BusinessReport.com

Ken Hogstrom is a big gun who wields a big gun—a radiation gun that kills cancer.

That’s an overly simplified description of the science behind medical physics, which is about using radiation against tumors, and which has gotten considerably more sophisticated in the past decade or so.

Hogstrom, director of LSU’s medical physics program, holder of the Dr. Charles Smith Chair of Medical Physics at LSU and chief of physics at Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, is an expert in the field.

Hogstrom, who came to Baton Rouge from University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, sat down with Business Report to talk about training students in the increasingly complex field of medical physics as well as what’s new with the LSU-Mary Bird Perkins program itself.

Question: How would you characterize changes in medical physics over the last couple of decades or so?

What I’ve seen in the last decade is things that were research have now made it into the clinic. A lot of that is because of the tremendous jump in computer technology. That has allowed the complexity of treatment to increase, which is to the benefit of the patient. What we do now is not a whole lot different than what was ever done in radiation therapy. But it’s like going from a handsaw to a power saw. You can make a lot better cut. This has allowed significant improvements in getting doses to the tumor while protecting normal tissues. That’s been the big breakthrough.

Q: Does this make the job of medical physicist more involved than it used to be?

The increase in technology has a put a lot more burden and responsibility on the medical physicist to make sure everything is working correctly. The scope of knowledge for the medical physicist has gotten much broader.

Q: You came on board in 2004. What’s been going on with the LSU-Mary Bird Perkins program since then?

The program has been accredited. That means we’ve reached an equilibrium point where we’re getting good students, we’ve revised a lot of the curriculum to conform to what’s required to be accredited, and that we have the infrastructure to have a very solid program—in faculty, equipment, classrooms and so forth. Based on my experience, none of this would have been possible without the joint venture. It would have been very difficult for LSU to do it alone and, of course, Mary Bird’s not an academic institution. The two together have made this program one of the better programs in the United States. We’re still evolving. We’re not as big as some of the entrenched programs, but we’re moving in the right direction.

Q: Becoming accredited isn’t easy?

No. It’s a lot of work. Accreditation was a big step for us. We’re proud of that.

Q: Most of your research grants to date have been from the medical industry, with the biggest grant from the company that makes TomoTherapy cancer-fighting technology. What does that entail?

We have a grant with TomoTherapy for $240,000 currently that’s over three years. We expect that to be renewed at probably $100,000 a year starting next year. The main focus of that grant was in quality assurance and superficial therapy. Quality assurance is ensuring that when we treat the patients they’re treated in a safe way and the best way possible. We’ve been studying methods for example of how to ensure that the doses coming out of the TomoTherapy are correct.

Q: So it’s about maximizing the effectiveness of the technology?

What I’m talking about is how to make sure it’s used as accurately to minimize any case where the patient might receive suboptimal treatment.

Q: And this is complicated?

It is. These calculations take 10 hours on a computer, so how can you trust them? That’s what we’re answering.

Q: What are some other potential funding sources?

As we get our publications out and build our reputation at the center, it positions us more favorably for being competitive for government grants, which are very difficult to get. That’s the goal, and we’re starting to do behind the scenes planning to gear up the infrastructure in that direction a year or two down the road. These won’t replace our current agreements. They will be supplemental.

Q: How big do you see the program becoming?

I envision it continuing to grow. My philosophy has always been quality over quantity, so the growth should come naturally. At the start of each year now we have maybe 16 to 18 students. In another five years we might have 20 to 25 students. The biggest mistake an academic program can make is they concentrate too much on numbers. It’s kind of an egotistical thing. It makes it very difficult. You still can get students out but they’re not trained.

Q: People are living a lot longer these days and thus cancer cases are on the rise. Is there a shortage of medical physicists to meet the demand?

I would say there’s a shortage of good medical physicists. Some people get into the field—because there’s such demand—without as good a training as people going through the program here. People coming here not only have the training, but usually they specialize in one area for their research. Because it’s very clinically oriented research, that’s very attractive to [employers] out there.

Q: What kind of students is the program attracting?

We’re competing with the top players for students. We get usually about 40 to 50 applicants for five to six positions each year. We usually narrow it down to about 10, and we interview everyone before we make an offer of admission. Since I’ve been here, we’ve had about a 75% acceptance rate. The 25% we lose are typically to places like M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and the University of Wisconsin, who are really the top two programs around. We have been successful in recruiting some of the best graduates from LSU out of the physics department. And we’ve also been successful in recruiting all over the United States.

Q: Some people think Baton Rouge should follow the lead of cities like Birmingham in nurturing a medical “core” that would generate all kinds of opportunities. How is the LSU-Mary Bird Perkins program a step toward that?

If the cancer center wants to evolve, which it does, into having a research program, it has to start somewhere. Because its focus is mainly on radiation therapy, the medical physics program is a natural place for it to focus initially. Hopefully, when people look back 50 years from now, they’ll see medical physics as the seed that helped start what maybe 50 years from now will be quite an extensive program.

Q: What else should we be doing?

From where I sit, the cancer center has been very proactive in supporting medical physics. LSU is also a very solid source of academic resources. What would be quite beneficial to growth in terms of our research and development is the ability to interact with things like the LSU Medical Center and Health Sciences Center. Those entities having a larger presence in Baton Rouge—those are the things that can be synergistic and can help when you talk about the Birminghams and Austins and even Houstons. That’s what’s allowed them to grow.

Q: So you’ll be glad when Baton Rouge gets a new LSU hospital to replace Earl K. Long?

When that happens that will be a major opportunity, not only on the medical physics side but all people that are interested in applying their research to medicine. It would be good for Louisiana.

Q: How did you get into the field of medical physics?

I was introduced to medical physics at Rice University in 1973 while working on my Ph.D. at Bonner Nuclear Lab; we collaborated occasionally with faculty at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. In spring 1973, I left Rice to go on active duty in the Army, which was for a short training period in artillery as the Vietnam War had ended. Upon completion of my active duty, I took a job from Sept 1973 to August 1974 at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center working on the neutron therapy project in collaboration with Texas A&M. In 1974, I returned to Rice to finish my Ph.D. in Experimental Nuclear Physics. Upon completion of my Ph.D. in 1976, I took a job as a medical physicist at Los Alamos working with experimental pion therapy, a job that took advantage of both my knowledge of nuclear and medical physics. In 1979, I accepted a tenure-track faculty position at M.D. Anderson in Houston. From then on, I was committed to medical physics as my career.

Q: What do you find interesting about the field?

What I have found most interesting is in this field is the challenge of determining how to cleverly apply physics and mathematical principles to research and provide a practical solution to a clinical problem in radiation therapy. I have been fortunate to have been challenged with many technical problems in electron, photon, pion and neutron therapy in my career. Secondly, I have found teaching students about medical physics interesting and have enjoyed challenging them to bring out their best in preparing them for a successful career. Thirdly, I have found the rewards from working with cancer patients and radiation oncologists both interesting and rewarding.