Citations

Abstract The establishment of guidelines and curriculum standards for medical physics residency training is a critical component of setting expectations and competencies for the profession. Since the last publication of these standards, residency training has become integrated into the eligibility criteria for most medical physics certification bodies. The rapid growth of medical physics requires periodic review of the curriculum to remove outdated approaches, update established knowledge, and add emerging technologies. The goal of this document is to provide a reference standard for residency training program directors, training mentors, and residents to guide creation and/or optimization of their program's curriculum. The document is intentionally forward‐looking to capture emerging technological advances including hybrid diagnostic and therapeutic delivery systems and applications of image processing. This document is an update of the current residency training curriculum. Version history of residency training guidelines Publication Title Date 2013 Essentials and Guidelines for Clinical Medical Physics Residency Training Programs—AAPM Report No. 249 2006 Essentials and Guidelines for Hospital‐Based Medical Physics Residency Training Programs—Report No. 90 1992 Essentials and Guidelines for Hospital‐Based Medical Physics Residency Training Programs—Report No. 36 The Work Group on Periodic Review of Medical Physics Residency Training (WGMPRT) would like to acknowledge the authors of past versions of this document as they form the basis for this update. It is the sincere hope of the WGMPRT that this report will continue to be used by the medical physics community to guide training in the profession.

INTRODUCTION: Preliminary data suggest that an encapsulated balloon (EsoCheck), coupled with a 2 methylated DNA biomarker panel (EsoGuard), detects Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) with high accuracy. The initial assay requires sample freezing upon collection. The purpose of this study was to assess a next-generation EsoCheck sampling device and EsoGuard assay in a much-enlarged multicenter study clinically enhanced by using a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988-compliant assay and samples maintained at room temperature. METHODS: Cases with nondysplastic BE (NDBE), dysplastic BE (indefinite for dysplasia, low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia), EAC, junctional adenocarcinoma, plus endoscopy controls without esophageal intestinal metaplasia, were prospectively enrolled. Medical assistants at 6 institutions delivered the encapsulated balloon per orally with inflation in the stomach. The inflated balloon sampled the distal 5 cm of the esophagus and then was deflated and retracted into the capsule, preventing sample contamination. EsoGuard bisulfite sequencing assayed levels of methylated vimentin and methylated cyclin A1. RESULTS: A total of 243 evaluable patients—88 cases (median age 68 years, 78% men, 92% White) and 155 controls (median age 57 years, 41% men, 88% White)—underwent adequate EsoCheck sampling. The mean procedural time was approximately 3 minutes. Cases included 31 with NDBE, 16 with indefinite for dysplasia/low-grade dysplasia, 23 with high-grade dysplasia, and 18 with EAC/junctional adenocarcinoma. Thirty-seven NDBE and dysplastic BE cases (53%) were short-segment BE (<3 cm). Overall sensitivity was 85% (95% confidence interval 0.78–0.93) and specificity was 85% (95% confidence interval 0.79–0.90). Sensitivity for NDBE was 84%. EsoCheck/EsoGuard detected 100% of cancers (n = 18). DISCUSSION: EsoCheck/EsoGuard demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in detecting BE and BE-related neoplasia.

INTRODUCTION: A substantial proportion of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not report gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. This study aimed to compare the risk factor profiles and cancer stage at presentation of patients with EAC with and without prior GERD. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, patients with EAC were divided into 2 cohorts: (i) EAC with prior GERD: patients who reported typical GERD symptoms (heartburn or regurgitation) ≥1 year before cancer diagnosis and (ii) EAC without prior GERD: patients who did not report prior GERD symptoms or reported symptoms within 1 year of their cancer diagnosis. Baseline demographics, risk factors, and cancer stage at presentation were compared between the 2 cohorts. In addition, the distribution of patients based on numbers of BE/EAC–associated risk factors (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or more) was examined in the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. RESULTS: Over 13 years, 388 patients with EAC with prior GERD and 245 patients with EAC without prior GERD were recruited. Both groups had similar baseline demographics and risk factors, but patients with EAC with prior GERD were more likely to have a history of BE. Asymptomatic patients had more advanced disease. Patients with 3 or more BE/EAC–related risk factors formed the largest proportion of patients in both the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. DISCUSSION: Patients with EAC with and without prior GERD symptoms are phenotypically similar, suggesting that BE screening efforts to prevent or detect early EAC should not be restricted to just those with GERD.

