Physics Medical Physics is an exciting field

[jonnylane]

Having been an occasional member of this forum for a while, I find myself dissapointed by the lack of discussion about medical physics. It really is an exciting field (I would say that...) and is usually totally shadowed by all of the other applications to physics. Space science and astronomy are great, but medical phyiscs is very down to Earth (forgive the pun) subject, and is a fascinating and rewarding career path. I personally work in Radiotherapy, but many other applications are available, and there is much research to be done in this importnat and fast expanding field.

Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/become-medical-physicist-3653-easy-steps/

 

[GENIERE]

I’m familiar with Radiotherapy from the bioengineering aspect and would agree that medical physics could be an exiting field. Besides the various positions in a hospital environment, there is also a bio-industry need. From my own experiences, working with a physician on a daily basis can be frustrating. Hospital politics is unique to say the least. The medical physicist, I think, would benefit from having an introductory circuit and mechanical design course included in their curriculum. Of course today’s world requires as much computer expertise as one can manage.

 

[Chi Meson]

As a teacher I would love to follow interesting threads on the lastest uses of physics in the medical realm. Lasers, MRIs, CAT scans, PET scans, ultrasound, etc etc... It seems that the most worthwile outcome of physics is in the medical applications. I see it as something to counter the stigma of "The Bomb."

 

[GENIERE]

Chi Meson – There is no artifact that lacks an underlying knowledge of physics in its creation. Actually all the devices you mention have been in use since the 1970’s, and the supporting physics known decades earlier. Imaging technologies owe their existence to the mathematical algorithms, programmers, and faster almost single chip computers (less expensive to manufacture) that became available then.

While PET produces an image of body metabolism it is not an anatomical image. The superimposing of its image with that of an MRI or a CT is really impressive. The early use of ultra sound in medicine was to precisely locate the pituitary gland as an aid to diagnosing a concussion. Visiting the NIH (1972), I met a pioneer in the field of ultrasound. He had PhD’s in physics, and engineering, a doctorate in medicine and looked to be less than 25 years old. To image with ultrasound the beam must be moved similar to an automobiles windshield wiper’s pattern. Then it was done mechanically. Now some 64 or more transponders are used with beam steering done by controlling the phase relationship of the sound pulses. This technology probably is derived from a process to direct the radar beam in military aircraft. I once toyed with a surgical laser. The device used a helium laser as an aiming beam (visible red) and an 80-watt, infrared CO2 laser for the knife. The beams were transmitted through an articulated arm and focused on a point several inches away. I removed the focusing optics, and using some other borrowed optics, I achieved a focal point about 10 feet away. I was able to burn tiny holes in IBM cards at that distance. I hid under a desk as I did this because I did not know if the IR beam would be focused using normal optics or if they would crack from the heat. Without any optics, it made the paint discolor on the ceiling. I always wondered what the painters thought about all those little round spots on the ceiling. Surgery is also done with high frequency electric currents. Tissue and muscle response to high frequency current is almost non-existent, whereas at 60hz there is a lot of twitching with a high probability of causing cardiac fibrillation. Hi currents are achieved at the surgical site by use of a very pointed instrument. Exit current density is kept low by using a large dispersing plate and conductive gel.

I could go on forever as there’s so much material.

 

[jonnylane]

I have to agree about hospital politics. I haven't been working in my current place of work very long and so try not to get involved, but it always ends up affecting you.

Although my work involves routine things; calibtrations of linacs used for RT, QA etc. I also involve myself in project work quite significantly. My dissertation for my degree for example involved 3D image registration via different algorithms when applied to MRI, CT and SPECT images. I am currently working on a gynae brachytherapy (insertion of radioactive sources to treat cancer of the ovaries and cervix) related-project, which is mainly programming at the moment.

When asked what my job is, people always wonder what possible application physics couild have to medicine. It's a very understaed profession.

Teachers could (and should!) throw in the odd comment about MP when teaching. It's very easy to come up with examples related to space science or televisions or other technology, but the first time I heard my own blood flowing in my neck (doppler ultrasound) I was instantly hooked, and wanted to know how it worked.

I don't think enough time is spent promoting physics and all of the things that it can be applied to. Lack of links with real-life applications leads to a lack of interest from students. The more applications they are exposed to, the better.

