No abstract available.
Arthroscopy ; Posterior Cruciate Ligament* ; Tibia*

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the dose characteristics of the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques for metastatic brain tumor treatment using various indices to evaluate the quality of the plan and provide insights into the clinical implications of each approach. Methods: Twelve patients with single metastatic brain tumors treated with VMAT were retrospectively analyzed. For comparison with DCA, identical geometric parameters (excluding multileaf collimators) were applied. Dose coverage, normal tissue sparing, and treatment efficiencywere evaluated using indices such as CILIM98 , CIICRU , CIRTOG , QCRTOG , CISALT , HTCISALT , and CIPADDIC .These indices were statistically assessed to evaluate the differences between VMAT and DCA. Results: VMAT was superior to DCA in most indices for both small and large planning targetvolumes (PTVs). DCA plans for large PTVs showed a higher V12Gy , exceeding 10 mL and failing tomeet the recommended criteria (<10 mL). However, DCA required nearly half the monitor units(MUs) of VMAT, resulting in shorter treatment times. All indices, except for QCRTOG , demonstratedsignificant differences between VMAT and DCA. Conclusions Careful consideration is necessary for larger PTVs when deciding a plan becauseDCA can occasionally result in V12Gy of a brain minus PTV >10 mL. Conversely, DCA provides theadvantage of shorter treatment times because of its lower MU. This study highlights the importance of using a combination of indices to comprehensively assess treatment plan quality.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the dose characteristics of the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques for metastatic brain tumor treatment using various indices to evaluate the quality of the plan and provide insights into the clinical implications of each approach. Methods: Twelve patients with single metastatic brain tumors treated with VMAT were retrospectively analyzed. For comparison with DCA, identical geometric parameters (excluding multileaf collimators) were applied. Dose coverage, normal tissue sparing, and treatment efficiencywere evaluated using indices such as CILIM98 , CIICRU , CIRTOG , QCRTOG , CISALT , HTCISALT , and CIPADDIC .These indices were statistically assessed to evaluate the differences between VMAT and DCA. Results: VMAT was superior to DCA in most indices for both small and large planning targetvolumes (PTVs). DCA plans for large PTVs showed a higher V12Gy , exceeding 10 mL and failing tomeet the recommended criteria (<10 mL). However, DCA required nearly half the monitor units(MUs) of VMAT, resulting in shorter treatment times. All indices, except for QCRTOG , demonstratedsignificant differences between VMAT and DCA. Conclusions Careful consideration is necessary for larger PTVs when deciding a plan becauseDCA can occasionally result in V12Gy of a brain minus PTV >10 mL. Conversely, DCA provides theadvantage of shorter treatment times because of its lower MU. This study highlights the importance of using a combination of indices to comprehensively assess treatment plan quality.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the dose characteristics of the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques for metastatic brain tumor treatment using various indices to evaluate the quality of the plan and provide insights into the clinical implications of each approach. Methods: Twelve patients with single metastatic brain tumors treated with VMAT were retrospectively analyzed. For comparison with DCA, identical geometric parameters (excluding multileaf collimators) were applied. Dose coverage, normal tissue sparing, and treatment efficiencywere evaluated using indices such as CILIM98 , CIICRU , CIRTOG , QCRTOG , CISALT , HTCISALT , and CIPADDIC .These indices were statistically assessed to evaluate the differences between VMAT and DCA. Results: VMAT was superior to DCA in most indices for both small and large planning targetvolumes (PTVs). DCA plans for large PTVs showed a higher V12Gy , exceeding 10 mL and failing tomeet the recommended criteria (<10 mL). However, DCA required nearly half the monitor units(MUs) of VMAT, resulting in shorter treatment times. All indices, except for QCRTOG , demonstratedsignificant differences between VMAT and DCA. Conclusions Careful consideration is necessary for larger PTVs when deciding a plan becauseDCA can occasionally result in V12Gy of a brain minus PTV >10 mL. Conversely, DCA provides theadvantage of shorter treatment times because of its lower MU. This study highlights the importance of using a combination of indices to comprehensively assess treatment plan quality.