Implementation of an Anthropomorphic Phantom for the Evaluation of Proton Therapy Treatment Procedures

With an increasing number of institutions offering proton therapy, the number of multi-institutional clinical trials involving proton therapy will also increase in the coming years. The Radiological Physics Center monitors sites involved in clinical trials through the use of site visits and remote auditing with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and mailable anthropomorphic phantoms. Currently, there are no heterogeneous phantoms that have been commissioned to evaluate proton therapy. It was hypothesized that an anthropomorphic pelvis phantom can be designed to audit treatment procedures (patient simulation, treatment planning and treatment delivery) at proton facilities to confirm agreement between the measured dose and calculated dose within 5%/3mm with a reproducibility of 3%. A pelvis phantom originally designed for use with photon treatments was retrofitted for use in proton therapy. The relative stopping power (SP) of each phantom material was measured. Hounsfield Units (HU) for each phantom material were measured with a CT scanner and compared to the relative stopping power calibration curve. The tissue equivalency for each material was calculated. Two proton treatment plans were created; one which did not correct for material SP differences (Plan 1) and one plan which did correct for SP differences (Plan 2). Film and TLD were loaded into the phantom and the phantom was irradiated 3 times per plan. The measured values were compared to the HU-SP calibration curve and it was found that the stopping powers for the materials could be underestimated by 5-10%. Plan 1 passed the criteria for the TLD and film margins with reproducibility under 3% between the 3 trials. Plan 2 failed because the right-left film dose profile average displacement was -9.0 mm on the left side and 6.0 mm on the right side. Plan 2 was intended to improve the agreements and instead introduced large displacements along the path of the beam. Plan 2 more closely represented the actual phantom composition with corrected stopping powers and should have shown an agreement between the measured and calculated dose within 5%/3mm. The hypothesis was rejected and the pelvis phantom was found to be not suitable to evaluate proton therapy treatment procedures.

Federally regulated institutional review boards: The aspects of a "model" IRB---Is the current system in need of a tune up or complete overhaul?

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the primary gatekeepers for the protection of ethical standards of federally regulated research on human subjects in this country. This paper focuses on what general, broad measures that may be instituted or enhanced to exemplify a "model IRB". This is done by examining the current regulatory standards of federally regulated IRBs, not private or commercial boards, and how many of those standards have been found either inadequate or not generally understood or followed. The analysis includes suggestions on how to bring about changes in order to make the IRB process more efficient, less subject to litigation, and create standardized educational protocols for members. The paper also considers how to include better oversight for multi-center research, increased centralization of IRBs, utilization of Data Safety Monitoring Boards when necessary, payment for research protocol review, voluntary accreditation, and the institution of evaluation/quality assurance programs. ^ This is a policy study utilizing secondary analysis of publicly available data. Therefore, the research for this paper focuses on scholarly medical/legal journals, web information from the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Drug Administration, and the Office of the Inspector General, Accreditation Programs, law review articles, and current regulations applicable to the relevant portions of the paper. ^ Two issues are found to be consistently cited by the literature as major concerns. One is a need for basic, standardized educational requirements across all IRBs and its members, and secondly, much stricter and more informed management of continuing research. There is no federally regulated formal education system currently in place for IRB members, except for certain NIH-based trials. Also, IRBs are not keeping up with research once a study has begun, and although regulated to do so, it does not appear to be a great priority. This is the area most in danger of increased litigation. Other issues such as voluntary accreditation and outcomes evaluation are slowing gaining steam as the processes are becoming more available and more sought after, such as JCAHO accrediting of hospitals. ^ Adopting the principles discussed in this paper should promote better use of a local IRBs time, money, and expertise for protecting the vulnerable population in their care. Without further improvements to the system, there is concern that private and commercial IRBs will attempt to create a monopoly on much of the clinical research in the future as they are not as heavily regulated and can therefore offer companies quicker and more convenient reviews. IRBs need to consider the advantages of charging for their unique and important services as a cost of doing business. More importantly, there must be a minimum standard of education for all IRB members in the area of the ethical standards of human research and a greater emphasis placed on the follow-up of ongoing research as this is the most critical time for study participants and may soon lead to the largest area for litigation. Additionally, there should be a centralized IRB for multi-site trials or a study website with important information affecting the trial in real time. There needs to be development of standards and metrics to assess the performance of the IRBs for quality assurance and outcome evaluations. The boards should not be content to run the business of human subjects' research without determining how well that function is actually being carried out. It is important that federally regulated IRBs provide excellence in human research and promote those values most important to the public at large.^

Perceptions of institutional support of community -based participatory research within prevention research centers

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the future of health care states that the focus on health needs to shift to the management and prevention of chronic illnesses and that academic health centers (AHCs) should play an active role in this process through community partnerships (IOM, 2002). Grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention Research Centers (PRC) across the county represent a transition toward more proactively seeking out community partnerships to better design and disseminate health promotion programs (Green, 2001). ^ The focus of the PRCs is to conduct rigorous, community-based, prevention research, to seek outcomes applicable to public health programs and policies. The PRCs work is to create and foster partnerships among public health and community organizations, to address health promotion and disease prevention issues (CDC, 2003). ^ The W.K. Kellogg Foundation defines CBPR as "a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change to improve community health." ^ In 1995, CDC asked the IOM to review the PRC program to examine the extent to which the program is providing the public health community with strategies to address public health problems in disease prevention and health promotion (IOM, 1997). No comprehensive evaluation n of the individual PRCs had ever been done (IOM, 1997). ^ The CDC was interested in understanding how it could better support the PRC program through improved management and oversight to influence the program's success. The CDC only represents one of the entities that influence the success of a PRC. Another key entity to consider is the support of and influence of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside. Using evaluation criteria similar to those that were developed by the IOM, this study examined how aspects of structural capacity of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside are perceived to influence PRC community-based research activities. ^