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
Purpose: To compare the volumes of interest and doses to the organs at risk on contrast and noncontrast scans in patients with cervical cancer who underwent prophylactic extended-field radiation therapy (EFRT).
Methods And Materials: We reviewed twenty cervical cancer patients treated with prophylactic EFRT at Peking Union Medical College Hospital between March 2021 and April 2021. Each patient underwent noncontrast and contrast scans during simulation. All structures were contoured, and radiation therapy plans were created based on both scans. Student t test and Pearson correlation coefficient test were performed.
Results: Compared with the noncontrast scan, on the contrast scan, the mean volume of the inferior vena cava expanded by 44% (P ≤ .001), and the mean volume of the para-aortic nodal clinical target volume increased by 17% (P ≤ .001). For the second portion of the duodenum, the V30 (38.2% vs 43.8%, P = .038), V35 (27.6% vs 35.1%, P = .002), V40 (18.3% vs 26.3%, P = .014), V45 (11.2% vs 18.5%, P = .008), and V50 (4.2% vs 9.1%, P = .005) were significantly lower on the noncontrast scan than on the contrast scan. For the third portion of the duodenum, the V45 (78.4% vs 81.6%, P = .03) and V50 (59.7% vs 67%, P ≤ .001) were significantly lower on the noncontrast scan than on the contrast scan. For the right kidney, the V5, V10, V15, V20, and V25 on the contrast and noncontrast scans were 85.4% versus 79.8% (P = .013), 52.5% versus 45.6% (P = .021), 25.6% versus 20.1% (P = .003), 11.1% versus 7.5% (P = .001), and 3.8% versus 2.3% (P = .027), respectively.
Conclusions: Compared with the noncontrast scan, expansion of the inferior vena cava on the contrast scan can lead to excessive contouring and an overdose to the duodenum and right kidney in cervical cancer patients treated with prophylactic EFRT.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2021.08.002 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!