A randomized study of the effect of carbonated water prior to myocardial SPECT.

OBJECTIVE: In myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), abdominal activity often interferes with the evaluation of perfusion in the inferior wall, especially after pharmacological stress. In this randomized study, we examined the effect of carbonated water intake versus still water intake on the quality of images obtained during myocardial perfusion images (MPI) studies. METHODS: A total of 467 MIBI studies were randomized into a carbonated water group and a water group. The presence of intestinal activity adjacent to the inferior wall was evaluated by two observers. Furthermore, a semi-quantitative analysis was performed in the adenosine subgroup, using a count ratio of the inferior myocardial wall and adjacent abdominal activity. RESULTS: The need for repeated SPECT in the adenosine studies was 5.3% in the carbonated water group versus 19.4% in the still water group (p = 0.019). The inferior wall-to-abdomen count ratio was significantly higher in the carbonated water group compared to the still water group (2.11 ± 1.00 vs. 1.72 ± 0.73, p < 0.001). The effect of carbonated water during rest and after exercise was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized study showed that carbonated water significantly reduced the interference of extra-cardiac activity in adenosine SPECT MPI.

Reduction of the treated volume to involved node radiation therapy as part of combined modality treatment for early stage aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This retrospective study investigated whether focused involved node radiation therapy (INRT) can safely replace involved field RT (IFRT) in patients with early stage aggressive NHL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 258 patients with stage I/II aggressive NHL who received combined modality treatment (87%) or primary RT alone (13%). RT consisted of a total dose of 30-40 Gy in 15-20 fractions IFRT or INRT. We compared survival, relapse pattern, radiation-related toxicity and quality of life for both RT techniques. RESULTS: Type of RT was not related to the outcome in either the uni- or multivariate survival analysis. Relapses developed in 59 of 252 patients (23%) of which 47 (80%) were documented as distant recurrence only. Failure of the INRT technique was noted in one patient. There was no significant difference in acute radiation-related toxicity between RT-groups but IFRT showed a significantly higher incidence of higher grade toxicities. Patients treated with INRT had a significantly better physical functioning and global quality of life compared to the IFRT group. CONCLUSIONS: Given the retrospective nature of this study, no solid conclusions can be drawn. However, in view of the equivalent efficacy and more favorable toxicity profile, the replacement of IFRT by INRT in combination with chemo-(immuno)-therapy looks very attractive for patients with early stage aggressive NHL.

Is sensorineural hearing loss a possible side effect of nasopharyngeal and parotid irradiation? A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little has been published about permanent hearing loss due to radiotherapy, thus making it a rather unknown phenomenon. Therefore, we performed a study of the literature over the last 20 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen relevant clinical studies were found, reporting mostly on nasopharyngeal or parotid gland treatments. Hearing loss was measured using a pure tone audiogram. Studies were assessed using a simple scoring list. Nine studies were used for further analysis. Data on the pure tone audiogram were pooled. RESULTS: Results showed that, especially in the higher frequencies (> or =4 kHz), loss can be measured. When data were pooled, in 42 +/- 3% of the patients a hearing loss was found of 10 dB or more at 4 kHz. Averaged over all measured frequencies the effect is less prominent but still statistically significant (18 +/- 2%). No significant difference between nasopharyngeal and parotid gland treatment was found (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Only a few studies, mostly concerning small patient numbers, have investigated hearing damage due to radiotherapy. So far there has been no consensus on the subject. However, in this systematic review we found a significant effect. Dose to the inner ear therefore deserves more attention, especially in dose escalation studies and inverse planning.