Clinical implications of the body surface area method versus partition model dosimetry for yttrium-90 radioembolization using resin microspheres: a technical review

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 455-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yung Hsiang Kao ◽  
Eik Hock Tan ◽  
Chee Eng Ng ◽  
Soon Whatt Goh
Keyword(s):  
Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface ◽  
The Body ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Partition Model ◽  
Area Method ◽  
Technical Review ◽  
Resin Microspheres ◽  
Yttrium 90

The use of Body Surface Index as a Better Clinical Health indicators Compare to Body Mass Index and Body Surface Area for Clinical Application

2018 ◽  
pp. 131-136
Author(s):  
Shirazu I. ◽  
Theophilus. A. Sackey ◽  
Elvis K. Tiburu ◽  
Mensah Y. B. ◽  
Forson A.
Keyword(s):  
Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface Area ◽  
Clinical Application ◽  
Body Surface ◽  
Body Height ◽  
Health Indicators ◽  
The Body ◽  
Body Parameters ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Individual Body

The relationship between body height and body weight has been described by using various terms. Notable among them is the body mass index, body surface area, body shape index and body surface index. In clinical setting the first descriptive parameter is the BMI scale, which provides information about whether an individual body weight is proportionate to the body height. Since the development of BMI, two other body parameters have been developed in an attempt to determine the relationship between body height and weight. These are the body surface area (BSA) and body surface index (BSI). Generally, these body parameters are described as clinical health indicators that described how healthy an individual body response to the other internal organs. The aim of the study is to discuss the use of BSI as a better clinical health indicator for preclinical assessment of body-organ/tissue relationship. Hence organ health condition as against other body composition. In addition the study is `also to determine the best body parameter the best predict other parameters for clinical application. The model parameters are presented as; modeled height and weight; modelled BSI and BSA, BSI and BMI and modeled BSA and BMI. The models are presented as clinical application software for comfortable working process and designed as GUI and CAD for use in clinical application.

Correlation between the Minimal Cross-Sectional Area of the Nasal Cavity and Body Surface Area: Preliminary Results in Normal Patients

2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 209-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Jurlina ◽  
Ranko Mladina ◽  
Krsto Dawidowsky ◽  
Davor Ivanković ◽  
Zeljko Bumber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface ◽  
Anterior Part ◽  
Inferior Turbinate ◽  
Objective Evaluation ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
The Body ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional

Nasal symptoms often are inconsistent with rhinoscopic findings. However, the proper diagnosis and treatment of nasal pathology requires an objective evaluation of the narrow segments of the anterior part of the nasal cavities (minimal cross-sectional area [MCSA]). The problem is that the value of MCSA is not a unique parameter for the entire population, but rather it is a distinctive value for particular subject (or smaller groups of subjects). Consequently, there is a need for MCSA values to be standardized in a simple way that facilitates the comparison of results and the selection of our treatment regimens. We examined a group of 157 healthy subjects with normal nasal function. A statistically significant correlation was found between the body surface area and MCSA at the level of the nasal isthmus and the head of the inferior turbinate. The age of subjects was not found a statistically significant predictor for the value of MCSA. The results show that the expected value of MCSA can be calculated for every subject based on anthropometric data of height and weight.

Estimation of body surface area of extremely obese human subjects

1960 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 781-784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garrett R. Tucker ◽  
James K. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
The Body ◽  
Du Bois ◽  
Linear Formula ◽  
Total Body ◽  
Obese Human

The body surface areas of one normal and four extremely obese human subjects have been estimated by three methods: a) direct measurement by a method similar to that which Du Bois described; b) calculation from the Du Bois height-weight formula; and c) calculation from the Du Bois linear formula. The values for the total body surface area of the obese subjects calculated from the height-weight formula varied up to 11% below those that were directly measured. The values for the total body surface area obtained with the linear formula ranged between 13% and 20% above the direct measurements, this being almost entirely due to discrepancies in the trunk and in the thigh estimations. It has been concluded that estimation of the body surface area oxf extremely obese subjects by the Du Bois height-weight formula is satisfactory when considered in relation to the accuracy of the physiologic measurements with which it is generally used. Because of the unusual body form the Du Bois linear formula has been found unsatisfactory for this group. Submitted on March 1, 1960

5-flourouracil (5FU) shortage: Clinical implications and costs in a single month.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 663-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shweta Gupta ◽  
Prantesh Jain ◽  
Saurabh Gupta ◽  
Barbara Yim ◽  
Michael Russell Mullane
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
The Body ◽  
Colon Cancers ◽  
Number Of Cycles

