Introduction Post-mastectomy radiation in left-sided breast cancer in women continues to pose a significant risk to the underlying lungs and heart. This study analyzed the difference in planning target volume (PTV) coverage and dose to the organs at risk (OAR) by using three different planning methods for the same patient - three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Material and methods Thirty-five left-sided breast cancer patients’ post-mastectomy were included in this study, and three different plans for adjuvant radiation were created using 3D-CRT, IMRT, and VMAT. The prescribed dose was 50Gy in 25 fractions. Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done, followed by a pairwise t-test to establish a hierarchy of plan quality and dosimetric benefits. The plans were compared with PTV 95 , homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), hotspot (V 107% ), left lung V 20Gy , mean lung dose, heart V 25Gy , mean heart dose, and integral dose (ID) to the body. Results Both VMAT and IMRT led to improved PTV 95% coverage (95.63±1.82%, p=0.000 in VMAT; 93.70±2.16 %, p=0.000; 81.40±6.27% in 3D-CRT arm) and improved CI (0.91±0.06 in IMRT [p<0.05] and 0.96±0.02 for VMAT plans [p<0.05]) as compared to 3D-CRT (0.66±0.11), which was statistically significant on pairwise analysis. In contrast, the difference in HI and reduction in hotspots were not significantly different. Left lung V 20 was statistically very different between the three arms with the highest values in IMRT (36.64±4.45) followed by 3D-CRT (34.80±2.24) and the most negligible value in VMAT (33.03±4.20). Mean lung dose was also statistically different between the three arms. There was a statistically significant difference in mean heart dose between the three arms on pairwise analysis. Both the inverse planning methods led to a statistically significant increase in low dose volume (V 5 and V 10 ) of the ipsilateral lung, opposite lung, and heart, and increased ID to the body excluding the PTV. Conclusion While both the inverse planning modalities led to increased coverage, better CI, and better HI and decreased high dose volumes in OARs, there was increased low volume irradiation of heart, lungs, and body with VMAT faring marginally better than IMRT in coverage and decreasing lung irradiation with comparable heart irradiation.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionHypertension (HTN) is one of the most common conditions encountered in daily practice in hospitals. Combination therapy is mostly initiated in the management of HTN when target blood pressure is not achieved with monotherapy. There are few studies comparing the antihypertensive effect of a combination of azilsartan and amlodipine with a combination of amlodipine and other angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), however, the results are contradictory. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the azilsartan and amlodipine combination versus the telmisartan and amlodipine combination in hypertensive patients. MethodsThe present study was a prospective, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, parallel-group clinical trial. Hypertensive patients were randomized into two groups of 25 patients each. Baseline evaluations of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) were done. Patients were reassessed after 12 weeks of drug therapy with azilsartan 40 mg and amlodipine 5 mg combination or telmisartan 40 mg once daily (QD) and amlodipine 5 mg combination QD. ResultsThe response rate (defined as a reduction of more than 20 mm Hg in SBP or 10 mm Hg in DBP or both from baseline at 12 weeks) for HTN in the test group and control groups was found to be 88% and 96% respectively. The response rate of the azilsartan amlodipine group was found to be non-inferior to the telmisartan amlodipine group (odds ratio, OR, 0.31, p = 0.61) at the end of 12 weeks of drug therapy. At 12 weeks of follow-up, there was a significant decrease in SBP (p < 0.001), DBP (p < 0.001), and hsTnI levels (p < 0.001) in both groups from baseline values. However, differences between the test and control groups for blood pressure and hsTnI were found to be not statistically significant at 12 weeks of follow-up. The most commonly reported adverse effect in both groups was headache. ConclusionAzilsartan amlodipine combination had an 88% response rate, which was non-inferior to the telmisartan and amlodipine combination. Biomarkers such as hsTnI showed a significant decrease in both groups after 12 weeks of follow-up. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

As frontline health workers, nursing professionals have a crucial role in reporting medical device-associated adverse events (MDAEs). A questionnaire-based study was carried out to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and practice of senior nursing officers (SNOs), nursing officers (NOs), and nursing students (NSs) toward MDAE. The response rate of the survey was 84% ( n = 134). The mean score of knowledge of SNOs, NOs, and NSs was 2.03 ± 0.92, 1.71 ± 0.96, and 1.52 ± 0.82, respectively ( P = 0.9). A large proportion of study participants (97%) considered that the use of medical device could sometimes cause untoward occurrences and detecting and reporting those events will enhance the safety of patients. However, many of them (67%) have not reported it during clinical posting. The participants of this survey possessed limited knowledge of MDAE. However, their attitude toward MDAE was encouraging and a continuous training program may improve their knowledge regarding MDAE and enhance the reporting practice.