Purpose: Very high energy electrons (VHEEs) present promising clinical advantages over conventional beams. They are able to target deep-seated tumors due to their increased range and improved ...penumbra compared to low energy electrons. VHEEs are also relatively insensitive to tissue heterogeneities, and are able to be electromagnetically scanned. These advantages facilitate their use in conjunction with spatial fractionation techniques or FLASH irradiations. However, the lack of radiobiological data concerning their biological efficacy is a limiting factor. This study aims to characterize different VHEE beams against clinically available beams by making use of Monte Carlo (MC) based numerical simulations to compare their macroand microdosimetric properties.Methods: All simulations were performed on GATE version 8.2. A solid water phantom was irradiated by the following beams: 5, 20, 100, and 300 MeV electrons, a 60Co source (1.25 MeV photons), 105 MeV protons, 194.2 MeV/nucleon 12C ions, and 262 MeV/nucleon 20Ne ions. The dose-averaged linear energy transfer (¯(L_d )) was evaluated as the macrodosimetric quantity of interest. On a microscopic scale, the lineal energy y was used in order to account for the stochasticity of irradiations. The dose-mean lineal energy ¯(y_d ) and the lineal energy distribution described as a function of its dose density, d(y), were calculated. A tissue equivalent proportional counter (TEPC) was implemented in GATE to record the lineal energy spectra. Finally, the modified microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM) was used to calculate the respective cell survival curves using biological parameters of HSG cell line and the lineal energy spectra as inputs.Results: From the macrodosimetric point of view, VHEEs present a potential improved biological efficacy over clinical photon/electron beams due to their increased ¯(L_d ). At a depth of 4 cm in water, the ratio of 300 MeV ¯(L_d ) values to other particles is 0.2, 1.9, 3.2, and 2.4 for protons, 100 MeV electrons, 20 MeV electrons, and photons respectively. The microdosimetric data, however, suggests no increased biological effectiveness of VHEEs over clinical electron beams, as seen in Figure 1 and Table 1. No significant differences were found between their lineal energy spectra nor their ¯(y_d ) depth profiles. Correspondingly, application of the MKM yielded similar cell survival curves, resulting in relative biological effectiveness (RBE10) values for VHEEs of approximately 1. Furthermore, RBE values of 1.2, 2.9 and 3.3 were obtained for proton, carbon-ion and neon-ion beams respectively, while ¯(L_d ) values above 200 keV/µm and lineal energies as high as 2000 keV/µm were obtained in the Bragg peak region for neon-ions.Conclusion: This study represents a first step towards a full evaluation of the biological efficacy of VHEE beams. The biologically relevant information obtained from these theoretical MC simulations could be used to complement further experiments which explore the radiobiological response to VHEE treatment.
Purpose:
To investigate behaviors that may be in conflict with ethical standards of the Medical Physics Residency (MedPhys) Match process and with best practices for adhering to non-discrimination ...regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Methods:
A confidential survey was sent to registered applicants and program directors for the 2014/2015 MedPhys Match. Survey questions included demographics, application, interview and post-interview experiences, match results, and overall satisfaction with the process.
Results:
Of the 402 candidates emailed, 109 completed the survey. 48% of the respondents did match with a residency position in 2015. Of the 77 program directors emailed, 42 completed the survey. Selected results of the surveys are included. 69% of candidate respondents indicated that they were asked during interviews where else they were interviewing; 31.7% of those respondents indicated that they were uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering. 40% of candidate respondents (39% of males, 41% of females) indicated that they were asked about their marital or relationship status. 23% of the respondents (19% of males, 33% of females) indicated that they were asked about children or plans to have children. 57% who were asked this question (27% of males, 89% of females) indicated that they were uncomfortable/very uncomfortable answering. 29% were told by a program that they were “ranked to match” or told their rank prior to the match deadline. Only 13% indicated that they were asked by a program how highly they were going to rank that program or asked which program they would rank number one. Among that 13%, 64% indicated that they were uncomfortable/very uncomfortable answering.
Conclusion:
In the inaugural year of the MedPhys Match, there were instances of ethical violations and discriminatory interviewing. Training on the Match rules and EEOC guidelines can decrease these instances and thereby increase the fairness of the residency selection process.
Psychoacoustics - Facts and Models offers a unique, comprehensive summary of information describing the processing of sound by the human hearing system. It includes quantitative relations between ...sound stimuli and auditory perception in terms of hearing sensations, for which quantitative models are given, as well as an unequalled collection of data on the human hearing system as a receiver of acoustic information. In addition, many examples of the practical application of the results of basic research in fields such as noise control, audiology, or sound quality engineering are detailed. The third edition includes an additional chapter on audio-visual interactions and applications, plus more on applications throughout. Reviews of previous editions have characterized it as "an essential source of psychoacoustic knowledge," "a major landmark ," and a book that "without doubt will have a long-lasting effect on the standing and future evolution of this scientific domain.".
TU‐F‐19A‐01: New Member Symposium Sherouse, G; Miller, R
Medical physics (Lancaster),
June 2014, 2014-06-00, Letnik:
41, Številka:
6Part27
Journal Article
Recenzirano
As a new member of the AAPM, it’s 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 Austin, we will host a New Member Symposium where you can learn more about the organization, member resources, and opportunities to get involved.
Learning Objectives:
1.Welcome, introduction to, and overview of AAPM organization
2.Introduction to medical physics profession
Registered attendees will receive a raffle ticket for a drawing at the symposium to win a complimentary registration for the 2015 Annual Meeting in Anaheim!
In addition, all new members who register for the Symposium will receive a drink ticket, good for one complimentary soda or beer served during the social following.
PDF