Ok, end of ranting.
Jonathan

 

[Chi Meson]

Originally posted by jonnylane
When asked what my job is, people always wonder what possible application physics couild have to medicine. It's a very understaed profession.

This is partly due to many physics teachers spending too much time on mechanics, never getting to heat, light, sound, and electricity. TO most of the country (US) Physics is associated with cars crashing, and cannonballs being fired off mountains. I always make a point of truncating mechanics as soon as we hit the halfway point. I'm thinking of ditching projectile motion completely because optics, sound, and thermodynamics seems to be more applicable.

So... legitimate question: what is that radioactive tracer that is injected into the blood, and what is the specific application? I remember it made my arm very cold.

 

[grady]

Originally posted by Chi Meson

So... legitimate question: what is that radioactive tracer that is injected into the blood, and what is the specific application? I remember it made my arm very cold.

It depends on which organ they were looking at. Different organs take up different chemicals better than others. ¹³¹I, ¹³²I, and ¹²³I are all used, but for instance ¹³¹I has a half-life of 8 days which is longer than any test will last so its more ideal to use ¹²³I. Different compounds containing these iodine isotopes can be taken up by different organs. There are other elements beside iodine that are used but I'm not familiar with them all. I think Tc is used also.


LSU ( where I go to school ) has a medical physics program. Here is their "links" page http://www.nuclear.lsu.edu/links.htm

 

[jonnylane]

You are absolutely right:

It really depends what the area of interest was in your body. Isotopes of Iodine are commonly used, especially for testing (and sometimes treating) thyroid gland function. Cr-51 also often used.

By far the most commonly used isotope, as you mention, is a metastable isotope of Tecnecium, Tc-99m. It is especially used in conjunction with gamma cameras since it offers the best overall tradeoff between the factors that make up the "ideal" medical isotope (shortbut usable halflife, fairly monoenergetic gammas with no betas or alphas, easily made etc.). It can also be bound to different molecules, and so can be sent to whichever bit of the body is required.

I've never had one, but have had a few beasty injections, and they were damn cold. It feels weird, I must admit.

Most people who have iodine usually have to drink it. By all accounts it just tastes like water. They should mix it with coke or something...

Jonathan

 

[grady]

Originally posted by jonnylane
By far the most commonly used isotope, as you mention, is a metastable isotope of Tecnecium, Tc-99m.

I wonder why ^99mTc has an "m" in the mass number. Does anyone know?

 

[jonnylane]

The m stands for metastable, as I mentioned in one of my above posts.

A metastable state is effectively a quantum mechanical energy state which has an unusual exited > ground relaxation process. I think it has something to do with a quantum number mismatch. Anyway, the basic effect is that the half-life changes. Tc-99 has a halflife of about 20000 years; Tc-99m has a half-life of around 6 hours.

It is produced via a radioisotope generator (we have one here in this hospital), the "parent" being Mo-99.

The generator is simply a big ol' shielded thing, in which Mo-99 is placed (it gets replenished periodically). It has a half life of about 3 days I think, and the daughter, Tc-99m, is flushed away from the core with saline, which can then be taken away for activity measurments before going into a patient. It needs to be made on site because it has such a short effictive lifetime; good for the patient, but creates transit problems.

Here in the hospital I work in, we supply about 4 other hospitals with the radioisotopes they need, genally on a daily basis. They are all a fairly short distance away, so they can be sent off in the early hours and used that day.

I don't actually work in radioisotopes (I did last summer for a few months at a different hospital); I work in radiotherapy, so please forgive any mistakes in the information.

Jonathan

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

In my watching of TV I recall having seen the first of the images, made by a PET scan, of the active dynamics of the Human brain, at work. I suspect that, since then, they have changed the radioisotope employed, as the original one was a dual photon(*) emitter and it was not the "safest" but the dynamic pictures of the brain, actively thinking, were really neat to watch, and does it ever act fast.
(*)(They used a dual positron(?) or photon(?) emitter which they later found out had some rather not so nice side effects)

Do they still have the ability to generate active (visually real time dynamic) brain scans using PET's?

 

[jonnylane]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Do they still have the ability to generate active (visually real time dynamic) brain scans using PET's?

