3 results match your criteria: "University of California at San Francisco and UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital[Affiliation]"
The association between postoperative photon radiotherapy dose and disease control and salvage treatment in pediatric and adolescent ependymoma: a multi-institutional investigation.
J Neurooncol
February 2025
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California at San Francisco and UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, 1600 Divisadero St., Suite H1031, San Francisco, CA, 94143-1708, USA.
Purpose: We characterized the association between photon radiation dose (< 59.4 versus ≥ 59.4 Gy) and outcomes in intracranial ependymoma.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAnatomic patterns of relapse and progression following treatment with I-MIBG in relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma.
Pediatr Blood Cancer
February 2022
Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Masshachusetts, USA.
Objectives: Patients with metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG)-avid relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma after initial therapy may exhibit transient responses to salvage treatment with iodine-131 metaiodobenzylguanidine ( I-MIBG). It is unclear whether disease progression following I-MIBG treatment occurs in previously involved versus new anatomic sites of disease. Understanding this pattern of relapse will inform the use of consolidation therapy following I-MIBG administration.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFStandardized MR terminology and reporting of implants and devices as recommended by the American College of Radiology Subcommittee on MR Safety.
Radiology
March 2015
From the Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.K., E.S.); Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St, SE MMC 292, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (J.F.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California at San Francisco and UCSF-Benioff Children's Hospital, San Francisco, Calif (A.J.B.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (J.B.); Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, Calif (W.B.); Cardiology Associates of East Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn (J.R.G.); Office of Clinical Affairs, University of Michigan Health System and Red Forest Consulting LLC, Ann Arbor, Mich (J.G.); Proscan International, Cincinnati, Ohio (T.G.); Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wis (E.J.); Radiology Associates of Fox Valley, Neenah, Wis (P.L.); Durham Radiology Associates, Durham, NC (J.L.); Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif (F.G.S.); Department of Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.W.); Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (B.L.W.); and Department of Quality and Safety, American College of Radiology, Reston, Va (D.H.).
Considerable confusion exists among the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging user community as to how to determine whether a patient with a metal implanted device can be safely imaged in an MR imaging unit. Although there has been progress by the device manufacturers in specifying device behavior in a magnetic field, and some MR imaging manufacturers provide maps of the "spatial gradients," there remains significant confusion because of the lack of standardized terminology and reporting guidelines. The American College of Radiology, through its Subcommittee on MR Safety, has proposed standardized terminology that will contribute to greater safety and understanding for screening metal implants and/or devices prior to MR imaging.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF