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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
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
Background And Purpose: Current imaging techniques have difficulty differentiating treatment success and failure in spinal metastases undergoing radiation therapy. This study investigated the correlation between changes in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging perfusion parameters and clinical outcomes following radiation therapy for spinal metastases. We hypothesized that perfusion parameters will outperform traditional size measurements in discriminating treatment success and failure.
Materials And Methods: This retrospective study included 49 patients (mean age, 63 [SD, 13] years; 29 men) with metastatic lesions treated with radiation therapy who underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. The median time between radiation therapy and follow-up dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging was 62 days. We divided patients into 2 groups: clinical success ( = 38) and failure ( = 11). Failure was defined as PET recurrence ( = 5), biopsy-proved ( = 1) recurrence, or an increase in tumor size ( = 7), while their absence defined clinical success. A Mann-Whitney test was performed to assess differences between groups.
Results: The reduction in plasma volume was greater in the success group than in the failure group (-57.3% versus +88.2%, respectively; < .001). When we assessed the success of treatment, the sensitivity of plasma volume was 91% (10 of 11; 95% CI, 82%-97%) and the specificity was 87% (33 of 38; 95% CI, 73%-94%). The sensitivity of size measurements was 82% (9 of 11; 95% CI, 67%-90%) and the specificity was 47% (18 of 38; 95% CI, 37%-67%).
Conclusions: The specificity of plasma volume was higher than that of conventional size measurements, suggesting that dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging is a powerful tool to discriminate between treatment success and failure.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10714859 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8057 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!