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.

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.

Background: No consensus exists regarding which anthropometric measurements are related to bone mineral density (BMD), and this relationship may vary according to sex and age. A large Japanese cohort was analyzed to provide an understanding of the relationship between BMD and anthropometry while adjusting for known confounding factors. Methods: Our cohort included 10,827 participants who underwent multiple medical checkups including distal forearm BMD scans. Participants were stratified into four groups according to age (≥50 years or <50 years) and sex. The BMD values were adjusted for confounding factors, after which single and partial correlation analyses were performed. The prevalence of osteopenia was plotted for each weight index (weight or body mass index [BMI]) class. Results: Cross-sectional studies revealed that weight was more favorably correlated than BMI in the older group (R=0.278 and 0.212 in men and R=0.304 and 0.220 in women, respectively), whereas weight and BMI were weakly correlated in the younger age groups. The prevalence of osteopenia exhibited a negative linear relationship with weight among older women ≥50 years of age, and an accelerated increase was observed with decreasing weight in older men weighing <50 kg and younger women weighing <60 kg. When weight was replaced with BMI, the prevalence was low in most subgroups classified by weight. Conclusions Weight, rather than BMI, was the most important indicator of osteopenia but it might not be predictive of future bone loss.

Purpose: Gastric neoplasia is a common manifestation of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). This study aimed to elucidate the clinical characteristics, endoscopic features including fundic gland polyposis (FGPsis), and treatment outcomes of gastric neoplasms (GNs) in patients with FAP. Materials and Methods: A total of 35 patients diagnosed with FAP, including nine patients from four pedigrees who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), were investigated regarding patient characteristics, GN morphology, and treatment outcomes. Results: Twenty-one patients (60.0%) had 38 GNs; 33 (86.8%) and 5 (13.2%) were histologically diagnosed with adenocarcinoma and adenoma, respectively. There were no specific patient characteristics related to GNs.Nodule-type GNs were more prevalent in patients with FGP than without (52.2% vs. 0.0%, P=0.002) in the upper body of the stomach. Conversely, depressed-type GNs were fewer in patients with FGPsis than in those without (13.0% vs. 73.3%, P<0.001). Slightly elevated-type GNs were observed in both groups (34.8% vs. 20.0%, P=0.538). Even within pedigrees, the background gastric mucosa and types of GNs varied. In total, 24 GNs were treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and eight with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). EMR was selected for GNs with FGPsis because of the technical difficulty of ESD, resulting in a lower en bloc resection rate (62.5% vs. 100%, P=0.014). Conclusions Our study indicates the necessity of routine EGD surveillance in patients diagnosed with FAP. Notably, the morphology and location of GNs differed between patients with and without FGPsis. Endoscopic treatment and outcomes require more attention in cases of FGPsis.

Objective: The differences in clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with hematological disorders (HD) who developed either coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or seasonal influenza (SI) are not fully understood. To examine these differences, we retrospectively analyzed the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with HD admitted from 2016 to 2021.Patients and Methods: Patients with HD who developed COVID-19 (in the past 1 year) (n=21) or SI (in the past 5 years) (n=23) in the Department of Hematology/Oncology, Asahikawa Kosei General Hospital were evaluated.Results: The median ages of the patients with HD with either COVID-19 or SI were 80 and 68 years, respectively (P=0.03). The groups showed no significant differences in sex ratio, body mass index, or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. In the COVID-19 and SI groups, the most common primary diseases were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (43%) and multiple myeloma (39%), respectively. The median numbers of days of oxygen administration (8 vs. 0 days), quarantine (25 vs. 6 days), and hospitalization (72 vs. 21 days) were significantly higher in HD patients with COVID-19 than those in HD patients with SI (all P<0.001). The overall 90-day survival of patients with HD and COVID-19 was significantly shorter than that of patients with HD and SI (P=0.019). Moreover, patients with HD and COVID-19 had a higher risk of in-hospital mortality (43% vs. 9%; odds ratio, 7.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.26–82.4; P=0.01) compared to patients with HD and SI.Conclusion: Patients with HD and COVID-19 required longer periods of in-hospital medical and showed poorer survival than those with SI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, hematologists should closely monitor the condition of patients with COVID-19 to closely monitor their condition to prevent deaths.

Objective: The use of generic drugs is promoted to reduce medical costs and copayments. However, tumor agents are expensive and generic drugs are not widelyused. Thus, it is necessaryto evaluate the safetyof generic drugs in more detail. We compared the incidence of adverse events between the original drug (Gemzar®: GEM) and generic drug (Gemcitabine [Sandoz]: GE-GEM) using propensityscore (PS) matching.Methods: We investigated adverse events in patients who received one course of GEM or GE-GEM. The patient background (age,sex, BSA, cancer type, stage, metastasis, surgical history, and radiotherapy) and administration status (administration route and RDI) were used to calculate the PS.Results: Among all patients (GEM: 51, GE-GEM: 54), a significantlygreater number in the GE-GEM group had cancer metastasis. On comparison of adverse events, there were significantlymore cases of vascular pain (p＜0.05) in the GEM group, and manycases of nausea (p＝0.08) and rash (p＝0.08). Fortypatients in each group were extracted byPS matching. There were no significant differences in the patient background between the groups, and on comparison of adverse events, the two groups did not significantly differ.Conclusion: Our studysuggested that there is no difference in side effects between Gemzar® and gemcitabine [Sandoz]. To compare the incidence of adverse events, it is useful to use PS matching in clinical practice.

　　Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation examination is now performed in most medical institutions in order to select the molecular targeted medicine for lung cancer. It became clear that the positive rate of the biopsy material was lower than that of the surgical sample in this hospital. The cause was attributed to false negatives due to low tumor cell content in biopsy specimens. We investigated the presence of the mutation using surgical samples and preoperative biopsy specimens from the same patients in 13 cases. Furthermore, we investigated the tumor cell content of the biopsy specimens by cell counting. Results showed that 3 of 6 biopsy specimens that were associated with positive surgical samples were judged to be negative. The tumor cell content was less than 5% in all negative cases. Regarding EGFR gene mutation examination, we should carefully determine tumor cell content when using biopsy specimens.