Objective To explore the effects of low-dose CT scan on diagnostic quality of images and the radiation dose to the lens.Methods 60 cases were scanned in axial orientation at different mA.Lens radiation dose was measured and image quality was evaluated.Results Image quality score of group A was(11.2 ± 0.7)points,higher than the group C(4.9 ± 1.8)points(t =12.634,P ＜0.05),and score difference of group B(10.6 ± 1.1)was significantly different(P ＞ 0.05).CTDIvol of group A,group B and group C were 18.32mGy,7.63mGy and 4.58mGy,group B,group C and group A difference was statistically significant(t =15.625 and 14.037,P ＜ 0.05).Group B and C groups difference was not statistically significant(P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion Low dose CT scanning(50mA)in orbit not only could assure the image quality,but also decrease the radiation dose.

Objective To investigate and compare the effect and safety of levocetirizine and cetirizine for the treatment of chronic idiopathetic urticaria (CIU). Methods A multi-center, randomized and double-blind comparative clinical trial was employed. The patients with CIU were divided into levocetirizine group and cetirizine group. Levocetirizine (5mg/day) or cetirizine (10mg/day) were taken once daily for 28 days, and were followed up on the 7th day, 14th day and 28th day after starting treatment. Results One hundred and thirty cases were evaluable for the effect and safety at the end of the study. The effective rates in levocetirizine group and in cetirizine group were 73.44% and 77.27% on the 7th day after treatment, 82.81% and 81.82% on the 14th day, and 89.06% and 81.82% at the end of the therapy respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups. The drug adverse reaction for levocetirizine group and cetirizine group were 14.06% and 18.18% respectively, which include mouth dryness, dizziness etc. Conclusion Levocetirizine is an effective and safe agent for the treatment of CIU.

Objective:To analyze the real clinical effects and prognosis of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer.Methods:Two hundred and one patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer who underwent different neoadjuvant treatments at Nanchong Central Hospital of Sichuan Province from January 2019 to December 2021 were retrospective analyzed. Patients were divided into neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group ( n=87), neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group ( n=69), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy group ( n=45) according to the different methods of neoadjuvant therapy. Patients underwent surgical treatment 4-6 weeks after completing neoadjuvant therapy. The postoperative pathological response of three groups of patients were compared. Kaplan-Meier method was used to draw survival curves. Log-rank tests were performed to analyze overall survival (OS) rate, local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) rate, and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rate in three groups of patients. Results:The pathological complete response rates of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group, neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group and neoadjuvant chemotherapy group were 33.3% (29/87), 40.6% (28/69) and 13.3% (6/45), respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( χ2=9.68, P=0.008). The pathological complete response rates in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group were higher than that in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, with statistically significant differences ( χ2=6.09, P=0.014; χ2=9.66, P=0.002) ; there was no statistically significant difference between the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and the neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group ( χ2=0.87, P=0.351). The major pathologic response rates of the three groups were 58.6% (51/87), 59.4% (41/69) and 31.1% (14/45), respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( χ2=10.89, P=0.004). The major pathologic response rates of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group were significantly higher than that of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, with statistically significant differences ( χ2=8.98, P=0.003; χ2=8.74, P=0.003) ; there was no statistically significant difference between the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and the neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group ( χ2=0.10, P=0.920). The 3-year OS rates of the three groups were 43.7%, 42.0% and 33.3%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference ( χ2=0.79, P=0.347). The 3-year LRFS rates of the three groups were 67.8%, 66.7% and 46.7%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( χ2=7.58, P=0.023), the LRFS rates in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group were significantly higher than that in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, with statistically significant differences ( χ2=4.17, P=0.041; χ2=4.15, P=0.042) ; there was no statistically significant difference in LRFS rates between the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and the neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group ( χ2=0.01, P=0.923). The 3-year DMFS rates of the three groups were 37.9%, 37.7% and 28.9%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference ( χ2=0.14, P=0.707) . Conclusion:Different neoadjuvant therapies have different therapeutic effects in the treatment of locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy can achieve a better pathological response rates and LRFS rates.