Cycle Connect Training Update: In-Field Bicycle Training Guide

Our team developed a training workbook for the bicycle asset. This workbook includes content for each module, prompting questions, client engagement activities, and built-in checkpoints for feedback. The workbook will have a dual function: guiding loan officers* during training sessions and refreshing loan officers* on content.This workbook is meant for use both during and after a Cycle Connect marketing officer or credit officer administers a bicycle training session. During the training session, this workbook will guide Cycle Connect officers to engage with group members through meaningful dialogues and various engagement activities. While not in the field, officers should use this workbook to review content in order to maintain strong levels of comprehension

Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma

This study evaluates the implementation of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using multicriteria optimization (MCO) in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) for complex sites, namely extremity and body sarcoma. The VMAT‐MCO algorithm implemented in RayStation is newly developed and requires an integrated, comprehensive analysis of plan generation, delivery, and treatment efficiency. Ten patients previously treated by intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO were randomly selected and replanned using VMAT‐MCO. The plan quality was compared using homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV) and dose sparing of organs at risk (OARs). Given the diversity of the tumor location, the 10 plans did not have a common OAR except for skin. The skin D50 and Dmean was directly compared between VMAT‐MCO and IMRT‐MCO. Additional OAR dose points were compared on a plan‐by‐plan basis. The treatment efficiency was compared using plan monitor units (MU) and net beam‐on time. Plan quality assurance was performed using the Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK phantom and a gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. No statistically significant differences were found between VMAT‐ and IMRT‐MCO for HI and CI of the PTV or D50 and Dmean to the skin. The VMAT‐MCO plans showed general improvements in sparing to OARs. The VMAT‐MCO plan set showed statistically significant improvements over the IMRT‐MCO set in treatment efficiency per plan MU (p<0.05) and net beam‐on time (p<0.01). The VMAT‐MCO plan deliverability was validated. Similar gamma passing rates were observed for the two modalities. This study verifies the suitability of VMAT‐MCO for sarcoma cancer and highlighted the comparability in plan quality and improvement in treatment efficiency offered by VMAT‐MCO as compared to IMRT‐MCO. PACS number(s): separated by commas 87.55.D, 87.55.de, 87.55.Q