A PHP Error was encountered

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

Higher Dose to Organs at Risk: The Unintended Consequences of Intravenous Contrast Use in Computed Tomography Simulation for Cervical Cancer. | LitMetric

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.2021.08.002DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cervical cancer
16
noncontrast scan
16
contrast scan
16
scan contrast
12
≤ 001
12
organs risk
8
contrast
8
contrast noncontrast
8
noncontrast scans
8
radiation therapy
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!