Absolutely. I don't know a great deal about it, but I know that it is particularly useful in cardiac monitoring. They commonly use Rb-82 as the radioisotope. I don't know about the brain application.

PET is chiefly used to monitor function an metabolism, as opposed to anatomy. You can guess this just by looking at a PET scan because it looks vaugely like what you would expect but with very poor resolution.

The process is actually very interesting: The radioisotope decays into (among other things) an unstable positron, which travels for a short distance before destructing into a photon pair, which in turn travel in opposite directions (to conform to the conservation of energy).

The dectector array design is very clever because it utilises this fact in order to create the 3D image (it knows where the destruction has taken place because of comparison of time of flights for the photons).

Interestingly, the lack of resolution is mainly due to the short distance traveled by the positron before it destructs.

SPECT scans are similar, but I'm sure you can guess what the 'S' stands for...

Jonathan

Who wants a medical physics forum on this site? Meeeeeee!

 

[Fullhawking]

I enjoy mechanics and things of this nature. It is really easy to forget the other branches of physics like the medical field. ATB for starting a thread on it. Medical physics has lead to great devices like the MRI. IMO it is among the most interesting devices in physics only topped by tesla coils and particle accelerators. Anyway, besides the hair raising name like Magnetic Resonance Imaging, it has really aided in the diagnosis of ailments which is never a bad thing.

 

[jonnylane]

MRI is indeed very clever.

One great expereince that always sticks in my mind about MR is when I was in my first year undergrad. My MRI/CT lecturer took me (I was the only one on my course!) to the hospital, the very one at which I now work, to show me the MR scanners. There are 2, one 1T machine and one 1.5T machine, which I'm sure you all know is a rather strong magnet. I had to remove all metal from my person and fill out a form about pacemakers and past surgery as well.

He showed me the hidden bits of the machine, such as the liquid He cooling system and the power generator. Then he took me into the room, taking out of his pocket a pair of scissors on a piece of string. I swear that thing lept up and pointed at the core of the scanner, and the string was pulled tight (and twangable). Next he took out a paperclip and told me to hold it in my hand. I then put my hand into the scanner, and it squirmed insode my hand and was twisted beyond recognition.

The images we gain from MRI these days are very high definition, and you can pick out individual cross sections of small veins and the like. It is invaluable in oncology and diagnosis of many nerve and brain disesases like multiple sclerosis and alzheimers disease.

What I do remember is that it was also the hardest and most complicated medical physics module I studied. Very intersting, but applied quantum mechanics and Fourier transforms made for a daunting combination.

Jonathan

 

[renedox]

Personally, I enjoy mechanics because it has helped me many times in everyday life.

Medical Physics is what I'd like to read up/study a bit sometime but I think I'm more into the Physics that will be "seen"/used in everyday life. Every once too often, I will indulge in the Philosophical/Theoritical side of Physics but to be quite honest, haven't looked too deeply into the medical side of things. While I plan to, it doesn't seem quite as interesting to me. Maybe you can prove me wrong?

So, with you being in the medical industry, what is the most effective cure for cancer?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by renedox
(SNIP)[/color] So, with you being in the medical industry, what is the most effective cure for cancer? (SNoP)[/color]

Prevention, and sorry, I realize the question isn't meant for me, but having some little knowledge on the subjects, I thought.
(And "no" it isn't a joke, either)

 

[jonnylane]

No problem, it's a forum. Your opinion and knowledge is valued.

I ahve to agree with Mr. R.P, because ultimately that's right. Unfortunately there are many cancers for which this is not possible. A lot of cancer conditions are unrelated to lifestyle, and so some people are just unlucky.

As for the best treatment for cancer? I'm a physicist, not an oncology doctor, so I'm not in a position to answer that, especially since chemotherapy plays an important part in cancer treatment: this of course has nothing to do with medical physics.

It also depends on the type of cancer. There are several forms of radiotherapy, each having different pros and cons for different cancers in different parts of the body.

Unfortunatley, many patients receive radiotherapy with no hope of ever being cured; the treatment is simply prolonging life or pain management. These cases are always the hardest to work with because you know (and they know) that they do not have long to live. It's a matter of making them comfortable and maximising the time they have left.

