[ RadSafe ] Medical Breast Radiation Thread

[John Jacobus]

Robert,
Since when did RADSAFE have any experienced medical
radiological physicists?  There is no entrance exam to
post on RADSAFE.  Neither are there requirement to
have any knowledge of radiation safety or radiation
science.  

--- Robert Barish <robbarish at verizon.net> wrote:

> Fellow RADSAFERS, the ongoing and extensive back and
> forth communications regarding the woman with breast
> cancer who apparently set off a security monitor
> points out one fact that seems self-evident from the
> widely diverging opinions about the causes of this
> incident.
> 
> It seems that RADSAFE has lost almost all of the
> experienced medical radiological physicists who once
> subscribed here.
> 
> This unfortunate circumstance is most likely due to
> the preponderance of postings that have nothing to
> do with the scientific issues of radiation
> protection, but instead give voice to the opinions
> of the list’s subscribers about world events,
> political issues, personal grievances and the like.
> 
> I know that I am not the first person to note this,
> but it would be interesting to see how many
> subscribers there are now in comparison with, say,
> five years ago. 
> 
> Of course, this posting could itself count as one of
> the irrelevant messages I so abhor, unless I add
> some scientific facts. So let me do so using my
> background as an experienced radiotherapy physicist
> as well as a radiation protection specialist.
> 
> When, almost fifteen years ago, total mastectomy for
> the treatment of breast cancer was compared with
> local excision of the tumor followed by radiation
> treatments, it was noted that the survival benefits
> were statistically identical - with a clearly better
> cosmetic outcome since most of the breast was
> preserved.
> 
> Presently, the standard of treatment is external
> beam radiotherapy for those stages of the disease
> where regional as well as local control is
> necessary. For certain localized tumors following a
> minimal surgical intervention, often described as a
> lumpectomy, a local radiation boost to the area
> containing the tumor was shown to be all that was
> needed as adjuvant treatment. 
> 
> Presently, this radiation therapy is administered in
> one of two ways. For somewhat larger areas, a set of
> hollow catheters is inserted into the breast with
> connectors that enable them to be attached to a
> device known as a high-dose-rate afterloader (or
> HDR) unit. For a period of a few minutes on
> successive days an Iridium-192 source with an
> activity of approximately 370 GBq (10 Ci) is sent
> into these catheters by the machine in a placement
> pattern that is determined by a treatment planning
> process that attempts to optimize the dose
> distribution in the area that once contained tumor
> cells and is at risk for recurrence of the cancer.
> 
> For patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (DCIS),
> and tumor sizes that were measured as less than 3 cm
> in diameter, a new technique was developed several
> years ago utilizing a small balloon that is inserted
> into the breast and inflated with saline solution to
> form a small spherical cavity. This small balloon
> also has an exterior connector that allows the
> insertion of an HDR source, one that may be placed
> centrally in the sphere or possibly stepped in
> position by the computer-controlled servo motors of
> the HDR unit.
> 
> In both of these therapies, the high-activity Ir-192
> source is brought back into its container following
> a few minutes of treatment that usually takes place
> on a daily basis over a one-week period. 
> 
> With a dose rate of almost 5 Gy per hour (500 rad
> per hour) at a distance of 10 cm from the source
> there is no possibility that the Iridium source
> leaves the treatment room inside the patient. Such
> an event did happen years ago when a source broke
> off its tether, with tragic consequences, but it is
> now a requirement that a physicist survey every
> patient following treatment to verify that the
> source was successfully returned to its container.
> 
> So what is left as a possible source of activity in
> a breast cancer patient that might be detected by a
> survey instrument at a baseball game?
> 
> In 2006, researchers in Canada reported the first
> trial of permanent seed implants (using Pd-103 seeds
> of the type often implanted for prostate cancer) in
> women with early stage breast cancer. This is very
> preliminary data and is unlikely to be the source of
> radiation in the case reported here on RADSAFE.
> Also, as has been mentioned here, the extremely low
> energy emissions from Pd-103 are not easily detected
> at anything other than very close range.
> 
> So what is left is simply a broad range of
> possibilities related to the administration of
> various radioactive substances for an equally broad
> range of possibilities related to the health issues
> of the specific patient. Yes, as has been mentioned,
> lymphoscintigraphy is often used to track the
> location of lymph nodes that might become pathways
> for the spread of breast cancer away from its
> primary site. And no, the radionuclide is not always
> completely removed when the nodes are dissected
> because the injection might be into breast tissue
> that drains into the nodes, rather than into the
> nodal chain itself. So some of the radionuclide
> might be left behind.  And it is, of course, also
> possible that any number of other nuclear medicine
> procedures including bone scans might have been
> performed on this patient. So, without a detailed
> medical history of this woman we may never know
> exactly what was detected.
> 
> That’s the science. And it's already been beaten
> to death! 
> 
> Now back to my own editorial. Of course it’s
> interesting to learn about new radiation detection
> devices. Advances in the science of radiation
> detection and measurement are perfectly appropriate
> for RADSAFE postings. But, in my opinion, comments
> about the political correctness of monitoring for
> radioactive materials in public places and the
> impact of such monitoring upon civil liberties of
> the population are certainly worthy topics for
> discussion on any number of internet bulletin
> boards. As a participant in Pacifica Radio
> programming for more than forty years, I will defend
> with all of my strength the freedom of all of you to
> voice the range of diverse opinions as have been
> presented. 
> 
> But just not here, please! Let RADSAFE be for
> scientific and technical communication, as it is
> intended.
> 
> Robert Barish, Ph.D., CHP, FAAPM 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing
> list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have
> read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be
> found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe
> and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"All of the old-timers knew that subprime mortgages were what we called neutron loans --  they killed the people and left the houses. . . .
"LOUIS S. BARNES, a partner at Boulder West, a mortgage banking firm.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz