No abstract

Covid-19 CasesTo rapidly communicate information on the global clinical effort against Covid-19, the Journal has initiated a series of case reports that offer important teaching points or novel findings. The case reports should be viewed as observations rather than as recommendations for evaluation or treatment. In the interest of timeliness, these reports are evaluated by in-house editors, with peer review reserved for key points as needed. Coagulopathy and Antiphospholipid Antibodies in Patients with Covid-19We describe a patient with Covid-19 and clinically significant coagulopathy, antiphospholipid antibodies, and multiple infarcts. He was one of three patients with these findings in an intensive care unit designated for patients with Covid-19. This unit, which was managed by a multidisciplinary team from Peking Union Medical College Hospital in the Sino-French New City Branch of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, was set up on an emergency basis to accept the most critically ill patients during the outbreak of Covid-19. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was confirmed in all the patients by reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assay or serologic testing.A 69-year-old man with a history of hypertension, diabetes, and stroke presented with fever, cough, dyspnea, diarrhea, and headache. Covid-19 was diagnosed in the patient on January 25, 2020, on the basis of RT-PCR testing that detected SARS-CoV-2. The initial treatment was supportive; however, the illness subsequently progressed to hypoxemic respiratory failure warranting the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation.

Purpose: Patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are important components of processes designed to identify discrepancies between calculated and delivered radiation doses. Discrepancy tolerance limits are neither well defined nor consistently applied across centers. The AAPM TG-218 report provides a comprehensive review aimed at improving the understanding and consistency of these processes as well as recommendations for methodologies and tolerance limits in patient-specific IMRT QA. Methods: The performance of the dose difference/distance-to-agreement (DTA) and c dose distribution comparison metrics are investigated. Measurement methods are reviewed and followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each. Methodologies for absolute dose verification are discussed and new IMRT QA verification tools are presented. Literature on the expected or achievable agreement between measurements and calculations for different types of planning and delivery systems are reviewed and analyzed. Tests of vendor implementations of the c verification algorithm employing benchmark cases are presented. Results: Operational shortcomings that can reduce the c tool accuracy and subsequent effectiveness for IMRT QA are described. Practical considerations including spatial resolution, normalization, dose threshold, and data interpretation are discussed. Published data on IMRT QA and the clinical experience of the group members are used to develop guidelines and recommendations on tolerance and action limits for IMRT QA. Steps to check failed IMRT QA plans are outlined. Conclusion: Recommendations on delivery methods, data interpretation, dose normalization, the use of c analysis routines and choice of tolerance limits for IMRT QA are made with focus on detecting differences between calculated and measured doses via the use of robust analysis methods and an in-depth understanding of IMRT verification metrics. The recommendations are intended to improve the IMRT QA process and establish consistent, and comparable IMRT QA criteria among institutions.

AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

A B S T R A C T PurposeTo investigate the feasibility of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with or without chemotherapy, and to assess toxicities, failure patterns, and survivals in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Patients and MethodsRadiation consisted of 70 Gy given to the planning target volumes of primary tumor plus any Nϩ disease and 59.4 Gy given to subclinical disease, delivered over 33 treatment days. Patients with stage T2b or greater or with Nϩ disease also received concurrent cisplatin (100 mg/m 2 ) on days 1, 22, and 43 followed by adjuvant cisplatin (80 mg/m 2 ) on day 1; fluorouracil (1,000 mg/m 2 /d) on days 1 through 4 administered every 4 weeks for three cycles. Tumor, clinical status, and acute/late toxicities were assessed. The primary objective was to test the transportability of IMRT to a multi-institutional setting. February 2003 and November 2005, 68 patients with stages I through IVB NPC (of which 93.8% were WHO types 2 and 3) were enrolled. Prescribed IMRT (target delineation) was given to 83.8%, whereas 64.9% received chemotherapy per protocol. The estimated 2-year local progression-free (PF), regional PF, locoregional PF, and distant metastasis-free rates were 92.6%, 90.8%, 89.3%, and 84.7%, respectively. The estimated 2-year PF and overall survivals were 72.7% and 80.2%, respectively. Acute grade 4 mucositis occurred in 4.4%, and the worst late grade 3 toxicities were as follows: esophagus, 4.7%; mucous membranes, 3.1%; and xerostomia, 3.1%. The rate of grade 2 xerostomia at 1 year from start of IMRT was 13.5%. Only two patients complained of grade 3 xerostomia, and none had grade 4 xerostomia. Results Between ConclusionIt was feasible to transport IMRT with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of NPC to a multi-institutional setting with 90% LRPF rate reproducing excellent reports from single institutions. Minimal grade 3 and lack of grade 4 xerostomia were encouraging.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represents one of the most significant technical advances in radiation therapy since the advent of the medical linear accelerator. It allows the clinical implementation of highly conformal nonconvex dose distributions. This complex but promising treatment modality is rapidly proliferating in both academic and community practice settings. However, these advances do not come without a risk. IMRT is not just an add-on to the current radiation therapy process; it represents a new paradigm that requires the knowledge of multimodality imaging, setup uncertainties and internal organ motion, tumor control probabilities, normal tissue complication probabilities, three-dimensional (3-D) dose calculation and optimization, and dynamic beam delivery of nonuniform beam intensities. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a viable and safe IMRT program. The scope of the IMRT program is quite broad, encompassing multileaf-collimator-based IMRT delivery systems, goal-based inverse treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT with patient-specific quality assurance. This report, while not prescribing specific procedures, provides the framework and guidance to allow clinical radiation oncology physicists to make judicious decisions in implementing a safe and efficient IMRT program in their clinics.

Highlights d Quantitative lipidomic and metabolomic profiling of COVID-19 plasma d Plasma metabolite panel distinguished COVID-19 from healthy controls (AUC = 0.975) d Differential correlation analyses uncovered metabolic dysregulation in COVID-19 d GM3-enriched exosomes are positively correlated with COVID-19 pathogenesis

No abstract