On the other hand, you can be impaired by a patients wishes. Just last week, a patient with Hodgkins disease (a type of brain cancer) was admitted to us. She is only 20 years old, and refuses stright up to lose her hair. She went on an unusual course of chemotherapy to prevent hair loss, knowing it would make her sterile, which it did. She now has the choice (radiotherapy) of 95% survival with 80% hair loss, or certain death (within 15 years or so) with no hair loss. I'm not kidding. It's maddening to see things like that. A total waste of life just because she doesn't want to lose her hair.

Jonathan

 

[renedox]

A life for a bunch of hair?! Thats rediculus.

There was this thing we learned in Physics last year, that you can fire an (electromagnetic) beam from three different places concentrating on one are of the brain to get of a brain tumour. Can't quite remember what it was though.

Gamma rays?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by renedox
There was this thing we learned in Physics last year, that you can fire an (electromagnetic) beam from three different places concentrating on one are of the brain to get of a brain tumour. Can't quite remember what it was though.
Gamma rays?

Know someone that that was performed upon, as experimentation, (Stereotactic was what it was called then) "cured" (rather stopped the growth, killed the tumor) the cancer, but left the person in, well, not the best of 'living' realities.
My Dad Died of cancer, lung then brain, and given that it is genetically based and very idiosyncratic, "curing" cancer seems a little bit of a misnomer as it is a part of the systems built in protection(s) just with an 'error' in place.
As for the hair part, did something like that when I was younger, twice actually, shaved my head bald to see if I had the strength of character to live like that, it was interesting.

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by jonnylane
Having been an occasional member of this forum for a while, I find myself dissapointed by the lack of discussion about medical physics. It really is an exciting field (I would say that...) and is usually totally shadowed by all of the other applications to physics. Space science and astronomy are great, but medical phyiscs is very down to Earth (forgive the pun) subject, and is a fascinating and rewarding career path. I personally work in Radiotherapy, but many other applications are available, and there is much research to be done in this importnat and fast expanding field.

Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?

Hi Jonathan. I'm wicked glad you brought this up. At the moment I'm trying to get into the field. I'm educated as a physicist and due to my recent bout with cancer I've been wanting to get into the field you're in. In particular I'd like to get into Radiological Oncology, but I'm flexible. I'm up for a position as a dosimetrist (waiting for second interview) and am crossing my fingers.

Any pointers you can give me to get into the field would be greatly appreciated.

Pete

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Prevention, and sorry, I realize the question isn't meant for me, but having some little knowledge on the subjects, I thought.
(And "no" it isn't a joke, either)

Some cancers cannot be prevented. I have Leukemia and there is no known cause of all case (some are caused by radiation and others are caused by benzene exposure) of it and no way to prevent it from happening.

Chemo worked for me and bone marrow transplants work for others when coupled with chemo.

Pete

 

[pmb]

A total waste of life just because she doesn't want to lose her hair.

Geeze! That's pretty sad. I knew I was going to loose all my hair and was not fond of the idea at all. However when it started to fall out reall bad I just got a crew cut. It wasn't as bad as I thought I'd be to be honest. Then again I'm a guy. It's worse for women. But to trade that off for life is pretty silly.

In fact I think my worst mistake during the whole thing was not to get the crew cut right off the bat. Slowly loosing it and trying to hope to keep it was more painful than it was worth. Watching your hair fall out slowly is a horrible thing to have to go through. If a next time comes then off to the barber shop for that crew cut. Who knows? Maybe I'll dye my hair pink just for fun first.

Pmb

 

[jonnylane]

Multi beam radiotherapy is in common use. You can use more than one beam to maximise the dose to the tumour and minimise the dose to other areas.

Grrr... I just wrote a massive post and clicked the back button accidentally, so my response is a bit short. If anybody is still interested in multi-beam treatment I'll write some more.

Any pointers you can give me to get into the field would be greatly appreciated.

Hi Pete. Glad to see some interest in the field, though I am amazed at how many responses I've had to my initial post.

I take it from your location that you are from the USA. I'm from UK, so I don't know a great deal about your system over there (although I did apply for a PhD there at one point). Here in UK we have a postgraduate training scheme. Graduates with a degree in physics can apply, and the training consists of an intense 1 year MSc and 15 months hospital training in fields you choose.

