Search

Purpose: Increasing evidence suggests that ultra-high-dose-rate (UHDR) radiation could result in similar tumor control as conventional (CONV) radiation therapy (RT) while reducing toxicity to surrounding healthy tissues. Considering that radiation toxicity to gonadal tissues can cause hormone disturbances and infertility in young patients with cancer, the purpose of this study was to assess the possible role of UHDR-RT in reducing toxicity to healthy gonads in mice compared with CONV-RT. Methods and Materials: Radiation was delivered to the abdomen or pelvis of female (8 or 16 Gy) and male (5 Gy) C57BL/6J mice, respectively, at conventional (∼0.4 Gy/s) or ultrahigh (>100 Gy/s) dose rates using an IntraOp Mobetron linear accelerator. Organ weights along with histopathology and immunostaining of irradiated gonads were used to compare toxicity between radiation modalities. Results: CONV-RT and UHDR-RT induced a similar decrease in uterine weights at both studied doses (∼50% of controls), which indicated similarly reduced ovarian follicular activity. Histologically, ovaries of CONV- and UHDR-irradiated mice exhibited a comparable lack of follicles. Weights of CONV- and UHDR-irradiated testes were reduced to ∼30% of controls, and the percentage of degenerate seminiferous tubules was also similar between radiation modalities (∼80% above controls). Pairwise comparisons of all quantitative data indicated statistical significance between irradiated (CONV or UHDR) and control groups (from P ≤ .01 to P ≤ .0001) but not between radiation modalities. Conclusions: The data presented here suggest that the short-term effects of UHDR-RT on the mouse gonads are comparable to those of CONV-RT.

Purpose: The feasibility of blinding applications for a medical physics residency program has yet to be demonstrated in the literature. We explore the application of an automated approach with human review and intervention to blind applications during the annual medical physics residency review cycle. Methods and Materials: Applications were blinded using an automated process and used for the first phase of residency review in the program. We retrospectively compared self-reported demographic and gender data with blinded and nonblinded cohorts from 2 sequential years of review from a medical physics residency program. Demographic data were analyzed comparing applicants with candidates selected to move to the next phase of the review process. Interrater agreement was also evaluated from the applicant reviewers. Results: We show the feasibility of blinding applications for a medical physics residency program. We observed no more than a 3% difference between the gender selection within the first phase of application review but greater differences when examining race and ethnicity between the 2 methods. The greatest difference was shown to be between Asian and White candidates, where there are statistical differences in the scores in the rubric categories of essay and overall impression. Conclusions: We suggest that each training program critically evaluate its selection criteria for potential sources of bias within the review process. We recommend further critical investigation of processes to promote equity and inclusion to ensure the methods and outcomes are aligned with the mission of the program. Finally, we recommend that the common application provide an option for blinding applications at the source so this can be an option to facilitate efforts for evaluating unconscious bias in the review process.