W R Hendee

Mayo Clinic - Rochester, Рочестер, Minnesota, United States

Are you W R Hendee?

Claim your profile

Publications (180)560.15 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Writing and Reviewing Papers for Medical Physics There is an art to writing a scientific paper so that it communicates accurately, succinctly, and comprehensively. Developing this art comes with experience, and sharing that experience with younger physicists is an obligation of senior scientists, especially those with editorial responsibilities for the journal. In this workshop, the preparation of a scientific manuscript will be dissected so participants can appreciate how each part is developed and then assembled into a complete paper. Then the review process for the paper will be discussed, including how to examine a paper and write an insightful and constructive review. Finally, we will consider the challenge of accommodating the concerns and recommendations of a reviewer in preparing a revision of the paper. A second feature of the workshop will be a discussion of the process of electronic submission of a paper for consideration by Medical Physics. The web‐based PeerX‐Press engine for manuscript submission and management will be examined, with attention to special features such as epaps and line‐referencing. Finally, new features of Medical Physics will be explained, such as Vision 20/20 manuscripts, Physics Letters and the standardized formatting of book reviews. Learning Objectives: 1. Improve the participants' abilities to write a scientific manuscript. 2. Understand the review process for Medical Physics manuscripts and how to participate in and benefit from it. 3. Appreciate the many features of the PeerX‐Press electronic management process for Medical Physics manuscripts. 4. Develop a knowledge of new features of Medical Physics.
    Medical Physics 06/2013; 40(6):451. DOI:10.1118/1.4815445 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • William R Hendee
    Radiology 05/2013; 267(2):326-7. DOI:10.1148/radiol.13130567 · 6.21 Impact Factor
  • William Hendee
    Australasian physical & engineering sciences in medicine / supported by the Australasian College of Physical Scientists in Medicine and the Australasian Association of Physical Sciences in Medicine 03/2013; 36(1). DOI:10.1007/s13246-013-0192-2 · 0.85 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article summarizes the proceedings of a portion of the Radiation Dose Summit, which was organized by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering and held in Bethesda, Maryland, in February 2011. The current understandings of ways to optimize the benefit-risk ratio of computed tomography (CT) examinations are summarized and recommendations are made for priority areas of research to close existing gaps in our knowledge. The prospects of achieving a submillisievert effective dose CT examination routinely are assessed. © RSNA, 2012.
    Radiology 09/2012; 265(2):544-54. DOI:10.1148/radiol.12112201 · 6.21 Impact Factor
  • Medical Physics 08/2012; 39(8):5302-3. DOI:10.1118/1.4737908 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • William R Hendee, Michael K O'Connor
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: During the past few years, several articles have appeared in the scientific literature that predict thousands of cancers and cancer deaths per year in the U.S. population caused by medical imaging procedures that use ionizing radiation. These predictions are computed by multiplying small and highly speculative risk factors by large populations of patients to yield impressive numbers of "cancer victims." The risk factors are acquired from the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report without attention to the caveats about their use presented in the BEIR VII report. The principal data source for the risk factors is the ongoing study of survivors of the Japanese atomic explosions, a population of individuals that is greatly different from patients undergoing imaging procedures. For the purpose of risk estimation, doses to patients are converted to effective doses, even though the International Commission on Radiological Protection warns against the use of effective dose for epidemiologic studies or for estimation of individual risks. To extrapolate cancer incidence to doses of a few millisieverts from data greater than 100 mSv, a linear no-threshold model is used, even though substantial radiobiological and human exposure data imply that it is not an appropriate model. The predictions of cancers and cancer deaths are sensationalized in electronic and print public media, resulting in anxiety and fear about medical imaging among patients and parents. Not infrequently, patients are anxious about a scheduled imaging procedure because of articles they have read in the public media. In some cases, medical imaging examinations may be delayed or deferred as a consequence, resulting in a much greater risk to patients than that associated with imaging examinations. © RSNA, 2012.
