scholarly journals Radiation Protection and Quality Assurance in PET/CT

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Fulton
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Pet Ct

scholarly journals THE MEDICAL PHYSICIST - SCIENTIST BEHIND THE CURTAIN

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 3212-3213
Author(s):  
Anurag A. Luharia
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Medical Physics ◽  
Analytical Techniques ◽  
Modern Medicine ◽  
Quality Assurance Program ◽  
Medical Physicist ◽  
Accurate Treatment ◽  
Medical Physicists

Ionizing radiation has validated its existence and effectiveness in modern medicine for both diagnostic and therapeutic use. For the last decade rapid growth in medical radiation application has witnessed in India towards the betterment of mankind, for safe and quality clinical practice, radiation protection and quality assurance. At the end of the 19th century Physics brought paradigm shift in the field of radiation-based medical diagnosis and treatment and giving rise to the modern medical physicist profession and revolutionized the practice of medicine. Medical Physicists are the scientists with Post graduation / PhD degrees, and certified from A.E.R.B as Radiological Safety Officer, deals with utilization of Physics knowledge in developing not only lifesaving tools & technology but also diagnosis and treatments of various medical conditions that help humans live longer and healthier. Medical Physicists are responsible to carry out the commissioning, establishment of entire Radiation facility and get the clearance of statutory compliances form authorities in order to start the clinical practice are also responsible for research, developing and evaluating new analytical techniques, planning and ensuring safe and accurate treatment of patients also provide advice about radiation protection, training and updating healthcare, scientific and technical staff , managing radiotherapy quality assurance program, mathematical modeling ,maintaining equipment ,writing reports, teaching ,laboratory management and administration. Now it’s a time to raise the curtain from the Medical Physics profession and utilize their services up to maximum extent in the field of scientific research, academic, teaching, diagnosis, treatment and safety.

NRG Oncology HN006: Randomized phase II/III trial of sentinel lymph node biopsy versus elective neck dissection for early-stage oral cavity cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS6093-TPS6093
Author(s):  
Stephen Yenzen Lai ◽  
Pedro A. Torres-Saavedra ◽  
Neal E. Dunlap ◽  
Beth Michelle Beadle ◽  
Steven S. Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Neck Dissection ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Oral Cavity Cancer ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Elective Neck Dissection ◽  
Pet Ct

TPS6093 Background: Since patients with early-stage oral cavity cancer (OCC; T1-2N0M0; AJCC 8th ed) have a 20-30% rate of occult nodal metastases despite clinical and radiographic assessment, standard of care treatment includes elective neck dissection (END). Many patients have comprehensive surgical management of the regional cervical nodal basin even though the majority of those necks (70-80%) will not contain disease. Assessment of draining first echelon lymph nodes by sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (Bx), a less invasive surgical procedure, may provide an alternative to END, while potentially reducing morbidity and cost. A decisive clinical trial comparing SLN Bx versus END can focus the HNC clinical and research community and resources on establishing the standard of care for management of the neck in early-stage OCC. Methods: In order to address the efficacy of SLN Bx in this population, we recently activated an international multi-institutional phase II/III prospective trial randomizing patients to two surgical arms: SLN Bx and END. PET/CT is an integral imaging biomarker in this trial. A node-negative PET/CT study with central read is required before randomization. Patients with a positive PET/CT central result will remain in a registry to compare imaging findings with final neck pathology. Given the current evidence available regarding morbidity for SLN Bx versus END, the phase II will determine if patient-reported neck and shoulder function and related QOL at 6 months after surgery using the Neck Dissection Impairment Index (NDII) shows a signal of superiority of SLN Bx compared to END. A total of 228 randomized patients with negative PET/CT for potential evaluation of shoulder-related morbidity with difference in 6-month NDII scores (minimum important difference ³7.5; one-sided a = 0.10; 90% power) will serve as the “Go/No-Go” decision to move forward into phase III. The phase III portion is a non-inferiority (NI) trial with disease-free survival (DFS) as the primary endpoint (NI margin hazard ratio 1.34 based on a 5% absolute difference in 2-year DFS; one-sided alpha 0.05; 80% power, and an interim look for efficacy at 67% of the events based on an O’Brien-Fleming boundary). The NDII at 6 months after surgery is a hierarchical co-primary endpoint for the phase III. Target accrual of phase III is 618 PET/CT negative patients, including those randomized in phase II (297 DFS events required for the final analysis). In addition to radiotherapy and imaging credentialing, quality assurance will include central pathology review of all negative SLN Bx cases and surgeon credentialing through an education course and SLN Bx and END case review by the surgical co-chairs. A surgical quality assurance working group will review all trial SLN Bx and END outcomes. As of 02/15/21, 7 patients have been screened and 6 of the planned 228 randomized patients in phase II have been enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT04333537.

SU-GG-I-74: New IAEA Document On Acceptance Testing, Quality Assurance and Quality Control for PET and PET/CT Systems

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (6Part3) ◽  
pp. 2659-2659
Author(s):  
G El Fakhri ◽  
R Fulton ◽  
J Gray ◽  
M Marengo ◽  
B Zimmerman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Acceptance Testing ◽  
Pet Ct

scholarly journals Radiation protection in fixed PET/CT facilities—design and operation

2012 ◽  
Vol 85 (1013) ◽  
pp. 643-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
D J Peet ◽  
R Morton ◽  
M Hussein ◽  
K Alsafi ◽  
N Spyrou
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
Facilities Design

Quality Assurance for PET and PET/CT Systems

2012 ◽  
Vol 103 (6) ◽  
pp. 810-811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Pet Ct

Diagnostic radiology equipment

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry R Williams
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Image Quality Assessment ◽  
Dose Assessment ◽  
Detector Efficiency ◽  
Dose Saving ◽  
Working Practices ◽  
Safe Working

The chapter is concerned with the features of radiographic and fluoroscopic equipment that present radiation protection issues for both patients and staff. These are managed through regulation, manufacturing standards, and adherence to safe working practices. It is different for patients who are deliberately irradiated in accordance with justification protocols not considered here. Radiation protection is based on the ALARP principle which requires the resultant dose to be minimized consistent with image quality is sufficient to provide accurate and safe diagnosis. Dose minimization is critically dependent on detector efficiency. Quality control of dose for individual examinations is particularly important to provide assurance of ALARP. It should include not only patient dose assessment but also detector dose indicators, particularly in radiography. These issues are discussed in detail together with other dose-saving features and discussion on objective methods of image quality assessment. Commissioning and lifetime tests are required for quality assurance programmes. These are described.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document