Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Aim: To report the difference in the bladder and rectum doses with different applications by the radiotherapists in the same patient of the carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated by multiple fractions of high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT).
Materials And Methods: Between January 2003 to December 2004, a total of 60 cases of the carcinoma uterine cervix were selected randomly for the retrospective analyses. All 60 cases were grouped in six groups according to the treating radiotherapist who did the HDR-ICBT application. Three radiotherapists were considered for this study, named A, B and C. Ten cases for each radiotherapist in whom all three applications were done by the same radiotherapist. And 10 cases for each radiotherapist with shared applications in the same patient (A+B, A+C and B+C). The bladder and rectal doses were calculated in reference to point "A" dose and were limited to 80% of prescribed point "A" dose, as per ICRU-38 recommendations. Received dose grouped in three groups--less then 80% (< 80%), 80-100% and above 100% (>100%). A total of 180 applications for 60 patients were calculated for the above analyses.
Results: There is a lot of difference in the bladder and rectal doses with the application by the different radiotherapists, even in the same patient with multiple fractions of HDR-ICBT. Applications by 'A' radiotherapist were within the limits in the self as well as in the shared groups more number of times, by 'B' radiotherapist was more times exceeding the limit and by 'C' radiotherapist doses were in between the A and B.
Discussion And Conclusion: For the rectal and bladder doses most important factors are patient's age, disease stage, duration between EBRT and HDR-ICRT and patient anatomy, but these differences can be minimized to some extent by careful application, proper packing and proper fixation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-1482.34693 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!