Say What? Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba Syndrome Presenting with Gastrointestinal Bleeding Due to Hamartoma-Induced Intussusception.
Digestive diseases and sciences
Large Sessile Serrated Polyps Can Be Safely and Effectively Removed by Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
2016; 14 (4): 568-574
Migration of implanted markers for image-guided lung tumor stereotactic ablative radiotherapy
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS
2013; 14 (2): 77-89
Tumor Volume-Adapted Dosing in Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy of Lung Tumors
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS
2012; 84 (1): 231-237
As many as 50% of large sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSPs) are removed incompletely, which is significant because SSPs have been implicated in the development of interval cancers. It is unclear if endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an optimal method for removal of SSPs. We assessed the efficacy and safety of removal of SSPs 10 mm and larger using a standardized inject-and-cut EMR technique.We performed a retrospective analysis of colonoscopy data, collected over 7 years (2007-2013) at 2 centers, from 199 patients with proximal colon SSPs 10 mm and larger (251 polyps) removed by EMR by 4 endoscopists. The primary outcome measure was local recurrence. The secondary outcome measure was safety.At the index colonoscopy, patients had a median of 1 serrated lesion (range, 1-12) and 1 nonserrated neoplastic lesion (range, 0-15). The mean SSP size was 15.9 ± 5.3 mm; most were superficially elevated (84.5%) and located in the ascending colon (51%), and 3 SSPs (1.2%) had dysplasia. Surveillance colonoscopies were performed on 138 patients (69.3%) over a mean follow-up period of 25.5 ± 17.4 months. Of these patients, 5 had local recurrences (3.6%; 95% confidence interval, 0.5%-6.7%), detected after 17.8 ± 15.4 months, with a median size of 4 mm. No patients developed postprocedural bleeding, perforation, or advanced colon cancer, or had a death related to the index colorectal lesion during the study period.Inject-and-cut EMR is a safe and effective technique for the resection of SSPs. Less than 5% of patients have a local recurrence, which is usually small and can be treated endoscopically.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.013
View details for Web of Science ID 000372459800016
HIGH RETENTION AND SAFETY OF PERCUTANEOUSLY IMPLANTED ENDOVASCULAR EMBOLIZATION COILS AS FIDUCIAL MARKERS FOR IMAGE-GUIDED STEREOTACTIC ABLATIVE RADIOTHERAPY OF PULMONARY TUMORS
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS
2011; 81 (1): 85-90
Current stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) protocols for lung tumors prescribe a uniform dose regimen irrespective of tumor size. We report the outcomes of a lung tumor volume-adapted SABR dosing strategy.We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes in 111 patients with a total of 138 primary or metastatic lung tumors treated by SABR, including local control, regional control, distant metastasis, overall survival, and treatment toxicity. We also performed subset analysis on 83 patients with 97 tumors treated with a volume-adapted dosing strategy in which small tumors (gross tumor volume <12 mL) received single-fraction regimens with biologically effective doses (BED) <100 Gy (total dose, 18-25 Gy) (Group 1), and larger tumors (gross tumor volume ≥12 mL) received multifraction regimens with BED ≥100 Gy (total dose, 50-60 Gy in three to four fractions) (Group 2).The median follow-up time was 13.5 months. Local control for Groups 1 and 2 was 91.4% and 92.5%, respectively (p = 0.24) at 12 months. For primary lung tumors only (excluding metastases), local control was 92.6% and 91.7%, respectively (p = 0.58). Regional control, freedom from distant metastasis, and overall survival did not differ significantly between Groups 1 and 2. Rates of radiation pneumonitis, chest wall toxicity, and esophagitis were low in both groups, but all Grade 3 toxicities developed in Group 2 (p = 0.02).A volume-adapted dosing approach for SABR of lung tumors seems to provide excellent local control for both small- and large-volume tumors and may reduce toxicity.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.10.071
View details for Web of Science ID 000308061900060
View details for PubMedID 22381907
To compare the retention rates of two types of implanted fiducial markers for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) of pulmonary tumors, smooth cylindrical gold "seed" markers ("seeds") and platinum endovascular embolization coils ("coils"), and to compare the complication rates associated with the respective implantation procedures.We retrospectively analyzed the retention of percutaneously implanted markers in 54 consecutive patients between January 2004 and June 2009. A total of 270 markers (129 seeds, 141 coils) were implanted in or around 60 pulmonary tumors over 59 procedures. Markers were implanted using a percutaneous approach under computed tomography (CT) guidance. Postimplantation and follow-up imaging studies were analyzed to score marker retention relative to the number of markers implanted. Markers remaining near the tumor were scored as retained. Markers in a distant location (e.g., pleural space) were scored as lost. CT imaging artifacts near markers were quantified on radiation therapy planning scans.Immediately after implantation, 140 of 141 coils (99.3%) were retained, compared to 110 of 129 seeds (85.3%); the difference was highly significant (p<0.0001). Of the total number of lost markers, 45% were reported lost during implantation, but 55% were lost immediately afterwards. No additional markers were lost on longer-term follow-up. Implanted lesions were peripherally located for both seeds (mean distance, 0.33 cm from pleural surface) and coils (0.34 cm) (p=0.96). Incidences of all pneumothorax (including asymptomatic) and pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement were lower in implantation of coils (23% and 3%, respectively) vs. seeds (54% and 29%, respectively; p=0.02 and 0.01). The degree of CT artifact was similar between marker types.Retention of CT-guided percutaneously implanted coils is significantly better than that of seed markers. Furthermore, implanting coils is at least as safe as implanting seeds. Using coils should permit implantation of fewer markers and require fewer repeat implantation procedures owing to lost markers.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.04.037
View details for Web of Science ID 000294093300012
View details for PubMedID 20675070