I have taken a rather rocky route through the system (its a long story). My degree was in medical physics anyway, but I took up (unpaid) voluntary work experience for 3 months during my degree (over a summer) I learned a lot, and I applied for the training scheme shortly after. The main thing was the experience, and of course getting to know people in the field and getting a reference. I now work in oncology/medical physics in radiotherapy.

The situation in this country is that there is a country wide shortage of physicsists who want to go into the medical side. I got my place and experience by applying to as many hospitals as possible. I was prepared to work for free, and I did. It was hard, but the experience, and that "foot in the door" was invaluable.

With it being such a small field, the phsyicists country wide oftern know each other through conferences and the like, so word gets passed around through the community. Within months of my work experience, people were writing to ME and asking me to work for them, even before I had finished my degree. I was very lucky.

So, good luck for the job. If you don't get it, don't worry. Start writing to a few hospitals in your area and tell them your situation. Tell them you have an interest and make sure they know your skills. There is always project work going on in medphys, and a helping hand is always very useful for any hospital. If (last resort) they tell you that they can't afford to take you on, and you can afford it and don't mind doing it, tell them you are willing to work for free or just travel expenses or something. As I said, working for 3 months for nothing was hard, but it was very valuable and worthwhile.

If you want any more information, especially about the radiation/radiotherapy side of things, just let me know. Best of luck with the job; let me know how it goes on:

johnathan.lane@uhl-tr.nhs.uk

Jonathan

 

[renedox]

Originally posted by jonnylane
Grrr... I just wrote a massive post and clicked the back button accidentally, so my response is a bit short. If anybody is still interested in multi-beam treatment I'll write some more.

lol don't be angry you clicked the back button, be happy for it tells you that you are still human :)

And yes, I would like to know more about the multi-beam treatment. Somewhere in your explination, you could include the "scientific" or "actual" term for it? That is of course, if "multi-beam treatment" isn't its actual term. :D

 

[jonnylane]

The term you are looking for is Conformal Beam Therapy (CBT). It was in the original post, but I omitted it in my (very!) condensed version of the explanation of using more than one beam.

The treatment is planned using complex software that models how the radiation passes through tissue and how it contributes to the total dose at any particular point. This information is turned into a sort of 3D contour map (isodosimetry curves), allowing the treatment planner to see which areas of the anatomy are receiving what doses; the aim being to maximse dose to the cancer and minimise the dose to healthy tissue, especially radiosensitive areas such as the spinal cord, the optic nerve and reproductives.

The contours can be altered by using various techniques, which include using a device known as a multi leafed collimator, allowing the alteration of the planar shape of the beam. The other main technique is the use of metal wedges to alter the beam profile e.g. to make the beam "stronger" at one side than the other. Beam shaping is very important and makes radiotherapy a very versitile tool in oncology.

Conformal beam therapy is commonly used these days; in fact, I know of few cases where a single beam is used. The technique, although complicated, saves a lot of damage to healty tissue.

Jonathan

 

[jono]

eek. New email = havoc. Totally messed up my account here. Now have new user name, but the same avatar.

Whoops..

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by jonnylane

Just last week, a patient with Hodgkins disease (a type of brain cancer) was admitted to us.

That is incorrect. Hodgkin's disease, aka Hodgkin's lyphoma, is a cancer of the lymphatic system.


See
http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/wyntk/hodgkins#2
http://www.lymphomainfo.net/hodgkins/description.html

Pete

 

[jono]

You are of course right. In the meeting last week, the girl in question had a tumour just at the base of her brain. I assumed that hodgkins was a brain cancer, since almost all head-neck cancers we have are brain cancers.

Apologies again; I'm not a medical doctor.

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by jono
You are of course right. In the meeting last week, the girl in question had a tumour just at the base of her brain. I assumed that hodgkins was a brain cancer, since almost all head-neck cancers we have are brain cancers.

Apologies again; I'm not a medical doctor.

We live and learn! :-)

Its very sad that the girl chose to try to save her hair. When I look back I can't believe that I was so worried about it. It was nothing. The only trauma is knowing you'll lose your hair. The actuallyt loosing of the hair isn't that bad. I got tired of my hair following out so I got a crew cut. It was nothing.

