Introduction: We examined the causative diseases of patients presenting with a chief complaint of fever.Methods: The patients were new patients visiting the Department of General Medicine at the University of Tsukuba Hospital between April 2018 and March 2020. The chief complaints were obtained from the patients' medical records, categorized according to the International Classification of Primary Care Second Edition. Patients with fever (A03) as the chief complaint were enrolled and their diagnoses were investigated.Results: Of 610 eligible patients, 85 had fever as the chief complaint. Causative diseases were infectious disease in 31 patients (36%), noninfectious inflammatory diseases in nine patients (11%), malignancy in three patients (3%), others in 14 patients (16%), unknown in 19 patients (22%), and exhibiting no pathologic conditions in nine patients (11%). Specific diagnoses were viral infection for the infectious disease patients, collagen diseases for the noninfectious inflammatory disease patients, hematologic diseases for the malignancy patients, and drug-related issues for others.Conclusion: The most common cause of fever was infectious diseases. Some patients were concerned about disease even when their temperatures were in the physiologic range.

No abstract available.
Catheters*

The name of the fourth author was incorrectly rendered as Nakane Masaki. The given name and family name were inadvertently inverted. The correct order is: Masaki Nakane.

The name of the fourth author was incorrectly rendered as Nakane Masaki. The given nameand family name were inadvertently inverted. The correct order is: Masaki Nakane.

1）We had the opportunity to study medical education in Thailand and Singapore while we visited medical schools in those countries as a member of the Japan Tropical Medicine Association.
2）In Thailand, undergraduate medical education last for 6 years, which is the same length as in Japan. All lectures are in English. Medical students in Thailand are more deeply related to patients at bedside learning than are students in Japan. In Singapore, undergraduate education lasts for 5 years, and lectures are in English. In the third year, medical students start clinical medicine. Recently, a new program has been adopted in which medical students can easily choose their specialties right after graduation.
3）Japanese medical students study medicine in Japanese. In contrast, greater emphasis should be placed in Japan on medical education in English.

PURPOSE: To investigate the biomechanical effect of marginal bone resorption (MBR) on the mandibular mini implant (MI)-retained overdenture (MI-OD) on the edentulous model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experimental mandibular edentulous model was modified from a commercial model with 2 mm thick artificial soft tissue under denture base. Two MIs (Φ2.6 mm x 10 mm) were bilaterally placed between the lateral incisor and the canine area and attached with magnetic attachments. Three groups were set up as follows: 1) alveolar bone around the MI without MBR (normal group), 2) with MBR to 1/2 the length of the implant (resorption group), and 3) complete denture (CD) without MI (CD group). Strain around the MI, pressure near the first molar area, and displacement of denture were simultaneously measured, loading up to 50 N under bilateral/ unilateral loading. Statistical analysis was performed using independent-samples t test and one-way ANOVA (α=.05). RESULTS: The strain around the MI with MBR was approximately 1.5 times higher than that without MBR. The pressure in CD was higher than in MI-ODs (P <.05), while there was no statistical difference between the normal and resorption group (P >.05). Similarly, the CD demonstrated a greater displacement of the denture base than did the MI-ODs during bilateral and unilateral loadings (P <.05). CONCLUSION The strain around the MI with MBR was approximately 1.5 times higher than that without MBR. The pressure on posterior alveolar ridge and denture displacement of MI-ODs significantly decreased compared to CDs, even when MBR occurs. Bilateral balanced occlusion was recommended for MI-ODs, especially when MBR occurred.

