1. No category

Case Study Work The problem A country does not have a hadron therapy facility. The government has been briefed that many alterna=ve op=ons/designs can be considered. You have been requested to consider the possible alterna=ves, choose one and produce a preliminary study. The task You shall first of all decide which par=cle species the proposed facility shall provide and explain the reasons of your choice. Non-­‐clinical reasons can also be considered like "establishing an accelerator community for the future crea=on of other research facili=es" or "part of the beam =me will be used for non clinical research". A few alterna=ve designs between those proposed in literature shall be considered and compared. Finally one type of center shall be chosen and a baseline design shall be carried out. Aspects to describe •  Assump=ons on the number of pa=ents per year, =me dedicated to treatments, QA, machine development and maintenance. •  Assumed number of frac=ons, number of fields per frac=on, =me needed for pa=ent handling. •  Overall design parameters –  Beam energies, intensity, spot size. •  Beam delivery system(s) •  Technical specifica=on –  Source, injectors, accelerator, extrac=on systems, transfer lines •  An idea of the exper=se needed to build and operate the facility •  Time scale for construc=on, accelerator commissioning, clinical beam qualifica=on, clinical trials •  Cost es=mate, reimbursement fees, running cost, yearly income. •  Limita=ons of the facility Working groups Group 1 Valen=na Jose Luis Alexander Daniel Nawin Chris=an Bellinzona Abelleira Fernandez Wastl Adjei Juntong Schoemers University of Pavia CERN MedAustron Ins=tute of Optoelectronics Synchrotron Light Research Ins=tute HIT Group 2 Jenny Sejla Michael Stefano Luis Xander Viktor Dueck Mizic-­‐Bajric Bodendorfer Benede[ Mora Vallejo Janssen Iakovenko PSI MedAustron CERN CERN EPFL -­‐ TERA Founda=on CERN VDL ETG Research Kiev Ins=tute for Nuclear Research Group 3 Maren Evgeniia Jose Ghislain Joachim Poompis Eberhardt Sukhikh Sanches Arias Roy Wallner Pa_aranutaporn Varian Medical Systems Tomsk Polytechnik University MedAustron CERN MedAustron Mahidol University Group 4 Jason Sophie Damien Oliver Mathias Yulia Wu Seidel Perrelet Triebl Eichinger Kluchevskaya Zion Biotech Helmholtz Zentrum Berlin CERN MedAustron MedAustron NRNU MEPhI Group 5 Evelina Roberto Sebas=an Sebas=en Stefano Markus Jaselkyte Lopez Bracht Pelle=er Pioli Strohmeier Group 6 Jasna Mar=na Alexandre Juan Ma_hias Anthony Jukka Junuzovic MedAustron Senzacqua Universita' degli studi di Roma, La Sapienza Lasheen CERN Esteban Muller CERN/EPFL Kronberger MedAustron Huggins Varian Medical Systems Par=cle Therapy Jaa=nen University of Jyvaskyla Hospital of Lithuania CERN GSI MedAustron University of Rome "La Sapienza" Marburg Ion beam Therapy Center Group 7 Adriana Jorge Mohammed Christoph Luca Jarno Rossi Giner Navarro Almalki Kurfuerst Sabato Alaraudanjoki CERN CERN GSI MedAustron University of Sannio University of Jyvaskyla Group 8 Maryna Concepcion Marco Tobias Rupert Yuan Kanapelka Oliver Garlasche Stadlbauer Langegger Xu JIPNR CIEMAT CERN MedAustron MedAustron Peking University Group 9 Sam Benjamin Jose M Matjaz Manuel Marco Pitman Koubek Perez Repovz Fuer=nger Esposito The Cockcrob Ins=tute CERN CIEMAT MedAustron MedAustron ADAM SA Group 10 Wiole_a Katarina Stefan Ricardo Manuel Claus Manuel Dominik Kozlowska Sedlackova Schwarz dos Santos Augusto Schmitzer Benna Perusko CERN Slovak University of Technology MedAustron CERN MedAustron Varian Medical Systems Cosylab D.D. Group 11 Han Valeria James Veliko Mauro Sebas=an Li Rizzoglio dela Cruz Dimov Pivi Rothe Uppsala University Paul Scherrer Ins=tut Canadian Light Source Inc. CERN MedAustron CERN Group 12 Valeria Silvia Ilya Basil Patricio Jerome Claude Lante Schuh Ashanin Gonsalves Nadig Schwindling Krantz CNAO CERN NRNU MEPhI CERN MedAustron CEA Saclay Outcome •  Presenta=on by each group on last day •  Prizes (just for fun) –  Best project –  Most innova=ve
–  Best acronym Group 10 Group 4 Group 1