1
|
Williams JP, Anscher MS, Vazquez M, Kronenberg A, Willey JS, Lawrence T, Woloschak GE, Marples B, Wong R, Howell RW. Radiation biology workforce in the United States. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2023; 23 Suppl 1:e13743. [PMID: 36705246 PMCID: PMC9880969 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13743] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2022] [Accepted: 07/07/2022] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
In recent decades, the principal goals of participants in the field of radiation biologists have included defining dose thresholds for cancer and non-cancer endpoints to be used by regulators, clinicians and industry, as well as informing on best practice radiation utilization and protection applications. Importantly, much of this work has required an intimate relationship between "bench" radiation biology scientists and their target audiences (such as physicists, medical practitioners and epidemiologists) in order to ensure that the requisite gaps in knowledge are adequately addressed. However, despite the growing risk for public exposure to higher-than-background levels of radiation, e.g. from long-distance travel, the increasing use of ionizing radiation during medical procedures, the threat from geopolitical instability, and so forth, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of qualified radiation biologists in the U.S. Contributing factors are thought to include the loss of applicable training programs, loss of jobs, and declining opportunities for advancement. This report was undertaken in order to begin addressing this situation since inaction may threaten the viability of radiation biology as a scientific discipline.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline P. Williams
- Departments of Environmental Medicine and Radiation OncologyUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterNew YorkUSA
| | - Mitchell S. Anscher
- Department of Radiation OncologyVirginia Commonwealth University School of MedicineRichmondVirginiaUSA
| | - Marcelo Vazquez
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Radiation Research DivisionLoma Linda UniversityLoma LindaCaliforniaUSA
| | - Amy Kronenberg
- Biological Systems and Engineering DivisionLawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratoryBerkeleyCaliforniaUSA
| | - Jeffrey S. Willey
- Department of Radiation OncologyWake Forest School of MedicineWinston‐SalemNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - Theodore Lawrence
- Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Michigan ‐ University HospitalAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Gayle E. Woloschak
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, Radiology, and Cell and Molecular BiologyNorthwestern UniversityChicagoIllinoisUSA
| | - Brian Marples
- Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterNew YorkUSA
| | | | - Roger W. Howell
- Chief, Division of Radiation Research, Department of Radiology, Center for Cell SignalingRutgers New Jersey Medical SchoolNewarkNew JerseyUSA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Newhauser WD, Gress DA, Mills MD, Jordan DW, Sutlief SG, Martin MC, Jackson E. Medical physics workforce in the United States. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2023; 23 Suppl 1:e13762. [PMID: 36705248 PMCID: PMC9880968 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13762] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2022] [Revised: 07/26/2022] [Accepted: 08/04/2022] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Wayne D. Newhauser
- Department of Physics & AstronomyLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeLouisianaUSA,Department of PhysicsMary Bird Perkins Cancer CenterBaton RougeLouisianaUSA
| | | | | | - David W. Jordan
- University Hospitals Cleveland Medical CenterClevelandOhioUSA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
King EJ, Viscariello NN, DeWerd LA. Development of Standard X-Ray Beams for Calibration of Radiobiology Cabinet and Conformal Irradiators. Radiat Res 2022; 197:113-121. [PMID: 34634111 DOI: 10.1667/rade-21-00121.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2021] [Accepted: 09/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
This work seeks to develop standard X-ray beams that are matched to radiobiology X-ray irradiators. The calibration of detectors used for dose determination of these irradiators is performed with a set of standard X rays that are more heavily filtered and/or lower energy, which leads to a higher uncertainty in the dose measurement. Models of the XRad320, SARRP, and the X-ray tube at the University of Wisconsin Medical Radiation Research Center (UWMRRC) were created using the BEAMnrc user code of the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code system. These models were validated against measurements, and the resultant modeled spectra were used to determine the amount of added filtration needed to match the X-ray beams at the UWMRRC to those of the XRad320 and SARRP. The depth profiles and half-value layer (HVL) simulations performed using BEAMnrc agreed to measurements within 3% and 3.6%, respectively. A primary measurement device, a free-air chamber, was developed to measure air kerma in the medium energy range of X rays. The resultant spectra of the matched beams had HVL's that matched the HVL's of the radiobiology irradiators well within the 3% criteria recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the average energies agreed within 2.4%. In conclusion, three standard X-ray beams were developed at the UWMRRC with spectra that more closely match the spectra of the XRad320 and SARRP radiobiology irradiators, which will aid in a more accurate dose determination during calibration of these irradiators.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily J King
- Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
| | | | - Larry A DeWerd
- Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zeman EM. Radiation and Cancer Biology Educators of Radiation Oncology Residents and the Courses They Teach1. Radiat Res 2022; 198:57-67. [PMID: 35395681 DOI: 10.1667/rade-21-00136.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2021] [Accepted: 03/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to characterize today's radiation and cancer biology educators of radiation oncology residents, and the biology courses they teach. An e-mail list of 133 presumptive resident biology educators was compiled, and they were invited to participate in a 46-item survey. Survey questions were designed to collect information about the educational and academic backgrounds of the educators, how they self-identify, characteristics of the courses they teach, the value that they assign to their teaching activities, their level of satisfaction with their courses and how they see these courses being taught in the future. Findings of this survey were compared and contrasted with prior surveys of biology educators (conducted 12 and 20 years ago, respectively), and with more recent surveys of radiation oncology residents and radiation oncology residency program directors conducted in 2018 and 2019. A total of 67 survey responses were received. Biology educators range in age, academic rank and years of teaching experience from junior (18%) to quite senior (45%). Only about 40% self-identify as radiation biologists, biophysicists or chemists, compared to 56% in 2001. The majority of the others consist of cancer biologists (15%), radiation oncologists (15%) and radiation oncology physician-scientists (16%). Educators prioritize their resident teaching as important or very important. Biology courses are widely variable in contact hours between programs and have not changed significantly over the past 20 years. About 75% of the courses are team-taught, including 15% involving multiple training programs. An average biology course consists of about 42% foundational ("classical") radiobiology, 28% clinical radiobiology and 28% cancer biology. While biology educators and radiation oncology program directors are highly satisfied with their biology courses, approximately a third of residents report being not very, or not at all, satisfied. That fewer biology educators are radiobiologists by training and their courses have remained quite variable in length and content over long periods point to the need for a consensus core curriculum for resident education in radiation and cancer biology. Both current educators and program directors also support making online teaching resources available, diversifying course instructors and consolidating biology teaching across multiple training programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elaine M Zeman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hande V, Prathaban K, Hande MP. Educational dialogue on public perception of nuclear radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2021; 98:158-172. [PMID: 34871149 DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2022.2009147] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Across the world, nuclear radiation and its effects on the population has been the topic of back-burner debates, given the strong emotional connotations involved. We believe that education is crucial for people to make informed decisions regarding nuclear energy. With a science-technology-society (STS) approach, a seminar-style educational module on Radiation and Society was formulated at Tembusu College, National University of Singapore (NUS) in 2015. This primarily aimed to equip students with the necessary analytical tools to assess evidence and thus, evaluate existing assumptions on radiation/nuclear power/nuclear energy, the effects on mankind and societal perception of radiation. METHODS Radiation and Society was a seminar-style module which consisted of weekly 3-hour interactive sessions for 13 weeks. Throughout the semester, students were acquainted with themes and concepts related to radiation and society, such as the historical dimensions, radiation science, role in medicine, the psychology of radiation fear, existing radiation myths, complexities in radiation disaster response, communication of risks and emergency preparedness. Discussions during the sessions covered a variety of topics, including ionizing radiation as a result of nuclear fall-out, historical contextualization of nuclear fear, and uses of radiation in (bio)medicine, STS and science communication. Field visits to research reactors and cancer centers were arranged to showcase the diverse applications of nuclear radiation. Experts involved in various related spheres of influence shared their perspectives on matters such as technological developments in emergency preparedness, nuclear reactors, and societal impacts. RESULTS The interactive facilitator-student sessions helped educate young minds about nuclear radiation. A post-course survey was conducted to obtain opinions of students on their perceptions of reliability and safety of nuclear energy, effectiveness of the seminar, and where radiation ranked relative to alternative energy sources. Overall findings of the survey indicated that although nuclear energy was perceived as a safe and reliable substitute, renewable energy was considered a better option. Participants felt that, as per the learning objectives, the sessions were effective in improving awareness regarding nuclear energy. CONCLUSION This seminar-style module equipped students with the analytical tools required to critically assess sources of knowledge and social perceptions of radiation. In addition to the concluding perceptions toward nuclear energy from the post-course survey, a pre-module/course survey to reveal changes in student attitudes is planned to aid refinement of the course in future iterations. Such educational efforts will allow students to be aware of both the pros and cons of nuclear radiation and thus, construct informed opinions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Varsha Hande
- Department of Physiology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | | | - M Prakash Hande
- Department of Physiology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.,Tembusu College, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline P Williams
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Environmental Medicine, Rochester, New York 14642
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Fagerstrom JM. Introducing Health and Medical Physics to Young Learners in Preschool to Fifth Grade. HEALTH PHYSICS 2020; 118:106-110. [PMID: 31764424 DOI: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
A hands-on learning activity was developed to introduce young learners to concepts and careers in health and medical physics. Inexpensive materials were used to create a work station with learning tools that were designed to be approachable and accessible for this audience. Visitors to a local independent, nonprofit science museum may interact with the activity work station to learn basic information regarding radiation in everyday life and to hear about careers in radiation sciences. Approximately 60 volunteer hours have been contributed associated with the activity. Interested physicists may adapt the lesson plan as a simple and straightforward way to participate in public education efforts in their own communities. A detailed lesson plan, equipment list, and electronic media are available upon request.