Purpose: Re-irradiation is a treatment option for recurrent esophageal cancer patients with a history of radiotherapy, but there is a risk of severe late adverse effects. This study focused on the efficacy and safety of re-irradiation using hyperfractionated radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six patients who underwent re-irradiation by the hyperfraction technique using twice-daily irradiation of 1.2 Gy per fraction for recurrent esophageal cancer were retrospectively included in this study. The overall survival period after the start of secondary radiotherapy and the occurrence of late adverse effects were investigated. Results: Of 26 patients, 21 (81%) received re-irradiation with definitive intention and 21 (81%) underwent concurrent chemotherapy. The median re-irradiation dose was 60 Gy in 50 fractions in 25 treatment days, and the median accumulated irradiation dose in equivalent dose in 2 Gy per fraction was 85.4 Gy with an α/β value of 3. The median interval between two courses of radiotherapy was 21.0 months. The median overall survival period was 15.8 months and the 1-year and 3-year overall survival rates were 64.3% and 28.3%, respectively. Higher dose of re-irradiation and concurrent chemotherapy significantly improved survival (p < 0.001 and p = 0.019, respectively). Severe late adverse effects with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher were observed in 5 (19.2%) patients, and 2 (7.7%) of them developed a grade 5 late adverse effect. Conclusion High-dose re-irradiation using a hyperfractionated schedule with concurrent chemotherapy might be related to good prognosis, while the rate of late severe adverse effects is not high compared with the rates in past reports.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate changes in target coverage using magnetic resonance–guided online adaptive radiotherapy (MRgoART) for kidney tumors and to evaluate the suitable timing of treatment. Materials and Methods: Among patients treated with 3-fraction MRgoART for kidney cancer, 18 tumors located within 1 cm of the gastrointestinal tract were selected. Stereotactic radiosurgery planning with a prescription dose of 26 Gy was performed using pretreatment simulation and three MRgoART timings with an adapt-to-shape method. The best MRgoART plan was defined as the plan achieving the highest percentage of planning target volume (PTV) coverage of 26 Gy. In clinical scenario simulation, MRgoART plans were evaluated in the order of actual treatment. Waiting for the next timing was done when the PTV coverage of 26 Gy did not achieve 95%–99% or did not increase by 5% or more compared to the pretreatment plan. Results: The median percentages of PTV receiving 26 Gy in pretreatment and the first, second, and third MRgoART were 82% (range, 19%), 63% (range, 7% to 99%), 88% (range, 31% to 99%), and 95% (range, 3% to 99%), respectively. Comparing pretreatment simulation plans with the best MRgoART plans showed a significant difference (p = 0.025). In the clinical scenario simulation, 16 of the 18 planning series, including nine plans with 95%–99% PTV coverage of 26 Gy and seven plans with increased PTV coverage by 5% or more, would be irradiated at a good timing. Conclusion MRgoART revealed dose coverage differences at each MRgoART timing. Waiting for optimal irradiation timing could be an option in case of suboptimal timing.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate changes in target coverage using magnetic resonance–guided online adaptive radiotherapy (MRgoART) for kidney tumors and to evaluate the suitable timing of treatment. Materials and Methods: Among patients treated with 3-fraction MRgoART for kidney cancer, 18 tumors located within 1 cm of the gastrointestinal tract were selected. Stereotactic radiosurgery planning with a prescription dose of 26 Gy was performed using pretreatment simulation and three MRgoART timings with an adapt-to-shape method. The best MRgoART plan was defined as the plan achieving the highest percentage of planning target volume (PTV) coverage of 26 Gy. In clinical scenario simulation, MRgoART plans were evaluated in the order of actual treatment. Waiting for the next timing was done when the PTV coverage of 26 Gy did not achieve 95%–99% or did not increase by 5% or more compared to the pretreatment plan. Results: The median percentages of PTV receiving 26 Gy in pretreatment and the first, second, and third MRgoART were 82% (range, 19%), 63% (range, 7% to 99%), 88% (range, 31% to 99%), and 95% (range, 3% to 99%), respectively. Comparing pretreatment simulation plans with the best MRgoART plans showed a significant difference (p = 0.025). In the clinical scenario simulation, 16 of the 18 planning series, including nine plans with 95%–99% PTV coverage of 26 Gy and seven plans with increased PTV coverage by 5% or more, would be irradiated at a good timing. Conclusion MRgoART revealed dose coverage differences at each MRgoART timing. Waiting for optimal irradiation timing could be an option in case of suboptimal timing.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate changes in target coverage using magnetic resonance–guided online adaptive radiotherapy (MRgoART) for kidney tumors and to evaluate the suitable timing of treatment. Materials and Methods: Among patients treated with 3-fraction MRgoART for kidney cancer, 18 tumors located within 1 cm of the gastrointestinal tract were selected. Stereotactic radiosurgery planning with a prescription dose of 26 Gy was performed using pretreatment simulation and three MRgoART timings with an adapt-to-shape method. The best MRgoART plan was defined as the plan achieving the highest percentage of planning target volume (PTV) coverage of 26 Gy. In clinical scenario simulation, MRgoART plans were evaluated in the order of actual treatment. Waiting for the next timing was done when the PTV coverage of 26 Gy did not achieve 95%–99% or did not increase by 5% or more compared to the pretreatment plan. Results: The median percentages of PTV receiving 26 Gy in pretreatment and the first, second, and third MRgoART were 82% (range, 19%), 63% (range, 7% to 99%), 88% (range, 31% to 99%), and 95% (range, 3% to 99%), respectively. Comparing pretreatment simulation plans with the best MRgoART plans showed a significant difference (p = 0.025). In the clinical scenario simulation, 16 of the 18 planning series, including nine plans with 95%–99% PTV coverage of 26 Gy and seven plans with increased PTV coverage by 5% or more, would be irradiated at a good timing. Conclusion MRgoART revealed dose coverage differences at each MRgoART timing. Waiting for optimal irradiation timing could be an option in case of suboptimal timing.