{"title":"医学物理学家应该是治疗计划过程中的策划者","authors":"Dongxu Wang, Douglas E. Prah, Yi Rong","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the United States, both medical physicists and medical dosimetrists play essential roles in radiotherapy. Since its inception, the profession of medical dosimetry has focused primarily on the creation of treatment plans and related clinical tasks. In contrast, the involvement of medical physicists in the treatment planning process has been more variable and continues to evolve as clinical practices and professional expectations shift. Traditionally, the most common model of collaboration between dosimetrists and physicists involves physicists serving as secondary reviewers, ensuring quality and safety after the dosimetrist has completed the initial treatment plan. However, with the increasing complexity of modern radiotherapy techniques, which demand greater precision, personalization, and interdisciplinary coordination, many institutions face growing challenges in recruiting experienced treatment planners capable of handling complex cases. The need for extensive on-the-job training, often provided by senior dosimetrists and occasionally by physicists, places additional strain on departments already affected by workforce shortages. This situation raises an important question: should medical physicists assume a more formalized role as treatment planners? This debate examines the proposition that clinical medical physicists should participate routinely in the treatment planning process, not merely as reviewers or technical advisors, but as active contributors working alongside dosimetrists and radiation oncologists. The faculty physicist arguing for the proposition is Dr. Dongxu Wang from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, while the faculty physicist arguing against the proposition is Dr. Douglas Prah from the Medical College of Wisconsin.</p><p>Dongxu Wang, PhD, MBA, received his PhD in Medical Physics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2011. After graduate school, he joined the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics as a faculty physicist. While at the University of Iowa, he studied part-time and received his master's degree in business administration (MBA) in 2019. He is now an Associate Attending Physicist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Wang's earlier expertise and focus were in proton therapy and proton imaging. Lately he is active in advancing medical physics leadership and professionalism education using the case study method.</p><p>Douglas Prah, PhD, DABR, is a board-certified medical physicist, Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology, and the Director of Advanced Care & Technology at Froedtert & the Medical College of Wisconsin. He earned his PhD in Biophysics from the Medical College of Wisconsin and specializes in radiation beam modeling, treatment planning, and integrating advanced technologies into clinical workflows. Dr. Prah chairs the Service and Technology Implementation and Review Committee and oversees medical dosimetry services across the enterprise. He is also an APEx Surveyor and serves on the Practice Accreditation Subcommittee for the American Society for Radiation Oncology, where he supports national efforts to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology. Dr. Prah is committed to advancing the field through collaborative leadership, innovation, and education.</p><p>Dongxu Wang reports receiving an honorarium from Mevion Medical Systems, Inc., and a licensing fee payment from Ion Beam Applications, S.A.; neither is related to this work.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70185","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical physicist should be a planner in the treatment planning process\",\"authors\":\"Dongxu Wang, Douglas E. Prah, Yi Rong\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.70185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In the United States, both medical physicists and medical dosimetrists play essential roles in radiotherapy. Since its inception, the profession of medical dosimetry has focused primarily on the creation of treatment plans and related clinical tasks. In contrast, the involvement of medical physicists in the treatment planning process has been more variable and continues to evolve as clinical practices and professional expectations shift. Traditionally, the most common model of collaboration between dosimetrists and physicists involves physicists serving as secondary reviewers, ensuring quality and safety after the dosimetrist has completed the initial treatment plan. However, with the increasing complexity of modern radiotherapy techniques, which demand greater precision, personalization, and interdisciplinary coordination, many institutions face growing challenges in recruiting experienced treatment planners capable of handling complex cases. The need for extensive on-the-job training, often provided by senior dosimetrists and occasionally by physicists, places additional strain on departments already affected by workforce shortages. This situation raises an important question: should medical physicists assume a more formalized role as treatment planners? This debate examines the proposition that clinical medical physicists should participate routinely in the treatment planning process, not merely as reviewers or technical advisors, but as active contributors working alongside dosimetrists and radiation oncologists. The faculty physicist arguing for the proposition is Dr. Dongxu Wang from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, while the faculty physicist arguing against the proposition is Dr. Douglas Prah from the Medical College of Wisconsin.</p><p>Dongxu Wang, PhD, MBA, received his PhD in Medical Physics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2011. After graduate school, he joined the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics as a faculty physicist. While at the University of Iowa, he studied part-time and received his master's degree in business administration (MBA) in 2019. He is now an Associate Attending Physicist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Wang's earlier expertise and focus were in proton therapy and proton imaging. Lately he is active in advancing medical physics leadership and professionalism education using the case study method.