Device for providing a radiation treatment

The present relates to a device for providing a radiation treatment to a patient comprising :- an electron source for providing a beam of electrons, and- a linear accelerator for accelerating said beam until a predetermined energy, and - a beam delivery module for delivering the accelerated beam from said linear accelerator toward the patient to treat a target volume with a radiation dose, The device further comprises intensity modulation means configured to modulate the distribution of the radiation dose in the target volume according to a predetermined pattern.The pattern is determined to match the dimensions of a target volume of at least about 50 cm3, and/or a target volume located at least about 5 cm deep in the tissue of the patient with said radiation dose,The radiation dose distributed is up to about 20 Gy delivered during an overall treatment time less than about 50 ms

NEPA, a new fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, is a cost-effective intervention for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the UK

Background: The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, an oral fixed combination netupitant (NETU, 300 mg) and palonosetron (PA, 0.5 mg) compared with aprepitant and palonosetron (APPA) or palonosetron (PA) alone, to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing treatment with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) in the UK. Scope: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were undertaken to compare NEPA with currently recommended anti-emetics. Relative effectiveness was estimated over the acute (day 1) and overall treatment (days 1–5) phases, taking complete response (CR, no emesis and no rescue medication) and complete protection (CP, CR and no more than mild nausea [VAS scale <25 mm]) as primary efficacy outcomes. A three-health-state Markov cohort model, including CP, CR and incomplete response (no CR) for HEC and MEC, was constructed. A five-day time horizon and UK NHS perspective were adopted. Transition probabilities were obtained by combining the response rates of CR and CP from NEPA trials and odds ratios from the meta-analysis. Utilities of 0.90, 0.70 and 0.24 were defined for CP, CR and incomplete response, respectively. Costs included medications and management of CINV-related events and were obtained from the British National Formulary and NHS Reference Costs. The expected budgetary impact of NEPA was also evaluated. Findings: In HEC patients, the NEPA strategy was more effective than APPA (quality-adjusted life days [QALDs] of 4.263 versus 4.053; incremental emesis-free and CINV-free days of +0.354 and +0.237, respectively) and was less costly (£80 versus £124), resulting in NEPA being the dominant strategy. In MEC patients, NEPA was cost effective, cumulating in an estimated 0.182 extra QALDs at an incremental cost of £6.65 compared with PA. Conclusion: Despite study limitations (study setting, time horizon, utility measure), the results suggest NEPA is cost effective for preventing CINV associated with HEC and MEC in the UK

A treatment planning comparison of contemporary photon-based radiation techniques for breast cancer

Background and purpose: Adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) of the whole breast (WB) is still the standard treatment for early breast cancer. A variety of radiation techniques is currently available according to different delivery strategies. This study aims to provide a comparison of six treatment planning strategies commonly adopted for breast-conserving adjuvant RT and to use the Pareto concept in an attempt to assess the degree of plan optimization. Materials and methods: Two groups of six left- and five right-sided cases with different dose prescriptions were involved (22 patients in total). Field-in-Field (FiF), two and four Fields static-IMRT (sIMRT-2f and sIMRT-4f), Volumetric-Modulated-Arc-Therapy (VMAT), Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and Static-Angles Tomotherapy (TomoDirect™ – TD) were planned. Dose volume constraints were taken from the RTOG protocol 1005. Pareto fronts were built for a selected case to evaluate the reliability of the plan optimization process. Results: The best target dose coverage was observed for TD able to improve significantly (p < 0.01) the V95% in a range varying from 1.2% to 7.5% compared to other techniques. The V105% was significantly reduced up to 2% for HT (p < 0.05) although FiF and VMAT produced similar values. For the ipsilateral lung, V5Gy, V10Gy and Dmean were significantly lower than all other techniques (p < 0.02) for TD while the lowest value of V20Gy was observed for HT. The maximum dose to contralateral breast was significantly lowest for TD (p < 0.02) and for FiF (p < 0.05). Minor differences were observed for the heart in left-sided patients. Plans for all tested techniques were found to lie on their respective Pareto fronts. Conclusions: Overall, TD provided significantly better results in terms of target coverage and dose sparing of ipsilateral lung with respect to all other evaluated techniques. It also significantly minimized dose to contralateral breast together with FiF. Pareto front analysis confirmed the reliability of the optimization for a selected case. Keywords: Treatment planning, Whole-breast irradiation, Planning comparison, Pareto fron

Transcription and replication of Mononegavirales: an original molecular machine

National audienc

Transcription and replication of Mononegavirales: an original molecular machine

National audienc