MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March 2011 and May 2012, 20 patients were treated with 55 fractions of brachytherapy using tandem and ovoids and underwent post-implant CT scans. The external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) dose was 48.6 Gy in 27 fractions. HDR brachytherapy was delivered to a dose of 21 Gy in three fractions. The ICRU bladder and rectum point doses along with 4 additional rectal points were recorded. The maximum dose (DMax) to rectum was the highest recorded dose at one of these five points. Using the HDR plus 2.6 brachytherapy treatment planning system, the bladder and rectum were retrospectively contoured on the 55 CT datasets. The DVHs for rectum and bladder were calculated and the minimum doses to the highest irradiated 2cc area of rectum and bladder were recorded (D2cc) for all individual fractions. The mean D2cc of rectum was compared to the means of ICRU rectal point and rectal DMax using the Student's t-test. The mean D2cc of bladder was compared with the mean ICRU bladder point using the same statistical test .The total dose, combining EBRT and HDR brachytherapy, were biologically normalized to the conventional 2 Gy/fraction using the linear-quadratic model. (α/β value of 10 Gy for target, 3 Gy for organs at risk).
RESULTS: The total prescribed dose was 77.5 Gy α/β10. The mean dose to the rectum was 4.58 ± 1.22 Gy for D 2cc, 3.76 ± 0.65 Gy at D ICRU and 4.75 ± 1.01 Gy at DMax. The mean rectal D 2cc dose differed significantly from the mean dose calculated at the ICRU reference point (p<0.005); the mean difference was 0.82 Gy (0.48 -1.19 Gy). The mean EQD2 was 68.52 ± 7.24 Gy α/β3 for D 2cc, 61.71 ± 2.77 Gy α/β3 at D ICRU and 69.24 ± 6.02 Gy α/β3 at DMax. The mean ratio of D 2cc rectum to D ICRU rectum was 1.25 and the mean ratio of D 2cc rectum to DMax rectum was 0.98 for all individual fractions. The mean dose to the bladder was 6.00 ± 1.90 Gy for D 2cc and 5.10 ± 2.03 Gy at D ICRU. However, the mean D 2cc dose did not differ significantly from the mean dose calculated at the ICRU reference point (p=0.307); the mean difference was 0.90 Gy (0.49-1.25 Gy). The mean EQD2 was 81.85 ± 13.03 Gy α/β3 for D 2cc and 74.11 ± 19.39 Gy α/β3 at D ICRU. The mean ratio of D 2cc bladder to D ICRU bladder was 1.24. In the majority of applications, the maximum dose point was not the ICRU point. On average, the rectum received 77% and bladder received 92% of the prescribed dose.
CONCLUSIONS: OARs doses assessed by DVH criteria were higher than ICRU point doses. Our data suggest that the estimated dose to the ICRU bladder point may be a reasonable surrogate for the D 2cc and rectal DMax for D 2cc. However, the dose to the ICRU rectal point does not appear to be a reasonable surrogate for the D 2cc.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All newly diagnosed patients with NPC referred for treatment to the Oncology unit at UMMC from 2004-2008 were retrospectively analyzed. Treatment outcomes were 5 years overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), cause-specific survival (CSS), loco- regional control (LRC) and radiotherapy-related late effects. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis and differences in survival according to AJCC stage was compared using the log-rank test.
RESULTS: A total of 176 patients with newly diagnosed NPC were treated in UMMC during this period. Late presentation was common, with 33.5% presenting with T3-4 disease, 84.7% with N1-3 disease and 75.6% with AJCC stage 3-4 disease. Radical RT was given to 162 patients with 22.7% having RT alone and 69.3% having CCRT. The stipulated OTT was 7 weeks and 72.2% managed to complete their RT within this time period. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was given to 14.8% while adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 16.5%. The 5 years OS was 51.6% with a median follow up of 58 months. The 5 years OS according to stage were 81.8% for stage I, 77.9% for stage II, 47.4% for stage III and 25.9% for stage IV. The 5 years overall CSS, DFS and LRC were 54.4%, 48.4% and 70.6%, respectively. RT related late effects were documented in 80.2%. The commonest was xerostomia (66.7%). Other documented late effects were hearing deficit (17.3%), visual deficit (3.1%), neck stiffness (3.1%) , dysphagia (3.4%), cranial nerve palsy (2.5%), pneumonitis (0.6%) and hypothyroidism (1.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: The 5 years OS and LRC in this study are low compared to the latest studies especially those utilizing IMRT. Implementation of IMRT for NPC treatment should be strongly encouraged.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 10 consecutive patients treated with IMRT from June-October 2011 in Penang General Hospital were collected retrospectively for analysis. For each patient, dose volume histograms were generated for both the IMRT and 3DCRT plans using a total dose of 70Gy. Comparison of the plans was accomplished by comparing the target volume coverage (5 measures) and sparing of organs at risk (17 organs) for each patient using both IMRT and 3DCRT. The means of each comparison target volume coverage measures and organs at risk measures were obtained and tested for statistical significance using the paired Student t-test.
