Evaluation of organ-specific peripheral doses after 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional and hybrid intensity modulated radiation therapy for breast cancer based on Monte Carlo and convolution/superposition algorithms: implications for secondary cancer risk assessment.

To make a comprehensive evaluation of organ-specific out-of-field doses using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations for different breast cancer irradiation techniques and to compare results with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). Three breast radiotherapy techniques using 6MV tangential photon beams were compared: (a) 2DRT (open rectangular fields), (b) 3DCRT (conformal wedged fields), and (c) hybrid IMRT (open conformal+modulated fields). Over 35 organs were contoured in a whole-body CT scan and organ-specific dose distributions were determined with MC and the TPS. Large differences in out-of-field doses were observed between MC and TPS calculations, even for organs close to the target volume such as the heart, the lungs and the contralateral breast (up to 70% difference). MC simulations showed that a large fraction of the out-of-field dose comes from the out-of-field head scatter fluence (>40%) which is not adequately modeled by the TPS. Based on MC simulations, the 3DCRT technique using external wedges yielded significantly higher doses (up to a factor 4-5 in the pelvis) than the 2DRT and the hybrid IMRT techniques which yielded similar out-of-field doses. In sharp contrast to popular belief, the IMRT technique investigated here does not increase the out-of-field dose compared to conventional techniques and may offer the most optimal plan. The 3DCRT technique with external wedges yields the largest out-of-field doses. For accurate out-of-field dose assessment, a commercial TPS should not be used, even for organs near the target volume (contralateral breast, lungs, heart).

Parent-child agreement and prevalence estimates of diagnoses in childhood: direct interview versus family history method.

Diagnostic information on children is typically elicited from both children and their parents. The aims of the present paper were to: (1) compare prevalence estimates according to maternal reports, paternal reports and direct interviews of children [major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety and attention-deficit and disruptive behavioural disorders]; (2) assess mother-child, father-child and inter-parental agreement for these disorders; (3) determine the association between several child, parent and familial characteristics and the degree of diagnostic agreement or the likelihood of parental reporting; (4) determine the predictive validity of diagnostic information provided by parents and children. Analyses were based on 235 mother-offspring, 189 father-offspring and 128 mother-father pairs. Diagnostic assessment included the Kiddie-schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS) (offspring) and the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (DIGS) (parents and offspring at follow-up) interviews. Parental reports were collected using the Family History - Research Diagnostic Criteria (FH-RDC). Analyses revealed: (1) prevalence estimates for internalizing disorders were generally lower according to parental information than according to the K-SADS; (2) mother-child and father-child agreement was poor and within similar ranges; (3) parents with a history of MDD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) reported these disorders in their children more frequently; (4) in a sub-sample followed-up into adulthood, diagnoses of MDD, separation anxiety and conduct disorder at baseline concurred with the corresponding lifetime diagnosis at age 19 according to the child rather than according to the parents. In conclusion, our findings support large discrepancies of diagnostic information provided by parents and children with generally lower reporting of internalizing disorders by parents, and differential reporting of depression and ADHD by parental disease status. Follow-up data also supports the validity of information provided by adolescent offspring.