Palta, Jatinder

AbstractThe American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States.The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner.Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized.The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances. Approved by AAPM’s Executive Committee May 28, 2019

It is an exciting time for big data efforts in radiation oncology. The use of big data to help aid both outcomes and decision‐making research is becoming a reality. However, there are true challenges that exist in the space of gathering and utilizing performance and outcomes data. Here, we summarize the current state of big data in radiation oncology with respect to outcomes and discuss some of the efforts and challenges in radiation oncology big data.

The term Big Data has come to encompass a number of concepts and uses within medicine. This paper lays out the relevance and application of large collections of data in the radiation oncology community. We describe the potential importance and uses in clinical practice. The important concepts are then described and how they have been or could be implemented are discussed. Impediments to progress in the collection and use of sufficient quantities of data are also described. Finally, recommendations for how the community can move forward to achieve the potential of big data in radiation oncology are provided.

AbstractThe charge of AAPM Task Group 113 is to provide guidance for the physics aspects of clinical trials to minimize variability in planning and dose delivery for external beam trials involving photons and electrons. Several studies have demonstrated the importance of protocol compliance on patient outcome. Minimizing variability for treatments at different centers improves the quality and efficiency of clinical trials. Attention is focused on areas where variability can be minimized through standardization of protocols and processes through all aspects of clinical trials. Recommendations are presented for clinical trial designers, physicists supporting clinical trials at their individual clinics, quality assurance centers, and manufacturers.

300 Background: The National Radiation Oncology Registry (NROR) is developing an IT infrastructure to support the efficient collection, aggregation, and analysis of data concerning cancer patients treated with radiotherapy across the United States. Methods: Detailed requirements were developed to emphasize the following distinguishing goals for the system: 1) streamline the process of data collection by minimizing manual data entry; 2) support the collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and their linkage with clinician-observed outcomes; 3) facilitate data integration within the NROR and between the NROR and other registries; 4) allow for evolution of the system in response to new learning; and 5) promote sustainability and ongoing improvement through an open standard of interoperability. Results: An innovative technical architecture has been designed to meet the goals described. The system maximizes efficiency through automated extraction and electronic transfer of data from radiation oncology information systems. PROs are collected directly from patients via a web-based portal and linked to data submitted from participating institutions. A data dictionary has been developed based on national standards and controlled vocabularies to facilitate data integration. Contemporary forms-based database technology is used in combination with traditional relational technology to permit both flexible evolution of the system and efficient data analysis. A unique “gateway” architecture and open transmission standard makes it possible for commercial products to interoperate with the registry in the future. Conclusions: The NROR prototype system will be launched later this year to collect data for a pilot registry of prostate cancer patients. Its performance and usability will be important factors in the success of the pilot. If effective, the platform will support the expansion of the NROR to benefit patients, clinicians, researchers, payors, device manufacturers, and policy-makers by capturing reliable, population-based information on radiation treatment delivery and health outcomes.