Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38756618›Full record

ArticleClinical case reports2024

Case study with dosimetric analysis: Total body irradiation to a patient with a left ventricular assist device.

Matthew Webster, Olga M Dona Lemus, Dandan Zheng, Joshua N Wancura, Sean Tanny, Gukan Sakthivel, Louis Constine

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Matthew WebsterDepartment of Radiation Oncology University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester New York USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4306-5441
Olga M Dona LemusDepartment of Radiation Oncology University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester New York USA.
Dandan ZhengDepartment of Radiation Oncology University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester New York USA.
Joshua N WancuraDepartment of Radiation Oncology University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester New York USA.
Sean TannyDepartment of Radiation Oncology University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester New York USA.
Gukan SakthivelDepartment of Radiation Oncology University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester New York USA.
Louis ConstineDepartment of Radiation Oncology University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester New York USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Key Clinical Message: A patient presented with cardiogenic shock, requiring the implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and acute myeloblastic leukemia. This necessitated total body irradiation (TBI) while balancing dose reduction to the LVAD components to avoid potential radiation damage. Here we outline our treatment approach and dose estimates to the LVAD. Abstract: This case report discusses the delivery of TBI to a patient with an LVAD. This treatment required radiation-dose determinations and consequential reductions for the heart, LVAD, and an external controller connected to the LVAD. The patient was treated using a traditional 16MV anterior posterior (AP)/posterior anterior (PA) technique at a source-to-surface-distance of 515 cm for 400 cGy in two fractions. A 3 cm thick Cerrobend block was placed on the beam spoiler to reduce dose to the heart and LVAD to 150 cGy. The external controller was placed in a 1 cm thick acrylic box to reduce neutron dose and positioned as far from the treatment fields as achievable. In vivo measurements were made using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) placed inside the box at distances of 2 cm, 8.5 cm, and 14 cm from the field edge, and on the patient along the central axis and centered behind the LVAD block. Further ion chamber measurements were made using a solid water phantom to more accurately estimate the dose delivered to the LVAD. Neutron dose measurements were also conducted. The total estimated dose to the controller ranged from 135.3 cGy to 91.5 cGy. The LVAD block reduced the surface dose to the patient to 271.6 cGy (68.1%). The block transmission factors of the 3 cm Cerrobend block measured in the phantom were 45% at 1 cm depth and decreased asymptotically to around 30% at 3 cm depth. Applying these transmission factors to the in vivo measurements yielded a dose of 120 cGy to the implanted device. The neutron dose the LVAD region is estimated around 0.46 cGy. Physical limitations of the controller made it impossible to completely avoid dose. Shielding is recommended. The block had limited dose reduction to the surface, due to secondary particles, but appropriately reduced the dose at 3 cm and beyond. More research on LVADs dose limits would be beneficial.

Indexed as

cardio‐oncologyheart‐assist devicesleukemianeutronsradiation dosageradiation protection

Identifiers

PMID38756618
PMCPMC11096280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.