7 research outputs found
Un nouvel outil d'évaluation des acquis en formation d'ingénieurs: le portefeuille de compétences
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe
Evaluation d'une première expérience de pédagogie active dans la formation d'ingénieur et pistes d'approfondissements de réforme pédagogique
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe
An assessment of the use of skin flashes in helical tomotherapy using phantom and in-vivo dosimetry
Background and purpose: In helical tomotherapy the nature of the optimizing and planning systems allows the delivery of dose on the skin using a build-up compensating technique (skin flash). However, positioning errors or changes in the patient's contour can influence the correct dosage in these regions. This work studies the behavior of skin-flash regions using phantom and in-vivo dosimetry. Materials and methods: The dosimetric accuracy of the tomotherapy planning system in skin-flash regions is checked using film and TLD on phantom. Positioning errors are induced and the effect on the skin dose is investigated. Further a volume decrease is simulated using bolus material and the results are compared. Results: Results show that the tomotherapy planning system calculates dose on skin regions within 2 SD using TLD measurements. Film measurements show drops of dose of 2.8% and 26% for, respectively, a 5 mm and 10 mm mispositioning of the phantom towards air and a dose increase of 9% for a 5 mm shift towards tissue. These measurements are confirmed by TLD measurements. A simulated volume reduction shows a similar behavior with a 2.6% and 19.4% drop in dose, measured with TLDs. Conclusion: The tomotherapy system allows adequate planning and delivery of dose using skin flashes. However, exact positioning is crucial to deliver the dose at the exact location. © 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe
XXIIIrd congress of the International Society of Biomechanics - ISB2011 Conference book – Programme & Abstracts
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe
Recommended from our members
Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial
We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19.
In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978.
Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90.
Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.
US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee