RESUMEN

Objetivo: disminuir el efecto de artefacto que generan objetos de alta densidad mediante la utilización de filtros de distintos materiales y espesores, ubicados en lugares estratégicos del tomógrafo. Material y métodos: se utilizaron filtros de aluminio y de cobre ubicados en lugares estratégicos en el equipo tomográfico. Se realizaron cortes oblicuos en piezas dentarias con restauraciones metálicas y en implantes; se midió la extensión del artefacto en ancho y alto en cada adquisición tomográfica. Resultados: se hallaron diferencias significativas respecto a la disminución de la dispersión de acuerdo con cada filtro con respecto a la no utilización de estos elementos. Conclusión: la utilización de filtros logró disminuir el efecto de artefacto en estructuras de alta densidad, obteniendo una mejor calidad de imagen para el diagnóstico, permitiendo que el software pueda reconstruir una imagen real (AU)

---

Objective: to diminish the artifact effect generated by high density objects by using filters of different materials and thickness, located in strategic places of the tomograph. Material and methods: aluminum and copper filters located in strategic places in the tomographic equipment were used. Oblique cuts were made on dental pieces with metal restorations and implants; the extension of the artifact in width and height was measured in each tomographic acquisition. Results: significant differences were found regarding the decrease of the dispersion according to each filter with respect to the non-use of these elements. Conclusion: the use of filters achieves to diminish the artifact effect in structures of high density, obtaining a better image quality for the diagnosis, allowing the software to reconstruct a real image (AU)

Asunto(s)

Artefactos , Equipo Dental , Tomografía Computarizada de Haz Cónico , Implantes Dentales , Filtros , Aluminio

RESUMEN

AIM: Describe characteristics and outcomes of three patients treated with pelvic radiation therapy after kidney transplant. BACKGROUND: The incidence of pelvic cancers in kidney transplant (KT) recipients is rising. Currently it is the leading cause of death. Moreover, treatment is challenging because anatomical variants, comorbidities, and associated treatments, which raises the concern of using radiotherapy (RT). RT has been discouraged due to the increased risk of urethral/ureteral stricture and KT dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the electronic health records and digital planning system of patients treated with pelvic RT between December 2013 and December 2018 to identify patients with previous KT. CASES DESCRIPTION: We describe three successful cases of KT patients in which modern techniques allowed full standard RT for pelvic malignances (2 prostate and 1 vaginal cancer) with or without elective pelvic nodal RT, without allograft toxicity at short and long follow-up (up to 60 months). CONCLUSION: When needed, RT modern techniques remain a valid option with excellent oncologic results and acceptable toxicity. Physicians should give special considerations to accomplish all OAR dose constraints in the patient's specific setting. Recent publications recommend KT mean dose <4 Gy, but graft proximity to CTV makes this unfeasible. We present 2 cases where dose constraint was not achieved, and to a short follow-up of 20 months renal toxicity has not been documented. We recommend the lowest possible mean dose to the KT, but never compromising the CTV coverage, since morbimortality from recurrent or progressive cancer disease outweighs the risk of graft injury.

RESUMEN

AIM: The purpose of this study was to review genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with high-dose radiotherapy (RT) delivered with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) following radical prostatectomy (RP). BACKGROUND: RP is a therapeutic option for the management of prostate cancer (PrCa). When assessing postoperative RT techniques for PrCa, the published literature focuses on patients treated with 2-dimensional conventional methods without reflecting the implementation of 3D-CRT, IMRT, or VMAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 83 patients were included in this analysis; 30 patients received 3D-CRT, and 53 patients received IMRT/VMAT. Acute and late symptoms of the GU and lower GI tract were retrospectively graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer radiation toxicity grading systems. The relapse failure-free rate and overall survival were also evaluated. RESULTS: The rate of acute GU toxicity was 9.4% vs. 13.3% for the IMRT/VMAT and 3D-CRT groups (p = 0.583). The 5-year actuarial rates of late GI toxicity for IMRT/VMAT and 3D-CRT treatments were 1.9% and 6.7%, respectively. The rate of late GU toxicity for the IMRT/VMAT and 3D-CRT treatment groups was 7.5% and 16.6%, respectively (p = 0.199). We found no association between acute or late toxicity and the RT technique in univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: Postprostatectomy IMRT/VMAT and 3D-CRT achieved similar morbidity and cancer control outcomes. The clinical benefit of highly conformal techniques in this setting is unclear although formal analysis is needed.