CASE REPORT: A 3-month-old baby boy was presented with neonatal anaemia and mild hepatomegaly. Full blood count revealed severe hypochromic microcytic anaemia. There was an abundance of HbH inclusion bodies in his red blood cells. High-performance liquid chromatography showed a reduced HbA2 level with the presence of pre-run peak. Capillary electrophoresis showed the presence of HbH and Hb Barts. Molecular analysis found a common α0-thalassaemia (--SEA) in one allele and mutation in codon 125 in the other allele.
DISCUSSION: Non-deletional HbH disease due to a combination of deletional and non-deletional mutations may present with severe clinical manifestations than those with deletion mutations, which warrants accurate diagnosis using molecular techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT imaging data from twenty patients with breast or chest wall cancer, either right or left-sided, and with supraclavicular and internal mammary chain lymph nodes were retrieved. The CT data planned with a hybrid VMAT of three different weighting proportions: 30 % using 3DCRT and 70 % using VMAT, 50 % using 3DCRT and 50 % using VMAT, and 70% using 3DCRT and 30 % using VMAT and compared with full 3DCRT and full VMAT plan (classic and five arc design).
RESULTS: The homogeneity and conformity indices were better in the hybrid VMAT plans than in plans using VMAT or 3DCRT alone (P<0.005). Results of all hybrid VMAT plans showed a considerable drop of volumes receiving more than 4Gy, 8Gy or 16Gy in the ipsilateral lung compared to the full VMAT plan (P<0.001). There was a noticeable decrease in the mean dose to the heart and the dose in 5% of the contralateral breast in the plan using 70 % 3DCRT and 30 % VMAT compared to full VMAT (P<0.001). The plan using 70 % 3DCRT and 30% VMAT achieved a balance between the target and surrounding areas, compared to using only 3DCRT or VMAT.
CONCLUSION: A hybrid plan using 70 % 3DCRT contribution achieved a balanced outcome for breast or chest wall irradiation, considering both planning target volume and organs at risk. Utilizing our VMAT arc design, incorporating one shortened arc can significantly reduce doses to organs at risk further. It is important to consider the patient's anatomy when making this decision.
METHODS: This study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from March 2008 to February 2009 in a tertiary referral hospital at Sydney. The primary end point was cecal intubation time and the secondary endpoint was polyp detection rate. Consecutive cases of total colonoscopy over a 1-year period were recruited. Randomization into either standard colonoscopy (SC) or cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was performed after consent was obtained. For cases randomized to CAC, one of the three sizes of cap was used: D-201-15004 (with a diameter of 15.3 mm), D-201-14304 (14.6 mm) and D-201-12704 (13.0 mm). All of these caps were produced by Olympus Medical Systems, Japan. Independent predictors for faster cecal time and better polyp detection rate were also determined from this study.
RESULTS: There were 200 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in terms of demographic characteristics between the two groups. CAC, when compared to the SC group, had no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 97.0%, P = 0.40) and time (9.94 +/- 7.05 min vs 10.34 +/- 6.82 min, P = 0.21), or polyp detection rate (32.8% vs 31.3%, P = 0.75). On the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation time by trainees (88.1% vs 84.8%, P = 0.40), ileal intubation rate (82.5% vs 79.0%, P = 0.38) or total colonoscopy time (23.24 +/- 13.95 min vs 22.56 +/- 9.94 min, P = 0.88). On multivariate analysis, the independent determinants of faster cecal time were consultant-performed procedures (P < 0.001), male patients (P < 0.001), non-usage of hyoscine (P < 0.001) and better bowel preparation (P = 0.01). The determinants of better polyp detection rate were older age (P < 0.001), no history of previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.04), patients not having esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the same setting (P = 0.003), trainee-performed procedures (P = 0.01), usage of hyoscine (P = 0.01) and procedures performed for polyp follow-up (P = 0.01). The limitations of the study were that it was a single-center experience, no blinding was possible, and there were a large number of endoscopists.
CONCLUSION: CAC did not significantly different from SC in term of cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.