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to analyze the relationship of percentage of surgical overlap with patient outcomes to determine if a detrimental level of overlap exists. Background: Overlapping surgery is defined as 1 attending physician supervising 2 or more operative cases simultaneously, without the critical portions of the cases occurring concurrently. To date, no study has examined the relationship of percent overlap, or the percentage of 1 case that is spent overlapping with another, to outcomes, efficiency, safety, and complications. Methods: This study is a retrospective cohort study conducted at a large tertiary referral center. The primary outcomes of interest included operative duration, in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, and patient safety indicators (PSIs). The Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to evaluate the outcomes of interest. P values of ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 87,426 cases were included in this study. There were 62,332 cases without overlap (Group 0), 10,514 cases with 1% to 25% overlap (Group 1), 5303 cases with 26% to 50% overlap (Group 2), 4296 cases with 51% to 75% overlap (Group 3), and 4981 cases with >75% overlap (Group 4). In-hospital mortality decreased as overlap increased (P trend<0.0001). Operative time increased with increasing overlap (P trend<0.0001) while readmission rates showed no statistical significance between groups (P trend=0.5078). Rates of PSIs were lower for Groups 1, 2, and 3 (1.69%, 2.01%, and 2.08%) when compared to Group 0 (2.24%). Group 4 had the highest rate of PSIs at 2.35% (P=0.0086). Conclusion: Overlapping surgery was shown to have reduced in-hospital mortality and similar PSI and readmission rates when compared to nonoverlapping cases. Operative time was shown to increase in overlapping surgeries when compared to nonoverlapping surgeries. The results from this study indicate that the percentage of surgical overlap does not detrimentally affect most patient outcomes, especially with overlap of <75%.

Abstract Purpose: Current endoscopy-based screening and surveillance programs have not been proven effective at decreasing esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) mortality, creating an unmet need for effective molecular tests for early detection of this highly lethal cancer. We conducted a genome-wide methylation screen to identify novel methylation markers that distinguish EAC and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) from normal squamous epithelium (SQ) or nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE). Experimental Design: DNA methylation profiling of samples from SQ, NDBE, HGD, and EAC was performed using HM450 methylation arrays (Illumina) and reduced-representation bisulfate sequencing. Ultrasensitive methylation-specific droplet digital PCR and next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based bisulfite-sequencing assays were developed to detect the methylation level of candidate CpGs in independent esophageal biopsy and endoscopic brushing samples. Results: Five candidate methylation markers were significantly hypermethylated in HGD/EAC samples compared with SQ or NDBE (P &lt; 0.01) in both esophageal biopsy and endoscopic brushing samples. In an independent set of brushing samples used to construct biomarker panels, a four-marker panel (model 1) demonstrated sensitivity of 85.0% and 90.8% for HGD and EACs respectively, with 84.2% and 97.9% specificity for NDBE and SQ respectively. In a validation set of brushing samples, the panel achieved sensitivity of 80% and 82.5% for HGD and EAC respectively, at specificity of 67.6% and 96.3% for NDBE and SQ samples. Conclusions: A novel DNA methylation marker panel differentiates HGD/EAC from SQ/NDBE. DNA-methylation–based molecular assays hold promise for the detection of HGD/EAC using esophageal brushing samples.

Combining DNA methylation markers with a swallowable device for sampling the distal esophagus effectively detects Barrett’s neoplasias.

Abstract Objectives: To develop evidence-based guideline recommendations through a systematic review of the literature to establish standard molecular biomarker testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) tissues to guide epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies and conventional chemotherapy regimens. Methods: The American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to establish standard molecular biomarker testing and guide therapies for patients with CRC. A comprehensive literature search that included more than 4,000 articles was conducted. Results: Twenty-one guideline statements were established. Conclusions: Evidence supports mutational testing for EGFR signaling pathway genes, since they provide clinically actionable information as negative predictors of benefit to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapies for targeted therapy of CRC. Mutations in several of the biomarkers have clear prognostic value. Laboratory approaches to operationalize CRC molecular testing are presented.

Objectives.— To develop evidence-based guideline recommendations through a systematic review of the literature to establish standard molecular biomarker testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) tissues to guide epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies and conventional chemotherapy regimens. Methods.— The American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to establish standard molecular biomarker testing and guide therapies for patients with CRC. A comprehensive literature search that included more than 4,000 articles was conducted. Results.— Twenty-one guideline statements were established. Conclusions.— Evidence supports mutational testing for EGFR signaling pathway genes, since they provide clinically actionable information as negative predictors of benefit to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapies for targeted therapy of CRC. Mutations in several of the biomarkers have clear prognostic value. Laboratory approaches to operationalize CRC molecular testing are presented.