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the dose characteristics of the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques for metastatic brain tumor treatment using various indices to evaluate the quality of the plan and provide insights into the clinical implications of each approach. Methods: Twelve patients with single metastatic brain tumors treated with VMAT were retrospectively analyzed. For comparison with DCA, identical geometric parameters (excluding multileaf collimators) were applied. Dose coverage, normal tissue sparing, and treatment efficiencywere evaluated using indices such as CILIM98 , CIICRU , CIRTOG , QCRTOG , CISALT , HTCISALT , and CIPADDIC .These indices were statistically assessed to evaluate the differences between VMAT and DCA. Results: VMAT was superior to DCA in most indices for both small and large planning targetvolumes (PTVs). DCA plans for large PTVs showed a higher V12Gy , exceeding 10 mL and failing tomeet the recommended criteria (<10 mL). However, DCA required nearly half the monitor units(MUs) of VMAT, resulting in shorter treatment times. All indices, except for QCRTOG , demonstratedsignificant differences between VMAT and DCA. Conclusions Careful consideration is necessary for larger PTVs when deciding a plan becauseDCA can occasionally result in V12Gy of a brain minus PTV >10 mL. Conversely, DCA provides theadvantage of shorter treatment times because of its lower MU. This study highlights the importance of using a combination of indices to comprehensively assess treatment plan quality.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the dose characteristics of the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques for metastatic brain tumor treatment using various indices to evaluate the quality of the plan and provide insights into the clinical implications of each approach. Methods: Twelve patients with single metastatic brain tumors treated with VMAT were retrospectively analyzed. For comparison with DCA, identical geometric parameters (excluding multileaf collimators) were applied. Dose coverage, normal tissue sparing, and treatment efficiencywere evaluated using indices such as CILIM98 , CIICRU , CIRTOG , QCRTOG , CISALT , HTCISALT , and CIPADDIC .These indices were statistically assessed to evaluate the differences between VMAT and DCA. Results: VMAT was superior to DCA in most indices for both small and large planning targetvolumes (PTVs). DCA plans for large PTVs showed a higher V12Gy , exceeding 10 mL and failing tomeet the recommended criteria (<10 mL). However, DCA required nearly half the monitor units(MUs) of VMAT, resulting in shorter treatment times. All indices, except for QCRTOG , demonstratedsignificant differences between VMAT and DCA. Conclusions Careful consideration is necessary for larger PTVs when deciding a plan becauseDCA can occasionally result in V12Gy of a brain minus PTV >10 mL. Conversely, DCA provides theadvantage of shorter treatment times because of its lower MU. This study highlights the importance of using a combination of indices to comprehensively assess treatment plan quality.

Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are an emerging source for cell-based therapies aimed at repairing damaged organ tissues; however, the efficiency of directed differentiation is low and refinement of differentiation protocols is hampered by incomplete understanding of the mechanisms involved in this process. To find new compounds which can improve the efficiency of directed differentiation of ESCs to cardiomyocytes, we screened several thousand chemical compounds and identified a promising group. All of the compounds found have a common structure of 1H-pyrrole,2,2'-(phenylmethylene)bis. Here we report the potential mechanism of action for 31002 which showed the strongest activity among the compounds selected. In the presence of 31002, 15 times more cardiomyocytes differentiated from ESCs, i.e., 3.5% to 52% of total differentiated cells. Moreover, the cardiomyocytes showed functional characteristics including rhythmic beating and marker gene expression. 31002 inhibited the down-regulation of genes related to the three germ layers in the late stage of ESCs differentiation, implying that 31002 supports a continuous fate commitment of undifferentiated ESCs to the cardiac lineage by prolonging the three germ layer stages. Therefore, compounds in this group, including 31002, might be useful as directed cardiomyogenic differentiation-inducers to produce cells for use in cell therapy aimed at restoring damaged heart tissue.
Down-Regulation ; Embryonic Stem Cells ; Gene Expression ; Germ Layers ; Heart ; Myocytes, Cardiac ; Tissue Therapy