The Experimental Test Results of a Two-Section Linear Induction Launcher

A linear induction launcher (LIL) is an air-cored coilgun. Its barrel consists of an array of cylindrical drive coils and the barrel can be a single section or divided into several sections. A single-section barrel can be easily driven by energizing the coils in a polyphase fashion to accelerate the moving part of the LIL, the projectile. A multisection barrel, on the other hand, offers higher muzzle velocities for the projectile. From breech to muzzle, each section is energized with an increasing frequency. However, several problems arise when a multisection barrel is used. Some of them are currently reported in the literature. For example, a retarding force on the projectile has been observed while the projectile passes from one section to another. The initial position of the projectile also affects the launching performance. Some experiments can be useful to determine the optimum conditions to reach maximum possible muzzle velocity. This article concerns the design, implementation, and experimental test of a laboratory-scale, two-section LIL to examine the effects of various parameters on the launching performance.Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)Turkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu (TUBITAK) [107E115]This work was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under Grant 107E115. The review of this article was arranged by Senior Editor D. A. Wetz. (Corresponding author: Ugur Hasirci.)WOS:0005892693000412-s2.0-8509609916

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Rectal Carcinoma Can Reduce Treatment Breaks and Emergency Department Visits

Purpose. To compare the acute toxicities of IMRT to 3D-conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in the treatment of rectal cancer. Methods and Materials. Eighty-six patients with rectal cancer preoperatively treated with IMRT (n=30) and 3DCRT (n=56) were retrospectively reviewed. Rates of acute toxicity between IMRT and 3DCRT were compared for anorexia, dehydration, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, weight loss, radiation dermatitis, fatigue, pain, urinary frequency, and blood counts. Fisher's exact test and chi-square analysis were applied to detect statistical differences in incidences of toxicity between these two groups of patients. Results. There were fewer hospitalizations and emergency department visits in the group treated with IMRT compared with 3DCRT (P=0.005) and no treatment breaks with IMRT compared to 20% with 3DCRT (P=0.0002). Patients treated with IMRT had a significant reduction in grade ≥3 toxicities versus grade ≤2 toxicities (P=0.016) when compared to 3DCRT. The incidence of grade ≥3 diarrhea was 9% among 3DCRT patients compared to 3% among IMRT patients (P=0.31). Conclusions. IMRT for rectal cancer can reduce treatment breaks, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and all grade ≥3 toxicities compared to 3DCRT. Further evaluation and followup is warranted to determine late toxicities and long-term results of IMRT

Clinical Study Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Rectal Carcinoma Can Reduce Treatment Breaks and Emergency Department Visits

properly cited. Purpose. To compare the acute toxicities of IMRT to 3D-conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in the treatment of rectal cancer. Methods and Materials. Eighty-six patients with rectal cancer preoperatively treated with IMRT (n = 30) and 3DCRT (n = 56) were retrospectively reviewed. Rates of acute toxicity between IMRT and 3DCRT were compared for anorexia, dehydration, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, weight loss, radiation dermatitis, fatigue, pain, urinary frequency, and blood counts. Fisher's exact test and chi-square analysis were applied to detect statistical differences in incidences of toxicity between these two groups of patients. Results. There were fewer hospitalizations and emergency department visits in the group treated with IMRT compared with 3DCRT (P = 0.005) and no treatment breaks with IMRT compared to 20% with 3DCRT (P = 0.0002). Patients treated with IMRT had a significant reduction in grade ≥3 toxicities versus grade ≤2 toxicities (P = 0.016) when compared to 3DCRT. The incidence of grade ≥3 diarrhea was 9% among 3DCRT patients compared to 3% among IMRT patients (P = 0.31). Conclusions. IMRT for rectal cancer can reduce treatment breaks, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and all grade ≥3 toxicities compared to 3DCRT. Further evaluation and followup is warranted to determine late toxicities and long-term results of IMRT