I can't believe that girl choose hair over health. Especially since it's so temporary. And now she's sterile? Very very very sad.

Here is something which I think is very true. Pass it on to those whom you meet who face fear during their fight with cancer

From --
http://www.usmc.mil/almars/almar2000.n sf/d50a617f5ac75ae085256856004f3afc/667caa5642a0eeff85256a55005e1462?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,fear

Courage is not the absence of fear, but is our personal assessmenet that something else is more important than fear which confronts us.
...
Courage is the determination to make the best effort of whatevery circumstances you find yourself in ... regardless of the cost.

C.C. Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps.

For those of you who get cancer in the future - pay the cost of temporarily losing your hair. The possible benefits far out weigh what will later appear to you as a very small sacrifice. Especially since your hair grows right back. The alternative is not worth it.

Pete

 

[jono]

I know what you mean. The initial shock for me was the fact that she chose sterility over proper treatment.And then to die, voluntarily.

The hospital workers that I feel for in these situations are the nurses. They have to comfort the patients and spend all day dealing with them. I'm lucky; I am only exposed to special cases. All other patints are just a name and a CT scan. Not very personal, but it's my job.

Jonathan

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by jono
I know what you mean. The initial shock for me was the fact that she chose sterility over proper treatment.And then to die, voluntarily.

The hospital workers that I feel for in these situations are the nurses. They have to comfort the patients and spend all day dealing with them. I'm lucky; I am only exposed to special cases. All other patints are just a name and a CT scan. Not very personal, but it's my job.

Jonathan

She's really going to die

May I suggest something? If you can - suggest that she visit the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's Discussion Board. Maybe they can talk some sense into her.

She just goes to http://www.leukemia.org/ and clicks on "Discussion Boards"

Or she can call them and asl to talk to someone who has been in her situation. They have what's called a 1-to-1 program for this. Tell it to her nurses and maybe it might help.

Pete

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

At least there is a respect of the right to choose for oneself, even if we personally wouldn't have nessecarily choosen that pathway. Let's all hope that the suffering(s) are minimal.

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
At least there is a respect of the right to choose for oneself, even if we personally wouldn't have nessecarily choosen that pathway. Let's all hope that the suffering(s) are minimal.

That is very true. I was taken aback when I heard this and may have over reacted. I don't like to judge unless I've walked in their shoes. And I have never been a 20 year old girl with cancer.

And to be honest - I'm not 100% sure what I'd do if my AML came back. That is nasty stuff to go through and I'm not sure if I'd have that fight in me. I think I do but wouldn't know for sure unless it actually happened.

Pete

 

[jono]

Yes, a very fair point.

For whatever reason, treatment can always be refused. It is, however, very unusual in a situation (such as this) where the treatment will invariably lead to total recovery.

It's difficult to conceive making such a decision without being faced with the situation oneself; a situation I have never found myself in.

The chemo/radiotherapy process is daunting and unpleasant. I feel for the patients that have to go through it.

 

[jono]

I have found a medical physics students forum. It's fr AAPM, an american association, but they're nice people. It isn't very active, so I'm trying to spread the word around to get it going. Take a look if you are interested.

http://www.aapmstudents.com/forum/index.php?

Jonathan

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by jono
I have found a medical physics students forum. It's fr AAPM, an american association, but they're nice people. It isn't very active, so I'm trying to spread the word around to get it going. Take a look if you are interested.

http://www.aapmstudents.com/forum/index.php?

Jonathan

Thanks. That's awesome! I just joined.

Tell me - is it possible to get into the medical physics field with just a BA?

Pete

 

[jono]

I can't speak for the USA, but here in the UK you can't work as a physicist without an MSc and accredited training. It's known as "grade A",and is run by IPEM (www.ipem.co.uk)

I (being the only exception I know of), on the other hand, have a BSc and am a physicist, albeit a new one. I had some experience, and there is a staff shortage, so they made an exception. I am studying my MSc part time.

I was put on a probationary 6 week period (on pretty poor pay) to see if I was up to the job. I was deemed to be, so they offered me a proper salary and a fully funded MSc and a training period after that.
Basically, I have worked hard and have been very lucky to be in the right place at the right time.

Experience and higher education are important, but the hospitals in this country mainly look for evidence of interest and committment to the field.

Just try to get involved in things, read up on some medphys topics, learn the basics of how things work, and then you should be armed with knowledge and evidence of interest when it comes to approaching places about getting a job.

I've only just joined that forum as well: take a look at my recent post to see what I'm working on at the moment.

For any more advice, don't hesitate to ask. I'm glad to see people interested in what I consider to be a very worhwhile application of physics.

Jonathan

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by jono
I can't speak for the USA, but here in the UK you can't work as a physicist without an MSc and accredited training. It's known as "grade A",and is run by IPEM (www.ipem.co.uk)

I assume that you mean that you can't work in the medical-physics field with without an MSc right? It's not like you can't find a job in your country with just a BS right?

re - applications of physics to medicine

If I could do just one thing with physics in the medical field before I left this life then I'd like to find a way to do a bone marrow biopsy which does not give the patient such an enourmous amount of pain. That pain is one of the traumatizing things about fighting Leukemia. I never reached pain levels that high before this roller coaster started. And during a one year period I had to have 8 of them.

Any thoughts folks?

Pmb

 

[jono]

Originally posted by pmb
I assume that you mean that you can't work in the medical-physics field with without an MSc right? It's not like you can't find a job in your country with just a BS right?

You can work in the field with just a BSc or BA, but not as a physicist. You can be a technician or research assisstant. Most physicists are expected to to a PhD at some point, and are often encouraged to do post-doc research. Many are part time lecturers at universities as well.

Bone marrow biopsies are particularly unpleasant, as you mention. I also find lumbar punctures pretty awful.

Jonathan

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by jono
You can work in the field with just a BSc or BA, but not as a physicist. You can be a technician or research assisstant. Most physicists are expected to to a PhD at some point, and are often encouraged to do post-doc research. Jonathan

That's interesting. It isn't like that in the US. But that's all titles. For example: To get a job as a dosimetrist here you need at least a BA/BS in physics. But the title of the job is not physicits but dosimetrist.

Did you know that Einstein didn't officially have his PhD when he published relativity and other stuff in 1905?

In fact the work which won him the Nobel prize is the work done before he had a PhD. Way to go Al!

Pete

 

[jono]

A dosimetrist here is a specialist technician. Technicians are actualy known as MTO's, medical technical officers. You don't actaully need a BSc to be a MTO (although it helps); you can begin as an ATO (assisstant technical officer) and progress to MTO through experience.

Jonathan

 

[Tiro]

I am an Indian Student interested in pursuing my Masters in Medical Physics.Am a novice to this field since my undergraduation was in the field of computer science.Can anyone tell me the groundwork I should be doing to be on par with the science students?

 

[imabug]

Thanks. That's awesome! I just joined.

Tell me - is it possible to get into the medical physics field with just a BA?

Pete

It isn't easy to get a medical physics related job with a Bachelor's level degree. There just isn't very much demand for it aside from in the dosimetry and radiation therapy technician areas

Board certification in a medical physics field (diagnostic, therapy, nuclear medicine) by either the American Board of Radiology or http://www.acmp.org currently requires a minimum of a Master's degree in one of the physical sciences (preferably Physics or some related Engineering discipline) and 3 years of experience in the field. In the near future it will also require completion of a CAMPEP accredited medical physics residency program. Then you will be able to call yourself a medical physicist. As of 2001, certifications by either board have a 10 year limit, during which you are expected to obtain a certain number of continuing education credits of various forms in order to maintain certification.

There are similar requirements to become board certified to call yourself a health physicist too.

 

[imabug]

I am an Indian Student interested in pursuing my Masters in Medical Physics.Am a novice to this field since my undergraduation was in the field of computer science.Can anyone tell me the groundwork I should be doing to be on par with the science students?

you should at least have most of the physics courses taken at the undergraduate level (mechanics, EM, thermo, modern physics, nuclear physics). You will need a good background in EM and circuitry. Plenty of math. Calculus (at least 2 years), linear algebra, statistics, differential equations.