</p><p>Douglas Prah, PhD, DABR, is a board-certified medical physicist, Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology, and the Director of Advanced Care & Technology at Froedtert & the Medical College of Wisconsin. He earned his PhD in Biophysics from the Medical College of Wisconsin and specializes in radiation beam modeling, treatment planning, and integrating advanced technologies into clinical workflows. Dr. Prah chairs the Service and Technology Implementation and Review Committee and oversees medical dosimetry services across the enterprise. He is also an APEx Surveyor and serves on the Practice Accreditation Subcommittee for the American Society for Radiation Oncology, where he supports national efforts to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology. Dr. Prah is committed to advancing the field through collaborative leadership, innovation, and education.</p><p>Dongxu Wang reports receiving an honorarium from Mevion Medical Systems, Inc., and a licensing fee payment from Ion Beam Applications, S.A.; neither is related to this work.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70185\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70185\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70185","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在美国,医学物理学家和医学剂量师在放射治疗中发挥着重要作用。自成立以来,医学剂量学专业主要侧重于制定治疗计划和相关临床任务。相比之下,医学物理学家参与治疗计划过程的情况更加多变,并且随着临床实践和专业期望的变化而不断发展。传统上,剂量师和物理学家之间最常见的合作模式包括物理学家作为二级审查员,确保剂量师完成初始治疗计划后的质量和安全。然而,随着现代放射治疗技术的日益复杂,要求更高的精确度、个性化和跨学科的协调,许多机构在招募有经验的治疗计划人员来处理复杂病例方面面临越来越大的挑战。对广泛的在职培训的需求,通常由高级剂量师提供,偶尔也由物理学家提供,给已经受到劳动力短缺影响的部门带来了额外的压力。这种情况提出了一个重要的问题:医学物理学家是否应该承担更正式的治疗计划者角色?这场辩论探讨了临床医学物理学家应该常规参与治疗计划过程的命题,而不仅仅是作为审稿人或技术顾问,而是作为与剂量师和放射肿瘤学家一起工作的积极贡献者。支持这一命题的物理学家是纪念斯隆凯特琳癌症中心的王东旭博士,而反对这一命题的物理学家是威斯康星医学院的道格拉斯·普拉博士。王东旭,博士,工商管理硕士,2011年获得美国威斯康星大学麦迪逊分校医学物理学博士学位。研究生毕业后,他加入爱荷华大学医院和诊所,担任教员物理学家。在爱荷华大学期间,他兼职学习,并于2019年获得工商管理硕士学位。他现在是纪念斯隆凯特琳癌症中心的副主治物理学家。王博士早期的专业知识和重点是质子治疗和质子成像。近年来,他积极运用案例研究法推进医学物理领导力和专业教育。Douglas Prah,博士,DABR,是董事会认证的医学物理学家,放射肿瘤学副教授,高级护理和amp;Froedtert &;威斯康辛医学院他在威斯康星医学院获得生物物理学博士学位,专攻辐射束建模、治疗计划以及将先进技术整合到临床工作流程中。Prah博士担任服务和技术实施与审查委员会主席,并监督整个企业的医疗剂量测定服务。他也是APEx测量员,并在美国放射肿瘤学学会的实践认证小组委员会任职,在那里他支持国家努力提高放射肿瘤学的质量和安全。普拉博士致力于通过协作领导、创新和教育推动该领域的发展。Dongxu Wang报告从Mevion Medical Systems, Inc.收取酬金,从Ion Beam Applications, S.A.收取许可费;两者都与这项工作无关。
Medical physicist should be a planner in the treatment planning process
In the United States, both medical physicists and medical dosimetrists play essential roles in radiotherapy. Since its inception, the profession of medical dosimetry has focused primarily on the creation of treatment plans and related clinical tasks. In contrast, the involvement of medical physicists in the treatment planning process has been more variable and continues to evolve as clinical practices and professional expectations shift. Traditionally, the most common model of collaboration between dosimetrists and physicists involves physicists serving as secondary reviewers, ensuring quality and safety after the dosimetrist has completed the initial treatment plan. However, with the increasing complexity of modern radiotherapy techniques, which demand greater precision, personalization, and interdisciplinary coordination, many institutions face growing challenges in recruiting experienced treatment planners capable of handling complex cases. The need for extensive on-the-job training, often provided by senior dosimetrists and occasionally by physicists, places additional strain on departments already affected by workforce shortages. This situation raises an important question: should medical physicists assume a more formalized role as treatment planners? This debate examines the proposition that clinical medical physicists should participate routinely in the treatment planning process, not merely as reviewers or technical advisors, but as active contributors working alongside dosimetrists and radiation oncologists. The faculty physicist arguing for the proposition is Dr. Dongxu Wang from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, while the faculty physicist arguing against the proposition is Dr. Douglas Prah from the Medical College of Wisconsin.
Dongxu Wang, PhD, MBA, received his PhD in Medical Physics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2011. After graduate school, he joined the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics as a faculty physicist. While at the University of Iowa, he studied part-time and received his master's degree in business administration (MBA) in 2019. He is now an Associate Attending Physicist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Wang's earlier expertise and focus were in proton therapy and proton imaging. Lately he is active in advancing medical physics leadership and professionalism education using the case study method.
Douglas Prah, PhD, DABR, is a board-certified medical physicist, Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology, and the Director of Advanced Care & Technology at Froedtert & the Medical College of Wisconsin. He earned his PhD in Biophysics from the Medical College of Wisconsin and specializes in radiation beam modeling, treatment planning, and integrating advanced technologies into clinical workflows. Dr. Prah chairs the Service and Technology Implementation and Review Committee and oversees medical dosimetry services across the enterprise. He is also an APEx Surveyor and serves on the Practice Accreditation Subcommittee for the American Society for Radiation Oncology, where he supports national efforts to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology. Dr. Prah is committed to advancing the field through collaborative leadership, innovation, and education.
Dongxu Wang reports receiving an honorarium from Mevion Medical Systems, Inc., and a licensing fee payment from Ion Beam Applications, S.A.; neither is related to this work.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic