TgFs provide a limited coverage of the axilla and the SNLB area. This information should be considered when only TgFs are planned to target the axilla in patients with a positive SLN without ALND. Standardization of locoregional radiotherapy in this situation is urgently needed.

Proper understanding of the risk of radiation-induced late effects for patients receiving external photon beam radiotherapy requires the determination of reliable dose–response relationships. Although significant efforts have been devoted to improving dose estimates for the study of late effects, the most often questioned explanatory variable is still the dose. In this work, based on a literature review, we provide an in-depth description of the radiotherapy dose reconstruction process for the study of late effects. In particular, we focus on the identification of the main sources of dose uncertainty involved in this process and summarise their impacts on the dose–response relationship for radiotherapy late effects. We provide a number of recommendations for making progress in estimating the uncertainties in current studies of radiotherapy late effects and reducing these uncertainties in future studies.

The purpose of this work was to experimentally investigate the out‐of‐field dose in a water phantom, with several high energy electron beams used in external beam radiotherapy (RT). The study was carried out for 6, 9, 12, and 18 MeV electron beams, on three different linear accelerators, each equipped with a specific applicator. Measurements were performed in a water phantom, at different depths, for different applicator sizes, and off‐axis distances up to 70 cm from beam central axis (CAX). Thermoluminescent powder dosimeters (TLD‐700) were used. For given cases, TLD measurements were compared to EBT3 films and parallel‐plane ionization chamber measurements. Also, out‐of‐field doses at 10 cm depth, with and without applicator, were evaluated. With the Siemens applicators, a peak dose appears at about 12–15 cm out of the field edge, at 1 cm depth, for all field sizes and energies. For the Siemens Primus, with a 10×10cm2 applicator, this peak reaches 2.3%, 1%, 0.9% and 1.3% of the maximum central axis dose (Dmax) for 6, 9, 12 and 18 MeV electron beams, respectively. For the Siemens Oncor, with a 10×10cm2 applicator, this peak dose reaches 0.8%, 1%, 1.4%, and 1.6% of Dmax for 6, 9, 12, and 14 MeV, respectively, and these values increase with applicator size. For the Varian 2300C/D, the doses at 12.5 cm out of the field edge are 0.3%, 0.6%, 0.5%, and 1.1% of Dmax for 6, 9, 12, and 18 MeV, respectively, and increase with applicator size. No peak dose is evidenced for the Varian applicator for these energies. In summary, the out‐of‐field dose from electron beams increases with the beam energy and the applicator size, and decreases with the distance from the beam central axis and the depth in water. It also considerably depends on the applicator types. Our results can be of interest for the dose estimations delivered in healthy tissues outside the treatment field for the RT patient, as well as in studies exploring RT long‐term effects.PACS number(s): 87.53.Bn, 87.56.bd, 87.56.J‐

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the dose on megavoltage CT (MVCT) images required for tomotherapy. As imaging possibilities are often used before each treatment and usually used several times before the session, we tried to evaluate the dose delivered during the procedure. For each scanning mode (fine, normal, and coarse), we first established the relative variation of these doses according to different technical parameters (explored length, patient setup). These dose variations measured with the TomoPhant, also known as Cheese phantom, showed the expected variations (due to the variation of scattered radiation) of 15% according to the explored length and ±5% according to the phantom setup (due to the variation of the point of measurement in the bore). In order to estimate patient doses, an anthropomorphic phantom was used for thermoluminescent and film dosimetry. The degree of agreement between the two methods was very satisfactory (the differences correspond to 5 mGy per imaging session) for the three sites studied (head & neck, thorax, and abdomen). These measurements allowed us to estimate the delivered dose of between 1 cGy and 4 cGy according to the site and imaging mode. Finally, we attempted to investigate a way to calculate this delivered dose in our patients from the study conducted on a cylindrical phantom and by taking into account data from the initial kV‐CT scan. The results we obtained were close to our measurements, with discrepancies below 5 mGy per MVCT.PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr

No abstract

No abstract

1) The uptake of 111-In-pentetreotide in injured lungs after irradiation, already described in man, was confirmed in a rat model; 2) our results suggest that it is possible to follow the evolution of radiation lung injury by using In-111-pentetreotide.

No abstract