No abstract

Purpose: To assess the frequency, appropriateness, and radiation doses associated with multiphase computed tomography (CT) protocols for routine chest and abdomen–pelvis examinations in 18 countries. Materials and Methods: In collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency, multi-institutional data on clinical indications, number of scan phases, scan parameters, and radiation dose descriptors (CT dose–index volume; dose–length product [DLP]) were collected for routine chest (n = 1706 patients) and abdomen–pelvis (n = 426 patients) CT from 18 institutions in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Two radiologists scored the need for each phase based on clinical indications (1 = not indicated, 2 = probably indicated, 3 = indicated). We surveyed 11 institutions for their practice regarding single-phase and multiphase CT examinations. Data were analyzed with the Student t test. Results: Most institutions use multiphase protocols for routine chest (10/18 institutions) and routine abdomen–pelvis (10/11 institutions that supplied data for abdomen–pelvis) CT examinations. Most institutions (10/11) do not modify scan parameters between different scan phases. Respective total DLP for 1-, 2-, and 3-phase routine chest CT was 272, 518, and 820 mGy·cm, respectively. Corresponding values for 1- to 5-phase routine abdomen–pelvis CT were 400, 726, 1218, 1214, and 1458 mGy cm, respectively. For multiphase CT protocols, there were no differences in scan parameters and radiation doses between different phases for either chest or abdomen–pelvis CT ( P = 0.40-0.99). Multiphase CT examinations were unnecessary in 100% of routine chest CT and in 63% of routine abdomen–pelvis CT examinations. Conclusions: Multiphase scan protocols for the routine chest and abdomen–pelvis CT examinations are unnecessary, and their use increases radiation dose.

No abstract

No abstract

introduction: after the consensus conference in st. gallen and updated nccn guidelines, we started doing sentinel lymph node biopsy (slnB) in May 2017, for breast cancer patients who achieve clinical axillary remission following neoadjuvant treatment. this study's primary goal was to evaluate the clinical impact of slnB after neoadjuvant therapy in the group mentioned above. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all neoadjuvant breast cancer patients from May 2016 until May 2018 at clinical Hospital center rijeka. our preliminary results recorded the appearance of locoregional and distant recurrence. results: from 65 patients involved in this analysis, 48 patients were node-positive at the time of diagnosis, and 45.83% among those achieved complete pathological axillary remission. After the first postoperative year, there were no locoregional relapses nor statistically significant differences in the prevalence of distant recurrences, regardless of the extent of surgical procedure. However, results showed higher rates of locoregional and distant relapse for the group of patients that did not attain complete axillary remission. conclusion: slnB is a reliable alternative to alnD for locoregional and overall disease control for breast cancer patients who achieve complete clinical axillary remission after preoperative systemic treatment. the clinical axillary lymph node status, after neoadjuvant therapy, is a more relevant prognostic factor than the clinical axillary lymph node status at the beginning of the treatment.