23 research outputs found

    Clinical applications of magnetic resonance imaging based functional and structural connectivity

    Get PDF
    Advances in computational neuroimaging techniques have expanded the armamentarium of imaging tools available for clinical applications in clinical neuroscience. Non-invasive, in vivo brain MRI structural and functional network mapping has been used to identify therapeutic targets, define eloquent brain regions to preserve, and gain insight into pathological processes and treatments as well as prognostic biomarkers. These tools have the real potential to inform patient-specific treatment strategies. Nevertheless, a realistic appraisal of clinical utility is needed that balances the growing excitement and interest in the field with important limitations associated with these techniques. Quality of the raw data, minutiae of the processing methodology, and the statistical models applied can all impact on the results and their interpretation. A lack of standardization in data acquisition and processing has also resulted in issues with reproducibility. This limitation has had a direct impact on the reliability of these tools and ultimately, confidence in their clinical use. Advances in MRI technology and computational power as well as automation and standardization of processing methods, including machine learning approaches, may help address some of these issues and make these tools more reliable in clinical use. In this review, we will highlight the current clinical uses of MRI connectomics in the diagnosis and treatment of neurological disorders; balancing emerging applications and technologies with limitations of connectivity analytic approaches to present an encompassing and appropriate perspective

    The IMPACT of Molecular Grading of Gliomas on Contemporary Clinical Practice

    No full text
    More recently, significant advances have been made in the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of gliomas. For example, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation is a defining event in glioma development, appearing early in gliomagenesis and giving rise to gliomas with distinct behavior. Mutations in IDH, a rate-limiting enzyme in the Krebs cycle, likely affect metabolic activity and genetic expression

    Adverse Events Involving Radiation Oncology Medical Devices: Comprehensive Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 1991 to 2015.

    No full text
    PurposeRadiation oncology relies on rapidly evolving technology and highly complex processes. The US Food and Drug Administration collects reports of adverse events related to medical devices. We sought to characterize all events involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration's postmarket surveillance Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology devices.Methods and materialsMAUDE data on RODs from 1991 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems) and 5 device problem categories (software, mechanical, electrical, user error, and dose delivery impact). Outcomes included whether the device was evaluated by the manufacturer, adverse event type, remedial action, problem code, device age, and time since 510(k) approval. Descriptive statistics were performed with linear regression of time-series data. Results for RODs were compared with those for other devices by the Pearson χ2 test for categorical data and 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for distributions.ResultsThere were 4234 ROD and 4,985,698 other device adverse event reports. Adverse event reports increased over time, and events involving RODs peaked in 2011. Most ROD reports involved external beam therapy (50.8%), followed by brachytherapy (24.9%) and treatment planning systems (21.6%). The top problem types were software (30.4%), mechanical (20.9%), and user error (20.4%). RODs differed significantly from other devices in each outcome (P<.001). RODs were more likely to be evaluated by the manufacturer after an event (46.9% vs 33.0%) but less likely to be recalled (10.5% vs 37.9%) (P<.001). Device age and time since 510(k) approval were shorter among RODs (P<.001).ConclusionsCompared with other devices, RODs may experience adverse events sooner after manufacture and market approval. Close postmarket surveillance, improved software design, and manufacturer-user training may help mitigate these events
    corecore