663 Background: Capecitabine (XELODA) is an orally active fluoropyrimidine that is absorbed intact through the gastrointestinal tract and converted in to 5FU. Standard chemotherapy for advanced colon cancers includes infusional 5FU with leucovorin in combination of oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan (FOLFIRI). With the national shortage of 5FU we had to switch our FOLFOX and FOLFIRI regimens to XELOX or XELIRI. Although in trials the xeloda regimens were non-inferior, the PFS (progression free survival) and OS (overall survival), survival curves tailed behind the infusional 5FU regimens. Methods: At our institution over one month period from August 18th 2011 to September 18th 2011, all patients who were switched from 5FU to xeloda due to national shortage were identified. All charts were retrospectively reviewed identifying patients with colon cancer. Patients with other cancer histologies, were excluded. The charts were reviewed for number of cycles, clinical toxicity, admission to hospital. Results: A total of 90 patients were switched form 5FU to xeloda. 51 had colon cancer. Out of which, 6 (11.7%) patients had the drug discontinued due to toxicity and 4 out of the 6 required hospitalization due to adverse effects of xeloda, mainly diarrhea and vomiting. 80% of these had left sided colon cancer and 50% each received oxaliplatin and irinotecan respectively. The total number of hospitalization days was 20. The average wholesale price (AWP) of one cycle of xeloda for body surface area range from 1.5m2 to 2m2 ranges from 2605.68$ to 3474.24$ for every 3 week cycle. In comparison the corresponding AWP for 2 cycles of 5FU over a month is 51.81$ to 69.08$. This would become a net higher price of 2553.87$ to 3405.16$ for BSA of 1.5 to 2m2 per month for the switch to xeloda. There were 51 patients who received xeloda at least one cycle which costed about 151,954.50$ if we average the body surface area. Additionally there were 20 admission days costing about 50,000$, making the net costs of switching to xeloda more than 200,000$ in a single month. Conclusions: Although xeloda is non-inferior to 5FU and can be a substitute, left sided colon cancers tend to do have more adverse effects. Additionally Xeloda is associated with higher administration costs.

Randomized phase II trial of chemoradiotherapy with S-1 versus combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1 as neoadjuvant treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer (JASPAC 04).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 724-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hirochika Toyama ◽  
Teiichi Sugiura ◽  
Akira Fukutomi ◽  
Hirofumi Asakura ◽  
Yuriko Takeda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface ◽  
Combination Chemotherapy ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
The Body ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Chemotherapy Group

724 Background: Although neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) has been widely employed for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), it is still unclear what kind of regimen is recommended. The aim of the study is to investigate which chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with S-1 or combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine (GEM) and S-1 is more promising as NAT for resectable PDAC in terms of effectiveness and safety. Methods: Patients with resectable PDAC were enrolled and randomly assigned into either CRT group or chemotherapy group. In the CRT group, a total radiation dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions was administered and S-1, at a dose of 30, 40 or 50 mg according to the body surface area, was orally provided twice a day on the same day of irradiation. In the chemotherapy group, GEM was intravenously administered at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 on day 1 and 8 and S-1 was orally provided at a dose of 30, 40 or 50 mg according to the body surface area twice daily on day 1 to 14 followed by one week reset. Patients in the chemotherapy group received two cycles of this regimen. Surgery was performed between 15 and 56 days after the last day of NAT. The primary endpoint was 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate. With 50 patients in each group, the study had 80% power assuming a threshold 2-year PFS rate of 25% and an expected 2-year PFS rate of 40% at 0.05 one-sided alpha. The trial was registered with the UMIN Clinical Trial Registry as UMIN000014894. Results: From April 2014 and April 2017, 103 patients were enrolled from 11 institutions in Japan. One was excluded because of ineligibility, therefore 51 patients in CRT group and 51 patients in chemotherapy group constituted the intention-to-treat analysis. The 2-year PFS rate was 45% (90% CI, 33-60%) in the CRT group and 55% (43-65%) in the chemotherapy group (p = 0.52). The hazard ratio for chemotherapy to CRT was 0.78 (0.46-1.31). The median survival time was 37.7 (95% CI, 30.3-NE) in the CRT group and NE (29.9-NE) in the chemotherapy group (p = 0.30). There was no treatment-related death in both groups. Conclusions: Combination chemotherapy with GEM and S-1 may be more promising compared with CRT with S-1 as NAT for resectable PDAC. Clinical trial information: UMIN000014894.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document