    Radiology 08/2012; 264(2):312-21. DOI:10.1148/radiol.12112678 · 6.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2009, the AAPM formally adapted a Code of Ethics for its' members based on the recommendations of Task Group 109. The intention of the code is to provide a set of ethical principles to members and affiliates to help guide them to behave in an ethically professional manner with respect to patients, colleagues and the general public. Although the principles are not law, it is expected that as professionals, we would honor and respect them. However, even the best intentioned may find themselves at one time or another in a moral gray zone, and feel that these principles or their application to a specific scenario may be open for interpretation.During this two hour panel session, medical physics experts in the area of education, ethics, professionalism, and research will discuss ethical scenarios and their interpretation of the TG 109 report with respect to these scenarios. The panel will be moderated by the chair of the Ethics Committee, Chris Serago. Several of the scenarios will be based on anonymized responses from the survey on Ethics and Professionalism in Medical Physics circulated by the AAPM to its members in February 2012.Learning Objectives:1. Discuss the meaning of ethics and professionalism.2. Review AAPM Code of Ethics.3. Discuss ethical scenarios and interpretations of AAPM Code of Ethics with respect to these scenarios.
    Medical Physics 06/2012; 39(6):3935. DOI:10.1118/1.4736058 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is an art to writing a scientific paper so that it communicates accurately, succinctly, and comprehensively. Developing this art comes with experience, and sharing that experience with younger physicists is an obligation of senior scientists, especially those with editorial responsibilities for the journal. In this workshop, the preparation of a scientific manuscript will be dissected so participants can appreciate how each part is developed and then assembled into a complete paper. Then the review process for the paper will be discussed, including how to examine a paper and write an insightful and constructive review. Finally, we will consider the challenge of accommodating the concerns and recommendations of a reviewer in preparing a revision of the paper. A second feature of the workshop will be a discussion of the process of electronic submission of a paper for consideration by Medical Physics. The web-based PeerX-Press engine for manuscript submission and management will be examined, with attention to special features such as epaps and line-referencing. Finally, new features of Medical Physics will be explained, such as Vision 20/20 manuscripts, Physics Letters and the standardized formatting of book reviews.Learning Objectives:1. Improve the participants' abilities to write a scientific manuscript.2. Understand the review process for Medical Physics manuscripts and how to participate in and benefit from it.3. Appreciate the many features of the PeerX-Press electronic management process for Medical Physics manuscripts.4. Develop a knowledge of new features of Medical Physics.
    Medical Physics 06/2012; 39(6):3963. DOI:10.1118/1.4736172 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 04/2012; 9(4):290-2. DOI:10.1016/j.jacr.2011.12.034
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health care disciplines have always held resolutely to a commitment to professionalism and high ethical standards. With the present emphasis on public accountability, professionalism and ethics are receiving enhanced attention in health care education and practice. A challenge for radiologists, radiation oncologists, and medical physicists is to define the scope and depth of knowledge about professionalism and ethics that are necessary for the practice of the disciplines. A further challenge is to develop accessible educational materials that encompass this required knowledge. About 2 years ago, the ABR Foundation decided to address these challenges through the development of an ethics and professionalism curriculum and production of a series of Web-based educational modules that follow the curriculum. Six organizations agreed initially to contribute financially to construction of the curriculum and modules and were later joined by a seventh. The curriculum was developed by the ABR Foundation and included in a request for proposals that was widely distributed. Teams of authors for each of 10 modules were selected from respondents to the request for proposals. As the modules were developed, they were reviewed in 3 successive stages, including peer review by members of the ACR Committee on Professionalism and the RSNA-ACR Task Force on an Ethics Curriculum. After revisions were prepared in response to the reviews, the modules were translated into a format compatible with the e-learning platform on which they are mounted. The modules are now available to all who wish to study them.
    Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 03/2012; 9(3):170-3. DOI:10.1016/j.jacr.2011.11.014
  • Anthony B Wolbarst, William R Hendee
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This letter suggests a formalism, the medical effective dose (MED), that is suitable for assessing stochastic radiogenic risks in diagnostic medical procedures. The MED is derived from radiobiological and probabilistic first principals, including: (1) The independence of radiation-induced biological effects in neighboring voxels at low doses; (2) the linear no-threshold assumption for stochastic radiation injury (although other dose-response relationships could be incorporated, instead); (3) the best human radiation dose-response data currently available; and (4) the built-in possibility that the carcinogenic risk to an irradiated organ may depend on its volume. The MED involves a dose-risk summation over irradiated voxels at high spatial resolution; it reduces to the traditional effective dose when every organ is irradiated uniformly and when the dependence of risk on organ volumes is ignored. Standard relative-risk tissue weighting factors can be used with the MED approach until more refined data become available. The MED is intended for clinical and phantom dosimetry, and it provides an estimate of overall relative radiogenic stochastic risk for any given dose distribution. A result of the MED derivation is that the stochastic risk may increase with the volume of tissue (i.e., the number of cells) irradiated, a feature that can be activated when forthcoming radiobiological research warrants it. In this regard, the MED resembles neither the standard effective dose (E) nor the CT dose index (CTDI), but it is somewhat like the CT dose-length product (DLP). The MED is a novel, probabilistically and biologically based means of estimating stochastic-risk-weighted doses associated with medical imaging. Built in, ab initio, is the ability to link radiogenic risk to organ volume and other clinical factors. It is straightforward to implement when medical dose distributions are available, provided that one is content, for the time being, to accept the relative tissue weighting factors published by the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP). It requires no new radiobiological data and avoids major problems encountered by the E, CTDI, and CT-E formalisms. It makes possible relative inter-patient dosimetry, and also realistic intercomparisons of stochastic risks from different protocols that yield images of comparable quality.
    Medical Physics 12/2011; 38(12):6654-8. DOI:10.1118/1.3660592 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • William R. Hendee
    Radiological Society of North America 2011 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; 11/2011
  • Source
    W Hendee
    Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 10/2011; 7(4):e29. DOI:10.2349/biij.7.4.e29
  • William R Hendee
    Medical Physics 09/2011; 38(9):i. DOI:10.1118/1.3636414 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    William Hendee
    Medical Physics 05/2011; 38(5):2311-2. DOI:10.1118/1.3581376 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • Medical Physics 01/2011; 38(6):3794-. DOI:10.1118/1.3613280 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medical physics is experiencing profound changes, including some with an unpredictable impact on the professional, educational, and scientific aspects of the profession. Impending requirements for professional certification, increased sub‐specialization, and greater emphasis on the monetary benefits of a clinical career are among the changes that place future medical physics research in jeopardy, with a potential diminution in the innovation and creativity that have been the hallmark of progress leading to improvements in patient care over the past 50 years. The President's Symposium focuses on the research challenges and opportunities confronting the medical physics profession. A historical review shows how research has been a key factor in the evolution, expansion, and enhanced stature of medical physics in health care delivery. For young investigators contemplating a research career, challenges include the increasingly competitive environment for research funding, difficulties in balancing research versus clinical training in order to be eligible for professional certification, the lure of more stable employment with higher remuneration in the clinical setting, and an uncertain market for medical physicists desiring research careers. Research opportunities in medical physics are presented as a desirable component of medical physicseducational programs. The balance of research, didactic education and clinical training in a medical physicist's education needs careful delineation. The assimilation of Ph.D. graduate and post‐doctoral students into educational programs and the practice of medical physics are explored in terms of possible pathways, such as combined clinical and research degree programs and residencies. Finally, the challenge of sustaining research amidst the challenges of clinical and professional duties is discussed. Brief presentations by the speakers will be followed by audience discussion.
    Medical Physics 01/2011; 38(6):3708. DOI:10.1118/1.3612903 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • William R Hendee, Michael G Herman
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Beginning in the 1990s, and emphasized in 2000 with the release of an Institute of Medicine report, healthcare providers and institutions have dedicated time and resources to reducing errors that impact the safety and well-being of patients. But in January 2010 the first of a series of articles appeared in the New York Times that described errors in radiation oncology that grievously impacted patients. In response, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine and the American Society of Radiation Oncology sponsored a working meeting entitled "Safety in Radiation Therapy: A Call to Action." The meeting attracted 400 attendees, including medical physicists, radiation oncologists, medical dosimetrists, radiation therapists, hospital administrators, regulators, and representatives of equipment manufacturers. The meeting was cohosted by 14 organizations in the United States and Canada. The meeting yielded 20 recommendations that provide a pathway to reducing errors and improving patient safety in radiation therapy facilities everywhere.