RESULTS: All 5 measures for target volume coverage showed marked dosimetric superiority of IMRT over 3DCRT. V70 and V66.5 for PTV70 showed an absolute improvement of 39.3% and 24.1% respectively. V59.4 and V56.4 for PTV59.4 showed advantages of 18.4% and 16.4%. Moreover, the mean PTV70 dose revealed a 5.1 Gy higher dose with IMRT. Only 4 out of 17 organs at risk showed statistically significant difference in their means which were clinically meaningful between the IMRT and 3DCRT techniques. IMRT was superior in sparing the spinal cord (less 5.8Gy), V30 of right parotid (less 14.3%) and V30 of the left parotid (less 13.1%). The V55 of the left cochlea was lower with 3DCRT (less 44.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: IMRT is superior to 3DCRT due to its dosimetric advantage in target volume coverage while delivering acceptable doses to organs at risk. A total dose of 70Gy with IMRT should be considered as a standard of care for radical treatment of NPC.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective study used data from 5 consecutive patients with NPC who were treated with bolus for large neck nodes using IMRT from November 2011-January 2012 in our institute. All these patients were treated radically with IMRT according to our institution's protocol. Re-planning with IMRT without bolus for these patients with exactly the same target volumes were done for comparison. Comparison of the plans was done by comparing the V70 of PTV70-N, V66.5 of PTV70-N, V65.1 of PTV70-N and the surface dose of the PTV70-N.
RESULTS: The mean size of the largest diameter of the enlarged lymph nodes for the 5 patients was 3.9 cm. The mean distance of the GTV-N to the skin surface was 0.6 cm. The mean V70 of PTV70-N for the 5 patients showed an absolute advantage of 10.8% (92.4% vs. 81.6%) for the plan with bolus while the V66.5 of PTV70-N had an advantage of 8.1% (97.0% vs. 88.9%). The mean V65.1 also had an advantage of 7.1% (97.6% vs. 90.5%). The mean surface dose for the PTV70-N was also much higher at 61.1 Gy for the plans with bolus compared to only 23.5 Gy for the plans without bolus.
CONCLUSION: Neck node bolus technique should be strongly considered in the treatment of NPC with enlarged lymph nodes treated with IMRT. It yields a superior dosimetry compared to non-bolus plans with acceptable skin toxicity.
METHODOLOGY: A total of 21 breast cancer patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery and IORT, either as IORT alone or IORT boost plus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), were recruited in this prospective study. EBT3 film was calibrated in water and used to measure skin dose during IORT at concentric circles of 5 mm and 40 mm away from the applicator. For patients who also had EBRT, the maximum skin dose was estimated using the radiotherapy treatment planning system. Mid-term skin toxicities were evaluated at 3 and 6 months post-IORT.
RESULTS: The average skin dose at 5 mm and 40 mm away from the applicator was 3.07 ± 0.82 Gy and 0.99 ± 0.28 Gy, respectively. Patients treated with IORT boost plus EBRT received an additional skin dose of 41.07 ± 1.57 Gy from the EBRT component. At 3 months post-IORT, 86% of patients showed no evidence of skin toxicity. However, the number of patients suffering from skin toxicity increased from 15% to 38% at 6 months post-IORT. We found no association between the IORT alone or with the IORT boost plus EBRT and skin toxicity. Older age was associated with increased risk of skin toxicities. A mathematical model was derived to predict skin dose.
CONCLUSION: EBT3 film is a suitable dosimeter for in vivo skin dosimetry in IORT, providing patient-specific skin doses. Both IORT alone and IORT boost techniques resulted in similar skin toxicity rates.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the changes of regional wall dynamics in 3D + time domain as remodeling progresses in AS.
STUDY TYPE: Retrospective.
POPULATION: A total of 31 AS patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (14 AS_rEF: 7 male, 66.5 [7.8] years old; 17 AS_pEF: 12 male, 67.0 [6.0] years old) and 15 healthy (6 male, 61.0 [7.0] years old).
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T Magnetic resonance imaging/steady state free precession and late-gadolinium enhancement sequences.
ASSESSMENT: Individual LV models were reconstructed in 3D + time domain and motion metrics including wall thickening (TI), dyssynchrony index (DI), contraction rate (CR), and relaxation rate (RR) were automatically extracted and associated with the presence of scarring and remodeling.
STATISTICAL TESTS: Shapiro-Wilk: data normality; Kruskal-Wallis: significant difference (P
METHODS: Teaching and Learning (T&L) activities were conducted virtually on e-learning platforms. The students' experience and feedback were evaluated after 15 weeks.
RESULTS: We found that while students preferred face-to-face, physical teaching, they were able to adapt to the new norm of e-learning. More than 60% of the students agreed that pre-recorded lectures and viewing videos of practical sessions, plus answering short questions, were beneficial. Certain aspects, such as hands-on practical and clinical experience, could never be replaced. The e-learning and study-from-home environment accorded a lot of flexibility. However, students also found it challenging to focus because of distractions, lack of engagement and mental stress. Technical problems, such as poor Internet connectivity and limited data plans, also compounded the problem.
CONCLUSION: We expect e-learning to prevail in future. Hybrid learning strategies, which includes face-to-face classes and e-learning, will become common, at least in the medical physics programme of the University of Malaya even after the pandemic.