Search

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: To explore very-long-term mortality from ischemic heart disease (IHD) after locoregional radiation therapy of breast cancer (BC) in relation to degree of hypofractionation and other treatment variables. Methods and Materials: Two hypofractionated regimens used for locoregional radiation therapy for BC from 1975 to 1991 were considered. Patients received 4.3 Gy × 2/week (10 fractions; target dose 43 Gy; n=1107) or 2.5 Gy × 5/week (20 fractions; target dose 50 Gy; n=459). To estimate cardiac doses, radiation fields were reconstructed in a planning system. Time to death from IHD was the endpoint, comparing the groups with each other and with age-matched, cancer-free control individuals, modeled with the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Patients given 4.3 Gy × 10 had an increased risk of dying of IHD compared with both the 2.5 Gy group (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-5.32; P=.036) and the control group (HR = 1.59; 95% CI: 1.13-2.23; P=.008). Photon beams for parasternal fields gave an increased risk of dying of IHD compared with electron beams (HR = 2.56; 95% CI: 1.12-5.84; P=.025). Multivariate analysis gave an increased risk for the 4.3-Gy versus 2.5-Gy regimen with borderline significance (HR = 2.90; 95% CI: 0.97-8.79; P=.057) but not for parasternal irradiation. Conclusions: The degree of hypofractionation and parasternal photon beams contributed to increased cardiac mortality in this patient cohort. Differences emerged after 12 to 15 years, indicating the need of more studies with observation time of 2 decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: To measure the dose distribution in the contralateral breast (CB) following radiotherapy of the breast and regional lymph nodes by a 4-field technique, and to examine whether related treatment planning calculations of CB doses reproduce the measurements. Materials and methods: CB doses were measured by thermoluminescence dosimetry on the surface of 8 patients and in an anthropomorphic phantom. Dose calculations at corresponding points of interest were performed by the treatment planning system Helax-TMS 6.1 using the pencil beam or the collapsed cone algorithm. Results: The measured CB doses were typically between 1% and 15% of the prescribed dose. The dose decreased significantly both in the medial-lateral and cranial-caudal direction. The average ratio of the measured to the calculated CB dose was about 0.7 and 0.9 for the pencil beam and the collapsed cone algorithm, respectively. One of the treatment fields aimed at the regional lymph nodes and some of the chest wall gave the highest contribution to the CB dose. Conclusions: The dose distribution in the CB following locoregional radiotherapy of the breast and regional lymph nodes is quite inhomogeneous. The collapsed cone algorithm may be used for estimating doses to the CB. Some concern is raised regarding the current field arrangement and the consequences for the CB dose. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: Imaging phantoms can be cost prohibitive, therefore a need exists to produce low cost alternatives which are fit for purpose. This paper describes the development and validation of a low cost paediatric pelvis phantom based on the anatomy of a 5-year-old child.Methods: Tissue equivalent materials representing paediatric bone (Plaster of Paris; PoP) and soft tissue (Poly methyl methacrylate; PMMA) were used. PMMA was machined to match the bony anatomy identified from a CT scan of a 5-year-old child and cavities were created for infusing the PoP. Phantom validation comprised physical and visual measures. Physical included CT density comparison between a CT scan of a 5-year old child and the phantom and Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) comparative analysis of anteroposterior phantom X-ray images against a commercial anthropomorphic phantom. Visual analysis using a psychometric image quality scale (face validity).Results: CT density, the percentage difference between cortical bone, soft tissue and their equivalent tissue substitutes were -4.7 to -4.1% and -23.4%, respectively. For SNR, (mAs response) there was a strong positive correlation between the two phantoms (r > 0.95 for all kVps). For kVp response, there was a strong positive correlation between 1 and 8 mAs (r = 0.85), this then decreased as mAs increased (r = -0.21 at 20 mAs). Psychometric scale results produced a Cronbach's Alpha of almost 0.8.Conclusions: Physical and visual measures suggest our low-cost phantom has suitable anatomical characteristics for X-ray imaging. Our phantom could have utility in dose and image quality optimisation studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/purpose We explored the relation between coronary artery calcium (CAC) and cardiac radiation doses in breast cancer survivors (BCS) treated with radiotherapy (RT). Additionally, we examined the impact of other risk factors and biomarkers of coronary artery disease (CAD). Materials and methods 236 BCS (median age 51 years [range 30–70], median observation time 12 years [9.2–15.7]), treated with 4-field RT of 50GY, were included and examined in 2004 (T1), 2007 (T2) and 2011 (T3) with clinical examination, blood tests and questionnaires. At T3, cardiac computed tomography was performed with quantification of CAC using Agatston score (AS). For 106 patients cardiac dose volume histograms were available. Results The cohort-based median of the mean cardiac dose was 2.5 (range 0.5–7.0) Gy. There was no correlation between measures of cardiac dose and AS. AS was correlated with high cholesterol at T1/T2 ( p = 0.022), high proBNP at T1/T2 ( p < 0.022) and T3 ( p < 0.022) and high HbA1c at T3 ( p = 0.022). In addition, a high AS was significantly associated with hypertension ( p = 0.022). Age ( p < 0.001) and cholesterol at T1/T2 ( p = 0.001) retained significant associations in multivariate analysis. Conclusions Traditional, modifiable risk factors of CAD correlate with CAC and may be important for the long term risk of CAD after RT. With low to moderate cardiac radiation exposure, a contribution of radiation dose to CAC could not be demonstrated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]