    Medical Physics 01/2011; 38(1):78-82. DOI:10.1118/1.3522875 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is an art to writing a scientific paper so that it communicates accurately, succinctly, and comprehensively. Developing this art comes with experience, and sharing that experience with younger physicists is an obligation of senior scientists, especially those with editorial responsibilities for the journal. In this workshop, the preparation of a scientific manuscript will be dissected so participants can appreciate how each part is developed and then assembled into a complete paper. Then the review process for the paper will be discussed, including how to examine a paper and write an insightful and constructive review. Finally, we will consider the challenge of accommodating the concerns and recommendations of a reviewer in preparing a revision of the paper. A second feature of the workshop will be a discussion of the process of electronic submission of a paper for consideration by Medical Physics. The web‐based PeerX‐Press engine for manuscript submission and management will be examined, with attention to special features such as epaps and line‐ referencing. Finally, new features of Medical Physics will be explained, such as Vision 20/20 manuscripts, Physics Letters and the standardized formatting of book reviews. Education Objectives: 1. Improve the participants' abilities to write a scientific manuscript. 2. Understand the review process for Medical Physics manuscripts and how to participate in and benefit from it. 3. Appreciate the many features of the PeerX‐Press electronic management process for Medical Physics manuscripts. 4. Develop a knowledge of new features of Medical Physics.
    Medical Physics 01/2011; 38(6):3731. DOI:10.1118/1.3613041 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The growth in medical imaging over the past 2 decades has yielded unarguable benefits to patients in terms of longer lives of higher quality. This growth reflects new technologies and applications, including high-tech services such as multisection computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and positron emission tomography (PET). Some part of the growth, however, can be attributed to the overutilization of imaging services. This report examines the causes of the overutilization of imaging and identifies ways of addressing the causes so that overutilization can be reduced. In August 2009, the American Board of Radiology Foundation hosted a 2-day summit to discuss the causes and effects of the overutilization of imaging. More than 60 organizations were represented at the meeting, including health care accreditation and certification entities, foundations, government agencies, hospital and health systems, insurers, medical societies, health care quality consortia, and standards and regulatory agencies. Key forces influencing overutilization were identified. These include the payment mechanisms and financial incentives in the U.S. health care system; the practice behavior of referring physicians; self-referral, including referral for additional radiologic examinations; defensive medicine; missed educational opportunities when inappropriate procedures are requested; patient expectations; and duplicate imaging studies. Summit participants suggested several areas for improvement to reduce overutilization, including a national collaborative effort to develop evidence-based appropriateness criteria for imaging; greater use of practice guidelines in requesting and conducting imaging studies; decision support at point of care; education of referring physicians, patients, and the public; accreditation of imaging facilities; management of self-referral and defensive medicine; and payment reform.
    Radiology 10/2010; 257(1):240-5. DOI:10.1148/radiol.10100063 · 6.21 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

709 Citations
560.15 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2012–2013
    • Mayo Clinic - Rochester
      • Department of Radiology
      Рочестер, Minnesota, United States
  • 1968–2012
    • University of Colorado Hospital
      • Department of Radiology
      Denver, Colorado, United States
  • 2002–2011
    • Medical College of Wisconsin
      • • Department of Biophysics
      • • Department of Radiation Oncology
      • • Department of Radiology
      Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
  • 2009
    • Johns Hopkins University
      Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • 2007–2009
    • University of Kentucky
      • College of Medicine
      Lexington, Kentucky, United States
  • 2002–2009
    • University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
      • Department of Electrical Engineering
      Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
  • 2008
    • Durham University
      Durham, England, United Kingdom
  • 2003
    • Stanford University
      Palo Alto, California, United States
    • University of Tennessee
      Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
    • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
      • Department of Radiation Oncology
      Boston, MA, United States
    • Case Western Reserve University
      Cleveland, Ohio, United States
  • 2001
    • University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
      • Department of Radiation Physics
      Houston, TX, United States
    • Yale University
      • Department of Therapeutic Radiology
      New Haven, CT, United States
    • University of Texas Medical School
      Houston, Texas, United States
  • 2000
    • University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
      • Department of Radiology
      San Antonio, Texas, United States
    • University of Alabama at Birmingham
      • Division of Nuclear Medicine
      Birmingham, Alabama, United States
  • 1974–1983
    • University of Colorado
      Denver, Colorado, United States