RESUMO
PURPOSE: Our purpose was to investigate the interobserver variability in breast tumor bed delineation using magnetic resonance (MR) compared with computed tomography (CT) at baseline and to quantify the change in tumor bed volume between pretreatment and end-of-treatment MR for patients undergoing whole breast radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-eight patients with breast cancer planned for whole breast radiation therapy underwent CT and MR (T1, T1 fat-suppression [T1fs], and T2) simulation in the supine treatment position before radiation therapy and MR (T1, T1fs, and T2) at the end of treatment in the same position. Two observers delineated 50 tumor beds on the CT and all MR sequences and assigned cavity visualization scores to the images. The primary endpoint was interobserver variability, measured using the conformity index (CI). RESULTS: The mean cavity visualization scores at baseline were 3.14 (CT), 3.26 (T1), 3.41 (T1fs), and 3.58 (T2). The mean CIs were 0.65, 0.65, 0.72, and 0.68, respectively. T1fs significantly improved interobserver variability compared with CT, T1, or T2 (P < .001, P < .001, and P = .011, respectively). The CI for T1fs was significantly higher than T1 and T2 at the end of treatment (mean 0.72, 0.64, and 0.66, respectively; P < .001). The mean tumor bed volume on the T1fs sequence decreased from 18 cm3 at baseline to 13 cm3 at the end of treatment (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: T1fs reduced interobserver variability on both pre- and end-of-treatment scans and measured a reduction in tumor bed volume during whole breast radiation therapy. This rapid sequence could be easily used for adaptive boost or partial breast irradiation, especially on MR linear accelerators.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Mitigation strategies to balance the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection against oncologic risk in patients with breast cancer undergoing radiation therapy have been deployed. To this end, shorter hypofractionated regimens have been recommended where appropriate, with prioritization of radiation therapy by oncologic risk and omission or deferral of radiation therapy for lower risk cases. Timely adoption of these measures reduces COVID-19 risk to both patients and health care workers and preserves resources. Herein, we present our early response and adaptation of breast radiation therapy utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large academic cancer center in Canada. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A state of emergency was announced in Ontario on March 17, 2020, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency guidelines were instituted. To examine our response, the number of weekly breast radiation therapy starts, type of breast radiation therapy, and patient age were compared from March 1 to April 30, 2020 to the same period in 2019. RESULTS: After the declaration of emergency in Ontario, there was a decrease of 39% in radiation therapy starts in 2020 compared with 2019 (79 vs 129, P < .001). There was a relative increase in the proportion of patients receiving regional nodal irradiation (RNI) in 2020 compared with 2019 (46% vs 29%, respectively), with the introduction of hypofractionated RNI in 2020 (27 of 54 cases, 50%). A smaller proportion of patients starting radiation therapy were aged >50 years in 2020, 66% (78 of 118) versus 83% (132 of 160) in 2019, P = .0027. CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in breast radiation therapy starts was noted during the early response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with prioritization of radiation therapy to patients associated with higher oncologic risk requiring RNI. A quick response to a health care crisis is critical and is of particular importance for higher volume cancer sites where the potential effect on resources is greater.
RESUMO
Despite improvements in composite treatments over the past decade, postoperative sensitivity still remains a problem. Therefore, this clinical study evaluated the appearance of postoperative sensitivity after composite treatments and the stimuli that may have caused it. A total of 600 teeth in 231 patients was included in this study. All treatments were performed by dental students working under close supervision following standard procedures and using the bonding system Optibond FL and the nanofilled composite Ceram X. At baseline (visit 1), the restorations were grouped according to the following criteria: use of anesthesia, use of a rubber dam, indication for the restoration treatment, cavity class and clinical dimension of the cavity. After approximately two weeks (at visit 2), all the restorations were assessed and failure was defined if one of the following criteria occurred: a negative reaction to the vitality test, postoperative pain from masticatory forces or reported postoperative sensitivity by the patient. The reported postoperative sensitivity was specified with a visual analogue scale into hot/cold-sensitivity, sweet/soursensitivity, sharp/dull-sensitivity, spontaneous sensitivity and blistering/stinging-sensitivity. Failure was observed in 6% of the restorations. The statistical analysis showed that the clinical cavity depth turned out to be the only factor to have a significant influence on the appearance of postoperative sensitivity: caries profunda showed a four times higher risk of failure, while cavities with pulp exposure had a 14 times higher failure risk compared to restorations that were localized in the dentin. With regard to the type of sensitivity, no patients reported sensitivity to sweet/sour; most of them described their sensitivity as sharp/dull.
