Graft hyperperfusion in small-for-size grafts (SFSG) is considered the main causal factor of small-for-size syndrome (SFSS). We compared SFSG with a graft-torecipient body ratio ≤0.8, with and without graft inflow modulation (GIM) by means of a hemi-portocaval shunt (HPCS). Thirteen patients underwent adult-toadult living donor liver transplantation (AALDLT): G1, n = 5 [4 right livers (RL) and 1 left liver (LL)] without GIM, and G2, n = 8 (4 RL and 4 LL) with GIM. In G2 patients, portal vein flow (PVF) was significantly reduced by HPCS: 190 ± 70 mL/min/100 g liver in G2 vs. 401 ± 225 ml/min in G1 (p = 0.002). One-and 6-month post-transplantation graft volume/standard liver volume (GV/SLV) ratio was of 72% and 79.5% in G1; 80% and 101% in G2 (p = ns). SFSS was observed in three G1 recipients (who were retransplanted), but in none of the G2 patients. At 1-year, patient and graft survival was respectively of 40% and 20% in G1, 87.5% and 75% in G2 (p = 0.024 and 0.03).It is concluded that drastic reduction of PVF by means of HPCS improves overall patient and graft survival by averting the occurrence of SFSS. Graft inflow modulation through HPCS reduces the risk of complications when transplanting SFSG in adult recipients.
When a suboptimal graft:recipient body weight ratio is accompanied by high rPVF in ALDLTx, the portal flow should be modulated perioperatively; splenic artery ligation is a simple and safe method that is sufficient to allow this modulation in most patients.
Data available in patients suffering from squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, lung carcinoma, oesophageal carcinoma and gynaecological malignancies suggest that metabolic tumour volume and to a lesser extent total lesion glycolysis have the potential to become valuable in the imaging of human solid tumours as prognostic biomarkers for short- to intermediate-term survival outcomes, adding value to clinical staging, for assessment of response to treatment with neoadjuvant and concurrent chemotherapy, and for treatment optimization; for example, based on early treatment response assessment using changes in metabolic tumour volume over time, it might be possible to select patients who require a more aggressive treatment to improve their outcome. Prospective studies enrolling consecutive patients, adopting standardized protocols for FDG PET acquisition and processing, adjusting for potential confounders in the analysis (tumour size and origin) and determining the optimal methodology for determination of these novel markers are mandatory.
LLR significantly reduced time to oral intake, hospital stay, and incisional hernias compared to OS. Bleeding is a major risk and should be carefully considered when resecting benign tumors. In the hands of expert surgeons, LLR may become the gold standard for the resection of benign liver tumors located in the anterior and lateral sectors and for minor hepatic resections.
Purpose: In rectal cancer, combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy, either pre-or postoperatively, is an accepted treatment. Late small bowel (SB) toxicity is a feared side effect and limits radiation-dose escalation in a volume-dependent way. A planning strategy for intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) was developed, and IMAT was clinically implemented with the aim to reduce the volume of SB irradiated at high doses and thus reduce SB toxicity. We report on the treatment plans of the first 7 patients, on the comparison of IMAT with conventional 3D planning (3D), and on the feasibility of IMAT delivery. Methods and Materials: Seven patients, who were referred to our department for preoperative (n ؍ 4) or postoperative (n ؍ 3) radiotherapy for rectal cancer, gave written consent for IMAT treatment. All patients had a planning CT in prone position. The delineation of the clinical target volume was done after fusion of CT and MRI, with the help of a radiologist. For the IMAT plan, arcs were generated using an anatomybased segmentation tool. The optimization of the arcs was done by weight optimization (WO) and leaf position optimization (LPO), both of which were adapted for IMAT purposes. The 3D plans used one posterior and two lateral wedged beams, of which the outlines were shaped to the beam's-eye view projection of the planning target volume (PTV). Beam WO was done by constrained matrix inversion. For dose-volume histogram analysis, all plans were normalized to 45 Gy as median PTV dose. Polymer gel dosimetry (PGD) on a humanoid phantom was used for the validation of the total chain (planning to delivery). IMAT treatments were delivered by an Elekta SliPlus linear accelerator using prototype software with the same interlock class as in clinical mode. Results: The IMAT plan resulted in 3 to 6 arcs, with a mean delivery time of 6.3 min and a mean of 456 monitor units (MU) for a 180 cGy fraction. The minimal dose in the PTV was not significantly different between 3D and IMAT plans. Inhomogeneity was highest for the IMAT plans (14.1%) and lowest for the 3D plans (9.9%). Mean dose to the SB was significantly lower for the IMAT plans (12.4 Gy) than for the 3D plans (17.0 Gy). The volume of SB receiving less than any dose level was lower for the IMAT plans than for 3D plans. Integral dose was lower in the IMAT plans than for the 3D plans (respectively 244 J and 262 J to deliver 45 Gy). Differences between the PGD measured dose and the calculated dose were as small for IMAT as for 3D treatments. Conclusion: IMAT plans are deliverable within a 5-10-minute time slot, and result in a lower dose to the SB than 3D plans, without creating significant underdosages in the PTV. PGD showed that IMAT delivery is as accurate as 3D delivery. © 2004 Elsevier Inc.Intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT), Rectal cancer, Small bowel toxicity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.