IMRT treatments. This document provides a set of comprehensive recommendations for documenting IMRT treatments, as well as image-guidance procedures, with example forms provided.

Radiographic image guidance has emerged as the new paradigm for patient positioning, target localization, and external beam alignment in radiotherapy. Although widely varied in modality and method, all radiographic guidance techniques have one thing in common--they can give a significant radiation dose to the patient. As with all medical uses of ionizing radiation, the general view is that this exposure should be carefully managed. The philosophy for dose management adopted by the diagnostic imaging community is summarized by the acronym ALARA, i.e., as low as reasonably achievable. But unlike the general situation with diagnostic imaging and image-guided surgery, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) adds the imaging dose to an already high level of therapeutic radiation. There is furthermore an interplay between increased imaging and improved therapeutic dose conformity that suggests the possibility of optimizing rather than simply minimizing the imaging dose. For this reason, the management of imaging dose during radiotherapy is a different problem than its management during routine diagnostic or image-guided surgical procedures. The imaging dose received as part of a radiotherapy treatment has long been regarded as negligible and thus has been quantified in a fairly loose manner. On the other hand, radiation oncologists examine the therapy dose distribution in minute detail. The introduction of more intensive imaging procedures for IGRT now obligates the clinician to evaluate therapeutic and imaging doses in a more balanced manner. This task group is charged with addressing the issue of radiation dose delivered via image guidance techniques during radiotherapy. The group has developed this charge into three objectives: (1) Compile an overview of image-guidance techniques and their associated radiation dose levels, to provide the clinician using a particular set of image guidance techniques with enough data to estimate the total diagnostic dose for a specific treatment scenario, (2) identify ways to reduce the total imaging dose without sacrificing essential imaging information, and (3) recommend optimization strategies to trade off imaging dose with improvements in therapeutic dose delivery. The end goal is to enable the design of image guidance regimens that are as effective and efficient as possible.

To develop a quality assurance (QA) program for the On-Board Imager (OBI) system and to summarize the results of these QA tests over extended periods from multiple institutions. Both the radiographic and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) mode of operation have been evaluated. The QA programs from four institutions have been combined to generate a series of tests for evaluating the performance of the On-Board Imager. The combined QA program consists of three parts: (1) safety and functionality, (2) geometry, and (3) image quality. Safety and functionality tests evaluate the functionality of safety features and the clinical operation of the entire system during the tube warm-up. Geometry QA verifies the geometric accuracy and stability of the OBI/CBCT hardware/software. Image quality QA monitors spatial resolution and contrast sensitivity of the radiographic images. Image quality QA for CBCT includes tests for Hounsfield Unit (HU) linearity, HU uniformity, spatial linearity, and scan slice geometry, in addition. All safety and functionality tests passed on a daily basis. The average accuracy of the OBI isocenter was better than 1.5 mm with a range of variation of less than 1 mm over 8 months. The average accuracy of arm positions in the mechanical geometry QA was better than 1 mm, with a range of variation of less than 1 mm over 8 months. Measurements of other geometry QA tests showed stable results within tolerance throughout the test periods. Radiographic contrast sensitivity ranged between 2.2% and 3.2% and spatial resolution ranged between 1.25 and 1.6 lp/mm. Over four months the CBCT images showed stable spatial linearity, scan slice geometry, contrast resolution (1%; <7 mm disk) and spatial resolution (>6 lp/cm). The HU linearity was within +/-40 HU for all measurements. By combining test methods from multiple institutions, we have developed a comprehensive, yet practical, set of QA tests for the OBI system. Use of the tests over extended periods show that the OBI system has reliable mechanical accuracy and stable image quality. Nevertheless, the tests have been useful in detecting performance deficits in the OBI system that needed recalibration. It is important that all tests are performed on a regular basis.