Dose to level I and II axillary lymph nodes and lung by tangential field radiation in patients undergoing postmastectomy radiation with tissue expander reconstruction

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To define the dosimetric coverage of level I/II axillary volumes and the lung volume irradiated in postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) following tissue expander placement.</p> <p>Methods and Materials</p> <p>Twenty-three patients were identified who had undergone postmastectomy radiotherapy with tangent only fields. All patients had pre-radiation tissue expander placement and expansion. Thirteen patients had bilateral expander reconstruction. The level I/II axillary volumes were contoured using the RTOG contouring atlas. The patient-specific variables of expander volume, superior-to-inferior location of expander, distance between expanders, expander angle and axillary volume were analyzed to determine their relationship to the axillary volume and lung volume dose.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean coverage of the level I/II axillary volume by the 95% isodose line (V_D95%) was 23.9% (range 0.3 - 65.4%). The mean Ipsilateral Lung V_D50%was 8.8% (2.2-20.9). Ipsilateral and contralateral expander volume correlated to Axillary V_D95%in patients with bilateral reconstruction (p = 0.01 and 0.006, respectively) but not those with ipsilateral only reconstruction (p = 0.60). Ipsilateral Lung V_D50%correlated with angle of the expander from midline (p = 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In patients undergoing PMRT with tissue expanders, incidental doses delivered by tangents to the axilla, as defined by the RTOG contouring atlas, do not provide adequate coverage. The posterior-superior region of level I and II is the region most commonly underdosed. Axillary volume coverage increased with increasing expander volumes in patients with bilateral reconstruction. Lung dose increased with increasing expander angle from midline. This information should be considered both when placing expanders and when designing PMRT tangent only treatment plans by contouring and targeting the axilla volume when axillary treatment is indicated.</p

Intra aortic balloon pump: literature review of risk factors related to complications of the intraaortic balloon pump

The increasing use of the intra aortic balloon pump is attributed to the relatively easy percutaneous insertion and the low threshold of use over the past few years, especially in elderly patients with multi-vessel diseases and an affected ejection fraction

The International Heat Stress Genotype Experiment for modeling wheat response to heat: field experiments and AgMIP-Wheat multi-model simulations

The data set contains a portion of the International Heat Stress Genotype Experiment (IHSGE) data used in the AgMIP-Wheat project to analyze the uncertainty of 30 wheat crop models and quantify the impact of heat on global wheat yield productivity. It includes two spring wheat cultivars grown during two consecutive winter cropping cycles at hot, irrigated, and low latitude sites in Mexico (Ciudad Obregon and Tlaltizapan), Egypt (Aswan), India (Dharwar), the Sudan (Wad Medani), and Bangladesh (Dinajpur). Experiments in Mexico included normal (November-December) and late (January-March) sowing dates. Data include local daily weather data, soil characteristics and initial soil conditions, crop measurements (anthesis and maturity dates, anthesis and final total above ground biomass, final grain yields and yields components), and cultivar information. Simulations include both daily in-season and end-of-season results from 30 wheat models

Does the routine use of global coronary heart disease risk scores translate into clinical benefits or harms? A systematic review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Guidelines now recommend routine assessment of global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk scores. We performed a systematic review to assess whether global CHD risk scores result in clinical benefits or harms.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched MEDLINE (1966 through June 13, 2007) for articles relevant to our review. Using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included studies of any design that provided physicians with global risk scores or allowed them to calculate scores themselves, and then measured clinical benefits and/or harms. Two reviewers reviewed potentially relevant studies for inclusion and resolved disagreement by consensus. Data from each article was then abstracted into an evidence table by one reviewer and the quality of evidence was assessed independently by two reviewers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>11 studies met criteria for inclusion in our review. Six studies addressed clinical benefits and 5 addressed clinical harms. Six studies were rated as "fair" quality and the others were deemed "methodologically limited". Two fair quality studies showed that physician knowledge of global CHD risk is associated with increased prescription of cardiovascular drugs in high risk (but not all) patients. Two additional fair quality studies showed no effect on their primary outcomes, but one was underpowered and the other focused on prescribing of lifestyle changes, rather than drugs whose prescribing might be expected to be targeted by risk level. One of these aforementioned studies showed improved blood pressure in high-risk patients, but no improvement in the proportion of patients at high risk, perhaps due to the high proportion of participants with baseline risks significantly exceeding the risk threshold. Two fair quality studies found no evidence of harm from patient knowledge of global risk scores when they were accompanied by counseling, and optional or scheduled follow-up. Other studies were too methodologically limited to draw conclusions.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our review provides preliminary evidence that physicians' knowledge of global CHD risk scores may translate into modestly increased prescribing of cardiovascular drugs and modest short-term reductions in CHD risk factors without clinical harm. Whether these results are replicable, and translate across other practice settings or into improved long-term CHD outcomes remains to be seen.</p

A systematic review of the reporting of Data Monitoring Committees' roles, interim analysis and early termination in pediatric clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Decisions about interim analysis and early stopping of clinical trials, as based on recommendations of Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs), have far reaching consequences for the scientific validity and clinical impact of a trial. Our aim was to evaluate the frequency and quality of the reporting on DMC composition and roles, interim analysis and early termination in pediatric trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials published from 2005 to 2007 in a sample of four general and four pediatric journals. We used full-text databases to identify trials which reported on DMCs, interim analysis or early termination, and included children or adolescents. Information was extracted on general trial characteristics, risk of bias, and a set of parameters regarding DMC composition and roles, interim analysis and early termination.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>110 of the 648 pediatric trials in this sample (17%) reported on DMC or interim analysis or early stopping, and were included; 68 from general and 42 from pediatric journals. The presence of DMCs was reported in 89 of the 110 included trials (81%); 62 papers, including 46 of the 89 that reported on DMCs (52%), also presented information about interim analysis. No paper adequately reported all DMC parameters, and nine (15%) reported all interim analysis details. Of 32 trials which terminated early, 22 (69%) did not report predefined stopping guidelines and 15 (47%) did not provide information on statistical monitoring methods.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Reporting on DMC composition and roles, on interim analysis results and on early termination of pediatric trials is incomplete and heterogeneous. We propose a minimal set of reporting parameters that will allow the reader to assess the validity of trial results.</p