Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with (90)yttrium microspheres - also known as radioembolisation - is a relatively new interventional radiology technique offering symptomatic and survival advantages for patients with unresectable liver cancer. However, in delivering both beta-particle brachytherapy and embolisation of tumour vasculature, SIRT produces biological sequelae and imaging characteristics distinct from other treatment modalities. Current CT interpretation criteria consistently under-report pathological responses to radioembolisation, diminishing both the prognosis and subsequent treatment choices for responding patients. However, newer criteria incorporating both tumour dimensions and enhancement characteristics improve the correlation with histopathology and provide substantially earlier confirmation of response. CT following radioembolisation may also identify parenchymal features that are often benign but may be mistaken for tumour progression. This review outlines imaging criteria specific to SIRT, including assessment of tumour response and interpretation of both lesion and parenchymal characteristics. The adjunctive role of additional modalities such as positron emission tomography is also addressed.

Historians are acutely aware of the value of crises. Moments of turmoil, transition and tragedy frequently lay bare the unspoken environmental, social and cultural conditions of the past. Catastrophic events offer us compelling narrative and analytical opportunities, as we strip and rewire testimonies, inquiries, images, artefacts and landscapes. Crises also amplify contradictions, as our collecting responses to the Covid-19 pandemic have amply illustrated. 'At the moment we are living through history', wrote young author Giselle on 4 June 2020, 'but we will be back to normal soon'. 1 Shared online with her guardian's consent, this child's letter encapsulates the paradoxes of popular historicism in a pandemic year. What versions of history have we reified by gatheringand generatingits artefacts? Giselle's missive was written to 'Dear Australia', an Australia Post initiative to 'enable all Australians to record their impressions of this remarkable time'. Launched on 15 Maytwo months after Covid-19 was declared a pandemicthe campaign encourages authors to post letters and illustrations to a dedicated mailbox. Upon receipt, submissions are read but no response is sent. After digitisation, both the original and its electronic avatar will be lodged with the National Archives of Australia, 'where eligible Dear Australia letters will be kept for future generations'. 2 Eligible. Children's letters will be accepted, provided that they contain proof of a guardian's approval. Languages other than English are welcome, but epistles that cannot be translated will be securely destroyed. As will letters that contain objectionable content, including those expressing political, racial or religious views, or alluding to sex, alcohol or illicit drug use. Authors furthermore waive all ownership, intellectual property and moral rights to their letters. Contributions will also not be accepted if they complain about the postal service, perhaps because 'Australia Post is not responsible or liable for late, lost or misdirected mail'. 3 Nor, presumably, for the transmission of viral particles on semi-permeable surfaces such as envelopes and postcards. I don't wish to be unfairly critical of 'Dear Australia'. Its intentions seem sincere and the submissions so far published are both disparate and heuristically valuable. In

No abstract

Memorialising lives, deaths, and events in landscapes can be authorised, official, and highly regulated, or spontaneous, unsanctioned, and anti-authoritarian. Interpreting and connecting two sites spanning the Pacific Ocean, this paper explores the inscribed and affective landscapes of Angel Island, San Francisco, and North Head, Sydney. Both sites encompass multivalent histories of defence, quarantine, immigration and leisure. Both also host a continuum of mark-making practices, from informal graffiti to monuments aspiring to direct national narratives. Elaborating the rich and complex layering of histories at each site, we trace the semiotic and emotive circuits traced by their endorsed and vernacular inscriptions. In particular, we question the work done when individual or even surreptitious texts are appropriated -or marketedwithin formal narratives of inclusiveness, reverence and homogeneous nationalism. Drawing upon scholarship from archaeology, history, geography and heritage studies, this analysis argues that formalised commemoration never escapes the potential for counter-readings -that authority and authorship never entirely coincide.

No abstract