Medical physicists typically end up being something of a jack of all trades, so they need to know a little bit about everything, and be able to quickly learn how to use lots of things.

That is my perspective on some of the things you will need.

 

[reyg1080]

what are my chances of getting into a medical phyics masters program with a BS in Physics and Math minor?

 

[mikemarino87]

Having been an occasional member of this forum for a while, I find myself dissapointed by the lack of discussion about medical physics.
Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?

hey I'm interested in possibly pursuing a career in medical physics... but was wondering about a few things:
1. what jobs are available for someone with a masters in medical physics? (just name a few)
2. what are the actual job titles that i would be researching?
3. what are some schools around the north east where i can study?
4. do i have to be licensed/certified to work in NJ?

anyone that can help, it is greatly appreciated
thanks michael

 

[turbo]

hey I'm interested in possibly pursuing a career in medical physics... but was wondering about a few things:
1. what jobs are available for someone with a masters in medical physics? (just name a few)
2. what are the actual job titles that i would be researching?
3. what are some schools around the north east where i can study?
4. do i have to be licensed/certified to work in NJ?

anyone that can help, it is greatly appreciated
thanks michael

I used to work for an ophthalmic practice as a network administrator, and for some reason the doctors managing the practice took the attitude that if they had a problem with something that was high-tech (or beyond them anyway) they would pass it off to me. There are a lot of really pricey non-invasive surgical procedures that are done with lasers and when those lasers would start to drift out of calibration, sometimes they would ask me to re-calibrate them instead of getting a pro to come up from Boston. In the case of the big surgical lasers used for retinal procedures, I would just perform checks on the power draw, cycle time, etc. In the case of the smaller lasers that were used to zap stuff in the anterior portion of the eye, I would calibrate the converging aiming beams and ensure that the laser's power was directed at the aim-point. I'd make a target out of copy paper to track the calibration. Every actuation of the laser (at high enough power levels) resulted in a "snap" and a neat little hole in the target.

There are valuable positions in the medical field for engineers/technicians. You have to do some research to figure out where you might want to work. I gave my examples because laser surgery is a really high-billing field in ophthalmology and if the lasers crap out, the doctors running the practice freak out. They don't mind paying you $$$$ to fix the machines, because they are losing much more in receivables if they don't have their machines. Just a thought.

Edit: If you want to do this kind of stuff full-time, you'll have to hook up with the companies that manufacture and/or service surgical lasers, get very equipment-dependent training, and be prepared to be deployed (within reason) anywhere there is equipment that is malfunctioning. Working in support of ophthalmic surgery is a pretty secure field and pretty high-paying, in large part because maintaining a patient's vision is seen (by the insurance companies and by the general populace) as a very high priority.

 

[Choppy]

1. what jobs are available for someone with a masters in medical physics? (just name a few)
2. what are the actual job titles that i would be researching?
3. what are some schools around the north east where i can study?
4. do i have to be licensed/certified to work in NJ?

1. There are lots of jobs available in medical physics to qualified personnel. Generally speaking a master's degree is the minimum needed to get into the field these days. Ideally, you want a Ph.D. from a CAMPEP-accredited program followed by a CAMPEP-accredited residency to be competative for the most desirable jobs. There is some talk about moving towards a "Doctor of Medical Physics" degree, but to my knowledge it has not yet been invoked.

2. The job title is "medical physicist."

3. http://www.campep.org/campeplstgrad.asp

4. Certification requirements vary and even if you don not require certification now, there is a good chance this could change of the next few years (ie. while you're getting your degree) so it's best to aim for certification with an organisation like the American Board of Radiology (ABR).

 

[lars30]

Does anyone here know anything about transitioning into medical physics from nuclear physics? I am finishing a PhD in experimental nuclear physics and recently became very interested in medical physics, specifically radiation oncology.

 

[alexofander]

I'm currently in my third year of undergrad in the US looking to go on to grad school, but I'm not exactly sure what direction to go in. I've read this entire thread and found it very interesting. Is there a place to read articles about medical physics so that I could get a better idea of what medical physics entails?

Also, I looked for programs in the US and noticed that some are CAMPEP accredited and others aren't. If I go to a program that's not accredited will I not be able to find a job after I graduate?