No abstract

A total of 538 patients from 45 different general practice centres across the UK was admitted to an open study and randomized to one of the following treatment groups: nitrofurantoin modified release (MR) 100 mg bd, trimethoprim 200 mg bd or co-trimoxazole 960 mg bd. Each patient received seven days of medication. Clinical cure, defined as relief from symptoms at visit 2, occurred in 87.2% of the patients treated with nitrofurantoin MR, 84.5% of the co-trimoxazole group and 86.5% of the trimethoprim group. The bacteriological cure rate for nitrofurantoin MR was comparable to co-trimoxazole at 82.3% and 83.2%, respectively, with trimethoprim the lowest at 76.8%. Whilst the cure rate for Escherichia coli infection was similar, 81.5% cured with nitrofurantoin MR, 82.5% with co-trimoxazole and 78.4% by trimethoprim, for non-E. coli pathogens nitrofurantoin MR was equivalent to co-trimoxazole with 86.7% cure but higher than trimethoprim at 72.0%. In-vitro sensitivity to all pathogens isolated at baseline was very high for nitrofurantoin at 96.1%, significantly higher than either co-trimoxazole or trimethoprim at 87.5% (P < 0.01). The test drugs were equally well tolerated with 28 patients (15.7%) reporting adverse events with nitrofurantoin MR, 28 (15.5%) with co-trimoxazole and 28 (15.6%) with trimethoprim. However, nitrofurantoin MR showed fewer patients with drug-related adverse events (5.6%) as judged by the investigator, compared to co-trimoxazole (8.8%) or trimethoprim (7.3%). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Recently, volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has demonstrated the ability to deliver radiation dose precisely and accurately with a shorter delivery time compared to conventional intensity‐modulated fixed‐field treatment (IMRT). We applied the hypothesis of VMAT technique for the treatment of thoracic esophageal carcinoma to determine superior or equivalent conformal dose coverage for a large thoracic esophageal planning target volume (PTV) with superior or equivalent sparing of organs‐at‐risk (OARs) doses, and reduce delivery time and monitor units (MUs), in comparison with conventional fixed‐field IMRT plans. We also analyzed and compared some other important metrics of treatment planning and treatment delivery for both IMRT and VMAT techniques. These metrics include: 1) the integral dose and the volume receiving intermediate dose levels between IMRT and VMATI plans; 2) the use of 4D CT to determine the internal motion margin; and 3) evaluating the dosimetry of every plan through patient‐specific QA. These factors may impact the overall treatment plan quality and outcomes from the individual planning technique used. In this study, we also examined the significance of using two arcs vs. a single‐arc VMAT technique for PTV coverage, OARs doses, monitor units and delivery time. Thirteen patients, stage T2‐T3 N0‐N1 (TNM AJCC 7th edn.), PTV volume median 395 cc (range 281–601 cc), median age 69 years (range 53 to 85), were treated from July 2010 to June 2011 with a four‐field false(n=4false) or five‐field false(n=9false) step‐and‐shoot IMRT technique using a 6 MV beam to a prescribed dose of 50 Gy in 20 to 25 F. These patients were retrospectively replanned using single arc (normalVnormalMnormalAnormalTnormalI, 91 control points) and two arcs (normalVnormalMnormalAnormalTnormalInormalI, 182 control points). All treatment plans of the 13 study cases were evaluated using various dose‐volume metrics. These included PTV D99, PTV D95, PTV V9547.5Gyfalse(95normal%false), PTV mean dose, Dmax, PTV dose conformity (Van't Riet conformation number (CN)), mean lung dose, lung V20 and V5, liver V30, and Dmax to the spinal canal prv3mm. Also examined were the total plan monitor units (MUs) and the beam delivery time. Equivalent target coverage was observed with both VMAT single and two‐arc plans. The comparison of VMATI with fixed‐field IMRT demonstrated equivalent target coverage; statistically no significant difference were found in PTV D99 false(p=0.47false), PTV mean false(p=0.12false), PTV D95 and PTV V9547.5Gy false(95normal%false) false(p=0.38false). However, Dmax in VMATI plans was significantly lower compared to IMRT false(p=0.02false). The Van't Riet dose conformation number (CN) was also statistically in favor of VMATI plans false(p=0.04false). VMATI achieved lower lung V20 false(p=0.05false), whereas lung V5 false(p=0.35false) and mean lung dose false(p=0.62false) were not significantly different. The other OARs, including spinal canal, liver, heart, and kidneys showed no statistically significant differences bet...