Of those who underwent subsequent ICEPS, only those with data available to compare accessory pathway (AP) conduction during ICEPS and TEEPS were included. Results: Of 65 patients who underwent TEEPS, 42 were found to have an indication for ablation. The most common

indication for ICEPS was AZD1208 clinical trial inducible SVT, which was induced in 67% of patients. Of 42 patients who underwent subsequent ICEPS, 23 had sufficient data for comparison of AP conduction between ICEPS and TEEPS. There was no difference between the baseline minimum 1:1 antegrade conduction through the accessory pathway found at TEEPS versus ICEPS (312 +/- 51 ms vs 316 +/- 66 ms, P = 0.5). There was no significant difference between the baseline antegrade AP-effective refractory period found at TEEPS versus ICEPS (308 +/- 34 ms vs 297 +/- 37 ms, P = 0.07). There were no complications related to TEEPS or ICEPS. Conclusion: TEEPS is a safe and feasible alternative to ICEPS for risk stratification in patients with asymptomatic WPW and should be considered before ICEPS and ablation. (PACE 2012; 15)”
“Aims: Sapanisertib mouse The delineation of target volumes has been radiation oncologist led. If radiation therapists were to undertake this task, work processes may be more efficient and the skills set of radiation therapy staff broadened. This study was undertaken to quantify interobserver variability of breast target volumes between radiation

oncologists and radiation therapists.

Materials and methods: The planning computed tomography datasets of 30 patients undergoing tangential breast radiotherapy were utilised. Four radiation oncologists and four radiation therapists independently contoured the clinical target volume (CTV)

of the breast on planning computed tomography using a written protocol. The mean CTV volumes Napabucasin datasheet and the mean distance between centres of volume (COV) were determined for both groups to determine intergroup variation. Each of the radiation oncologists’ readings in turn has been used as the gold standard and compared with that of the radiation therapists. The concordance index for each patient’s CTV was determined relative to the gold standard for each group. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison between the groups. An intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to measure the agreement between the radiation oncologist and radiation therapist groups.

Results: The mean concordance index was 0.81 for radiation oncologists and 0.84 for radiation therapists. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the mean volume was 0.995 (95% confidence interval 0.981-0.998) between radiation oncologist- and radiation therapist-contoured volumes. The intraclass correlation for the mean difference between radiation oncologists’ and radiation therapists’ COV was 0.999 (95% confidence interval 0.999-1.000).