| 1. |
- Gerkin, RC, et al.
(författare)
-
The best COVID-19 predictor is recent smell loss: a cross-sectional study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. - : Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- BackgroundCOVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19.MethodsThis preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery.ResultsBoth C19+ and C19-groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ∼50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset.ConclusionsAs smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4<OR<10), which can be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.
|
|
| 2. |
- Vatnitsky, S, et al.
(författare)
-
Proton dosimetry intercomparison based on the ICRU report 59 protocol
- 1999
-
Ingår i: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - 0167-8140 .- 1879-0887. ; 51:3, s. 273-279
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:A new protocol for calibration of proton beams was established by the ICRU in report 59 on proton dosimetry. In this paper we report the results of an international proton dosimetry intercomparison, which was held at Loma Linda University Medical Center. The goals of the intercomparison were, first, to estimate the level of consistency in absorbed dose delivered to patients if proton beams at various clinics were calibrated with the new ICRU protocol, and second, to evaluate the differences in absorbed dose determination due to differences in 60Co-based ionization chamber calibration factors.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Eleven institutions participated in the intercomparison. Measurements were performed in a polystyrene phantom at a depth of 10.27 cm water equivalent thickness in a 6-cm modulated proton beam with an accelerator energy of 155 MeV and an incident energy of approximately 135 MeV. Most participants used ionization chambers calibrated in terms of exposure or air kerma. Four ionization chambers had 60Co-based calibration in terms of absorbed dose-to-water. Two chambers were calibrated in a 60Co beam at the NIST both in terms of air kerma and absorbed dose-to-water to provide a comparison of ionization chambers with different calibrations.RESULTS:The intercomparison showed that use of the ICRU report 59 protocol would result in absorbed doses being delivered to patients at their participating institutions to within +/-0.9% (one standard deviation). The maximum difference between doses determined by the participants was found to be 2.9%. Differences between proton doses derived from the measurements with ionization chambers with N(K)-, or N(W) - calibration type depended on chamber type.CONCLUSIONS:Using ionization chambers with 60Co calibration factors traceable to standard laboratories and the ICRU report 59 protocol, a distribution of stated proton absorbed dose is achieved with a difference less than 3%. The ICRU protocol should be adopted for clinical proton beam calibration. A comparison of proton doses derived from measurements with different chambers indicates that the difference in results cannot be explained only by differences in 60Co calibration factors.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Nesti, Cedric, et al.
(författare)
-
Hemicolectomy versus appendectomy for patients with appendiceal neuroendocrine tumours 1-2 cm in size : a retrospective, Europe-wide, pooled cohort study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 24:2, s. 187-194
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundAwareness of the potential global overtreatment of patients with appendiceal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) of 1–2 cm in size by performing oncological resections is increasing, but the rarity of this tumour has impeded clear recommendations to date. We aimed to assess the malignant potential of appendiceal NETs of 1–2 cm in size in patients with or without right-sided hemicolectomy.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we pooled data from 40 hospitals in 15 European countries for patients of any age and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status with a histopathologically confirmed appendiceal NET of 1–2 cm in size who had a complete resection of the primary tumour between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2010. Patients either had an appendectomy only or an appendectomy with oncological right-sided hemicolectomy or ileocecal resection. Predefined primary outcomes were the frequency of distant metastases and tumour-related mortality. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of regional lymph node metastases, the association between regional lymph node metastases and histopathological risk factors, and overall survival with or without right-sided hemicolectomy. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the relative all-cause mortality hazard associated with right-sided hemicolectomy compared with appendectomy alone. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03852693.Findings282 patients with suspected appendiceal tumours were identified, of whom 278 with an appendiceal NET of 1–2 cm in size were included. 163 (59%) had an appendectomy and 115 (41%) had a right-sided hemicolectomy, 110 (40%) were men, 168 (60%) were women, and mean age at initial surgery was 36·0 years (SD 18·2). Median follow-up was 13·0 years (IQR 11·0–15·6). After centralised histopathological review, appendiceal NETs were classified as a possible or probable primary tumour in two (1%) of 278 patients with distant peritoneal metastases and in two (1%) 278 patients with distant metastases in the liver. All metastases were diagnosed synchronously with no tumour-related deaths during follow-up. Regional lymph node metastases were found in 22 (20%) of 112 patients with right-sided hemicolectomy with available data. On the basis of histopathological risk factors, we estimated that 12·8% (95% CI 6·5 –21·1) of patients undergoing appendectomy probably had residual regional lymph node metastases. Overall survival was similar between patients with appendectomy and right-sided hemicolectomy (adjusted hazard ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·36–2·17]; p=0·71).InterpretationThis study provides evidence that right-sided hemicolectomy is not indicated after complete resection of an appendiceal NET of 1–2 cm in size by appendectomy, that regional lymph node metastases of appendiceal NETs are clinically irrelevant, and that an additional postoperative exclusion of metastases and histopathological evaluation of risk factors is not supported by the presented results. These findings should inform consensus best practice guidelines for this patient cohort.
|
|
