Citations

Abstract The 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 8000 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 ( MPPG ) 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 radiation requires specific training, skills, and techniques as described in each document. As the review of the previous version of AAPM Professional Policy ( PP )‐17 (Scope of Practice) progressed, the writing group focused on one of the main goals: to have this document accepted by regulatory and accrediting bodies. After much discussion, it was decided that this goal would be better served through a MPPG . To further advance this goal, the text was updated to reflect the rationale and processes by which the activities in the scope of practice were identified and categorized. Lastly, the AAPM Professional Council believes that this document has benefitted from public comment which is part of the MPPG process but not the AAPM Professional Policy approval process. The following terms are used in the AAPM 's MPPG s: 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.

Corticosteroids (CSs) are commonly used to manage wheezing and asthma in pediatric populations. Although corticosteroids are effective in alleviating airway diseases, some children with more moderate-severe asthma phenotypes show CS resistance and exhibit significant airflow obstruction, persistent inflammation, and more frequent exacerbations. Previous studies have demonstrated that Th1 cytokines, such as TNF-α and IFN-γ, promote CS resistance in adult human airway smooth muscle (ASM). In the present study, using a human fetal ASM cell model, we tested the hypothesis that TNF-α/IFN-γ induces CS resistance. In contrast to TNF-α or IFN-γ alone, the combination of TNF-α/IFN-γ blunted the ability of fluticasone propionate (FP) to reduce expression of the chemokines CCL5 and CXCL10 despite expression of key anti-inflammatory glucocorticoid receptor target genes being largely unaffected by TNF-α/IFN-γ. Expression of the NF-κB subunit p65 and phosphorylation of Stat1 were elevated in cells treated with TNF-α/IFN-γ, an effect that remained in the presence of FP. siRNA knockdown studies demonstrated the effects of TNF-α/IFN-γ on increased p65 are mediated by Stat1, a transcription factor activated by IFN-γ. Expression of TNFAIP3, a negative regulator of NF-κB activity, was not altered by TNF-α/IFN-γ. However, the effects of TNF-α/IFN-γ were partially reduced by overexpression of TNFAIP3 but did not influence p65 expression. Together, these data suggest that IFN-γ augments the effects of TNF-α on chemokines by enhancing expression of key inflammatory pathways in the presence of CS. Interactions between TNF-α- and IFN-γ-mediated pathways may promote inflammation in asthmatic children resistant to CSs.

Abstract Objectives Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full‐arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses ( FDP s), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDP s. Materials and methods Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. Results A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. Conclusions The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full‐arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One‐piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two‐piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDP s are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence.

Study Design. This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data. Objective. The primary aim of this study is to present a scheme for patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based, risk-adjusted rankings of spine surgeons and sites that perform elective lumbar surgery, using the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD). Summary of Background Data. There is currently no means of determining which spine surgeons or centers are positive or negative outliers with respect to PROs for elective lumbar surgery. This is a critical gap as we move toward a value-based model of health care in which providers assume more accountability for the effectiveness of their treatments. Methods. Random effects regression models were fit for the following outcomes, with QOD site as a fixed effect but surgeon ID as a random effect: Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D, back pain and leg pain, and satisfaction. Hierarchical Bayesian models were also fit for each outcome, with QOD site as a random effect and surgeon as a nested random effect. Results. Our study cohort consists of 8834 patients who underwent surgery by 124 QOD surgeons, for the degenerative lumbar diseases. Nonoverlapping Bayesian credible intervals demonstrate that the variance attributed to QOD site was greater than the nested variance attributed to surgeon ID for the included PROs. Conclusion. This study presents a novel strategy for the risk-adjusted, PRO-based ranking of spine surgeons and practices. This can help identify positive and negative outliers, thereby forming the basis for large-scale quality improvement. Assuming adequate coverage of baseline risk adjustment, the choice of surgeon matters when considering PROs after lumbar surgery; however, the choice of site appears to matter more. Level of Evidence: 3

Study Design. This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data. Objective. Here we aim to develop predictive models for 3-month medical and surgical readmission after elective lumbar surgery, based on a multi-institutional, national spine registry. Summary of Background Data. Unplanned readmissions place considerable stress on payers, hospitals, and patients. Medicare data reveals a 30-day readmission rate of 7.8% for lumbar-decompressions and 13.0% for lumbar-fusions, and hospitals are now being penalized for excessive 30-day readmission rates by virtue of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. Methods. The Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar surgery for degenerative diseases. The QOD prospectively captures 3-month readmissions through electronic medical record (EMR) review and self-reported outcome questionnaires. Distinct multivariable logistic regression models were fitted for surgery-related and medical readmissions adjusting for patient and surgery-specific variables. Results. Of the total 33,674 patients included in this study 2079 (6.15%) reported at least one readmission during the 90-day postoperative period. The odds of medical readmission were significantly higher for older patients, males versus females, African Americans versus Caucasion, those with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, diabetes, coronary artery disease, higher numbers of involved levels, anterior only or anterior–posterior versus posterior approach; also, for patients who were unemployed compared with employed patients and those with high baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The odds of surgery-related readmission were significantly greater for patients with a higher body mass index (BMI), a higher ASA grade, female versus male, and African Americans versus Caucasians; also, for patients with severe depression, more involved spinal levels, anterior-only surgical approaches and higher baseline ODI scores. Conclusion. In this study we present internally validated predictive models for medical and surgical readmission after elective lumbar spine surgery. These findings set the stage for targeted interventions with a potential to reduce unnecessary readmissions, and also suggest that medical and surgical readmissions be treated as distinct clinical events. Level of Evidence: 3

Problem Case-based learning is an established means of educating students in law, business, and medicine; however, this methodology is not often applied to educating translational biomedical researchers. The application of case-based learning to translational biomedical research education allows scholars to actively engage with real-world material and apply their newfound knowledge as it is acquired. Approach Through the Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS), three courses were delivered in 2009–2017 which emphasized case-based learning in clinical and translational science, entrepreneurship, and individualized medicine. Quantitative measures collected in student course reviews upon course completion were analyzed. Additionally, products arising from each course were identified, including publications and startups pitched. Outcomes Analyses demonstrate that case-based learning techniques are well suited to graduate biomedical research education. Furthermore, case studies can be employed throughout the entire clinical and translational spectrum, from basic and preclinical work through to clinical and population-based learning. Next Steps Within CCaTS, next steps include creating case-based courses in regulatory and team science to continue to allow scholars to learn and apply these critical skills to real-world material. The goal is to continue to provide immersive training opportunities in areas of clinical and translational science that cannot be readily learned in a traditional lecture-based class setting.