ABSTRACT
In recent decades efforts have been made to meet societal expectations concerning public access to information and to enable citizens' informed decision-making related to ionising radiation risks. But are people satisfied with the information provided and which factors influence this? This paper investigates lay persons' satisfaction with the information about ionising radiation provided by different communicators in Belgium and France. In particular, it studies the potential influence of risk perception, confidence in authorities, knowledge and education. The study is based on data originating from large scale public opinion surveys (N = 1002 in Belgium; N = 966 in France). Results show that the two countries differ as regards satisfaction with the information provided by specific communicators. Confidence in authorities was revealed in both countries as more important for satisfaction with information than risk perception. Contrary to expectations, general knowledge about ionising radiation had limited or no explanatory power. An additional study for the Belgian sample showed that both perceived trustworthiness and technical competence influence satisfaction with information, but their relative importance depends on the communicator.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Prospective evaluation of a virtual simulation technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 1993 to February 1997, 343 patients underwent radiation therapy using this technique. Treated sites were mostly: brain (132), rectum (59), lung (43), and prostate (28). A CT-scan was performed on a patient in treatment position. Twenty-five to 70 jointive slices widely encompassed the treated volume. The target volume (CTV according to ICRU 50) and often critical organs were controured, slice by slice, by the radiation oncologist. Beams covering the CTV plus a security margin (PTV) were placed on the "virtual patient". Digital radiographs were reconstructed (DRR) as simulator radiographs for each field. Thus, the good coverage of PTV was assessed. Fields and beam arrangements were further optimized. Definitive isocenter was then placed using a classical simulator. Perfect matching of DRR and actual simulator radiographs had to be obtained. RESULTS: Nineteen patients presented grade 3, and 1 grade 4 acute radiation effects. With a median follow-up of 18 months, five patients suffered from grade 3, and one from grade 4 complications. Fifty-five patients had tumor recurrence in the treated volume, and 19 had marginal relapse. CONCLUSION: In our department, virtual simulation has become a routine technique of treatment planning for deep-seated tumors. This technique remains time-consuming for radiation oncologists: about 2 hours. But it stimulates reflexion on anatomy, tumor extension pathways, target volumes; and is becoming an excellent pedagogical tool.