Collapse
|
8
|
Rosenstein BS. Teaching Radiation and Cancer Biology to Radiation Oncology Residents: A 40-Year Perspective. Pract Radiat Oncol 2019; 9:392-394. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2019] [Accepted: 08/05/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
9
|
Cho K, Imaoka T, Klokov D, Paunesku T, Salomaa S, Birschwilks M, Bouffler S, Brooks AL, Hei TK, Iwasaki T, Ono T, Sakai K, Wojcik A, Woloschak GE, Yamada Y, Hamada N. Funding for radiation research: past, present and future. Int J Radiat Biol 2019; 95:816-840. [PMID: 30601684 PMCID: PMC7340138 DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2018.1558303] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2018] [Revised: 12/04/2018] [Accepted: 12/05/2018] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
For more than a century, ionizing radiation has been indispensable mainly in medicine and industry. Radiation research is a multidisciplinary field that investigates radiation effects. Radiation research was very active in the mid- to late 20th century, but has then faced challenges, during which time funding has fluctuated widely. Here we review historical changes in funding situations in the field of radiation research, particularly in Canada, European Union countries, Japan, South Korea, and the US. We also provide a brief overview of the current situations in education and training in this field. A better understanding of the biological consequences of radiation exposure is becoming more important with increasing public concerns on radiation risks and other radiation literacy. Continued funding for radiation research is needed, and education and training in this field are also important.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kunwoo Cho
- Natural Radiation Safety Department, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS), Daejeon, South Korea
| | - Tatsuhiko Imaoka
- Department of Radiation Effects Research, National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology (QST), Chiba, Japan
| | - Dmitry Klokov
- Radiobiology and Health Branch, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, Ontario, Canada
- Ottawa, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Tatjana Paunesku
- Department of Radiation Oncology Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Sisko Salomaa
- Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Mandy Birschwilks
- Unit PB3 “National and International Cooperation in Radiation Protection”, Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Simon Bouffler
- Radiation Effects Department, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Public Health England (PHE), Oxfordshire, UK
| | - Antone L. Brooks
- Environmental Science Washington State University, Richland, WA, USA
| | - Tom K. Hei
- Center for Radiological Research, Department of Radiation Oncology College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Toshiyasu Iwasaki
- Radiation Safety Research Center, Nuclear Technology Research Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), Tokyo, Japan
| | - Tetsuya Ono
- Department of Radiobiology, Institute for Environmental Sciences (IES), Aomori, Japan
| | - Kazuo Sakai
- Faculty of Nursing, Tokyo Healthcare University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Andrzej Wojcik
- Centre for Radiation Protection Research, Department of Molecular Biosciences, The Wenner-Gren Institute Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Gayle E. Woloschak
- Department of Radiation Oncology Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | - Nobuyuki Hamada
- Radiation Safety Research Center, Nuclear Technology Research Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Burmeister JW, Tracey MW, Kacin SE, Dominello MM, Joiner MC. Improving Research in Radiation Oncology through Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Radiat Res 2018; 190:1-4. [PMID: 29693501 PMCID: PMC6052437 DOI: 10.1667/rr15023.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
The contribution of radiation oncology to the future of cancer treatment depends significantly on our continued clinical progress and future research advancements. Such progress relies on multidisciplinary collaboration among radiation oncologists, medical physicists and radiobiologists. Cultivating collaborative educational and research opportunities among these three disciplines and further investing in the infrastructure used to train both clinicians and researchers will therefore help us improve the future of cancer care. This article evaluates the success of a short-term educational environment to foster multidisciplinary collaboration. The NIH-funded educational course developed at Wayne State University, called "Integration of Biology and Physics into Radiation Oncology" (IBPRO), was designed to facilitate the engagement of radiation oncologists, medical physicists and radiobiologists in activities that enhance collaborative investigation. Having now been delivered to nearly 200 participants over the past four years, the relative success of IBPRO in fostering productive interdisciplinary collaboration and producing tangible research outcomes can be evaluated. The 140 IBPRO participants from the first three years were surveyed to quantify the effectiveness of the course. In total, 62 respondents reported developing 23 institutional protocols, submitting more than 25 research grants (nine of which have been funded thus far), and publishing more than 30 research manuscripts attributable to participation in IBPRO. Nearly one-half (45%) of respondents reported generating at least one of these research metrics attributable to participation in IBPRO and these participants reported an average of over four such quantitative research metrics per respondent. This represents a very substantial contribution to radiation oncology research by a relatively small number of researchers within a relatively short time. Nearly one-half of respondents reported ongoing collaborative working relationships generated by IBPRO. In addition, approximately one-half of respondents stated that specific information presented at IBPRO changed the way they practice, and over 80% of respondents practicing in a clinical setting stated that, since participation in IBPRO, they have approached clinical dilemmas more collaboratively. We believe that educational opportunities such as IBPRO can have a significant impact on interdisciplinary collaborative research. In addition, such interventions have the ability to effect significant clinical change. Both of these should have a positive impact on future advancements in radiation oncology and affect the future contribution of radiation oncology to the treatment of cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jay W. Burmeister
- Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State
University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
| | | | - Sara E. Kacin
- Wayne State University College of Education Detroit,
Michigan
| | - Michael M. Dominello
- Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State
University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Michael C. Joiner
- Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State
University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Affiliation(s)
- Robert P Gale
- From the Haematology Research Centre, Division of Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (R.P.G.); and the Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (J.O.A.)
| | - James O Armitage
- From the Haematology Research Centre, Division of Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London (R.P.G.); and the Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (J.O.A.)
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Tracey MW, Joiner M, Kacin S, Burmeister J. A Collaborative Educational Intervention Integrating Biology and Physics in Radiation Oncology: A Design Research Case Study. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018; 9:186-205. [PMID: 31379439 DOI: 10.30935/cet.414949] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Instructional design focuses on solving problems in a multitude of contexts. As such, designers are investigators, gathering evidence to optimally design solutions to learning problems within the identified context. The challenge described in this case study was the need to create an educational activity to promote interaction and collaboration among an interdisciplinary participant group comprised of physicians, radiobiologists, and radiation physicists. Based on the premise that interdisciplinary medical research collaboration requires a shared understanding of authentic problems from multiple perspectives, this design research case documents the design and implementation of an online case study incorporating collaborative inquiry in interdisciplinary teams with the intended outcome of building or strengthening interdisciplinary communication skills. Contextual factors - including the design team and design process - influencing the design of the activity are documented. Results indicate that using an interactive online case study as the basis for collaborative inquiry in small, interdisciplinary teams followed by a summative, large group discussion resulted in (1) evidence-based treatment decisions based on the data supplied in the case study and (2) participation of all disciplines in team interactions. Outcomes also indicated the building or strengthening of interdisciplinary communication skills and the understanding of the value and contribution of all three fields to radiation oncology treatment resulted in the participation of the online case study.
Collapse
|
13
|
Combs SE, Kessel C, Wilkens JJ, Multhoff G, Schmid TE, Vaupel P, Trott KR, Berberat P, Atkinson MJ. Master of Science (MSc) Program in Radiation Biology: An Interdepartmental Course Bridging the Gap between Radiation-Related Preclinical and Clinical Disciplines to Prepare Next-Generation Medical Scientists. Front Oncol 2017; 7:226. [PMID: 29018770 PMCID: PMC5614932 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2017] [Accepted: 09/05/2017] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiation biology is a highly interdisciplinary field at the interface of biology, physics, and medicine. It is characterized by rapid advances in biological and technical knowledge. The potential for using these advances to optimize medical care, radiation protection, and related fields can be exploited only with complementary activities to support the education of young academics. A small number of academic institutions have committed resources into radiation-related courses and curricula; however, few offer a comprehensive interdepartmental research and training program. At the Technical University of Munich (TUM), a full Master of Science (MSc) course in radiation biology has been established. This article describes the TUM MSc radiation biology program, discusses the scope of the field, the teaching goals, and the interdisciplinary curriculum. Detailed information on the full MSc program can be found continuously updated at www.radonc.med.tum.de/masterradiationbiology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie E Combs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), München, Germany.,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Innovative Radiotherapy (iRT), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Neuherberg, Germany.,Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (dktk), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Carmen Kessel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), München, Germany.,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Innovative Radiotherapy (iRT), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Jan J Wilkens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), München, Germany.,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Innovative Radiotherapy (iRT), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Neuherberg, Germany.,Physics Department, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Garching, Germany
| | - Gabriele Multhoff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), München, Germany.,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Innovative Radiotherapy (iRT), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Thomas E Schmid
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), München, Germany.,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Innovative Radiotherapy (iRT), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Peter Vaupel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), München, Germany.,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Innovative Radiotherapy (iRT), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Klaus-Rüdiger Trott
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), München, Germany
| | - Pascal Berberat
- TUM Medical Education Center, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), München, Germany
| | - Michael J Atkinson
- Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Radiation Biology (ISB), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Neuherberg, Germany.,Radiation Biology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), München, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Joiner MC, Tracey MW, Kacin SE, Burmeister JW. IBPRO - A Novel Short-Duration Teaching Course in Advanced Physics and Biology Underlying Cancer Radiotherapy. Radiat Res 2017; 187:637-640. [PMID: 28328309 DOI: 10.1667/rr14723.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
This article provides a summary and status report of the ongoing advanced education program IBPRO - Integrated course in Biology and Physics of Radiation Oncology. IBPRO is a five-year program funded by NCI. It addresses the recognized deficiency in the number of mentors available who have the required knowledge and skill to provide the teaching and training that is required for future radiation oncologists and researchers in radiation sciences. Each year, IBPRO brings together 50 attendees typically at assistant professor level and upwards, who are already qualified/certified radiation oncologists, medical physicists or biologists. These attendees receive keynote lectures and activities based on active learning strategies, merging together the clinical, biological and physics underpinnings of radiation oncology, at the forefront of the field. This experience is aimed at increasing collaborations, raising the level and amount of basic and applied research undertaken in radiation oncology, and enabling attendees to confidently become involved in the future teaching and training of researchers and radiation oncologists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael C Joiner
- a School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
| | - Monica W Tracey
- b College of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
| | - Sara E Kacin
- c Office for Teaching and Learning, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
| | - Jay W Burmeister
- a School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Hricak H, Dauer LT. Radiation Brain Drain? The Impact of Demographic Change on U.S. Radiation Protection. HEALTH PHYSICS 2017; 112:126-130. [PMID: 28027150 DOI: 10.1097/hp.0000000000000602] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
The use of radiation has a substantial beneficial impact, particularly in the areas of medicine, energy production, basic science research, and industrial applications. Radiation protection knowledge and experience are required for acquiring and implementing scientific knowledge to protect workers, members of the public, and the environment from potential harmful effects of ionizing radiation while facilitating the beneficial use and development of radiation-based technologies. However, demographic changes are negatively impacting U.S. radiation protection and response capabilities. The number of radiation professionals continues to decrease even as the demand for such professionals is growing. These concerns are most pronounced in the medical, energy, research, and security arenas. Though the United States has been the world leader in radiation protection and radiation sciences for many years, the country has no strategic plan to ensure the maintenance of expertise in radiobiology, radiation physics, and radiation protection. Solving this problem will require a significant increase in federal and state funding as well as formal partnerships and initiatives among academia, professional societies, government, and the private sector.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hedvig Hricak
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
The medical physics workforce comprises approximately 24,000 workers worldwide and approximately 8,200 in the United States. The occupation is a recognized, established, and mature profession that is undergoing considerable growth and change, with many of these changes being driven by scientific, technical, and medical advances. Presently, the medical physics workforce is adequate to meet societal needs. However, data are emerging that suggest potential risks of shortages and other problems that could develop within a few years. Some of the governing factors are well established, such as the increasing number of incident cancers thereby increasing workload, while others, such as the future use of radiation treatments and changes in healthcare economic policies, are uncertain and make the future status of the workforce difficult to forecast beyond the next several years. This review examines some of the major factors that govern supply and demand for medical physicists, discusses published projections and their uncertainties, and presents other information that may help to inform short- and long-term planning of various aspects of the future workforce. It includes a description of the general characteristics of the workforce, including information on its size, educational attainment, certification, age distribution, etc. Because the supply of new workers is governed by educational and training pathways, graduate education, post-doctoral training, and residency training are reviewed, along with trends in state and federal support for research and education. Selected professional aspects of the field also are considered, including professional certification and compensation. We speculate on the future outlook of the workforce and provide recommendations regarding future actions pertaining to the future medical physics workforce.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wayne D Newhauser
- *Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, 439-B Nicholson Hall, Tower Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-4001
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Biomathematical Optimization of Radiation Therapy in the Era of Targeted Agents. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 97:13-17. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.09.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2016] [Revised: 08/12/2016] [Accepted: 09/08/2016] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
18
|
Ford E, Deye J. Current Instrumentation and Technologies in Modern Radiobiology Research—Opportunities and Challenges. Semin Radiat Oncol 2016; 26:349-55. [DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2016.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
|