Practical Radiation Oncology最新文献

{"title":"Real-World Guide for Delivering Immunotherapy With Radiation Therapy","authors":"Denton J. Robinson BS ,&nbsp;Hampartsoum B. Barsoumian PhD ,&nbsp;Ansel P. Nalin MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Vivek Verma MD ,&nbsp;Joshua S. Niedzielski PhD ,&nbsp;Nahum Puebla-Osorio PhD ,&nbsp;Yun Hu PhD ,&nbsp;Mingyo Kang BS ,&nbsp;Shalin J. Shah MD ,&nbsp;Jack Phan MD, PhD ,&nbsp;James W. Welsh MD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.06.013","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.06.013","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Immunoradiation therapy, the combination of radiation therapy (RT) and immunotherapy, represents a promising advancement in cancer treatment by enhancing local and systemic tumor control and improving patient response rates. Although RT has long been a cornerstone of oncologic care, its efficacy is often limited by various tumor resistance mechanisms. Immunotherapy, which leverages the immune system to combat cancer, offers a complementary means to enhance RT's effectiveness. This review aims to provide a real-world guide for optimizing immunoradiation therapy in clinical practice and to bridge the gap between research and clinical application.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>This review synthesizes current literature and clinical experience related to the integration of immunotherapy and RT, focusing on four critical areas: pretreatment factors, immunotherapy sequencing, RT planning, and posttreatment follow-up. Key considerations include prior patient treatments, the timing and type of immunotherapy, radiation dosing and fractionation strategies, tumor size, organs at risk, and effective post-RT monitoring, which collectively will help tailor a precise approach. In addition, the review highlights emerging approaches that incorporate artificial intelligence into RT planning and the development of personalized immunoradiation therapy.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Evidence from recent studies demonstrates that the combination of RT and immunotherapy can enhance both local tumor control and systemic immune activation. To dissect further, the results of our review emphasize the importance of variables impacting treatment outcomes such as: prior chemotherapy, use of steroids, absolute lymphocyte counts, radiation dose and sequencing of immunotherapy in regard to RT, avoiding organs at risk, devising novel lymphocyte sparing techniques, and pulsed RT approach in cases of progression.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>By addressing the key factors influencing treatment design and implementation, immunoradiation therapy can be effectively tailored to improve therapeutic outcomes. Furthermore, the integration of artificial intelligence and multidisciplinary coordination may help in automated planning, treatment precision, and advancing personalized care in clinical oncology.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages 222-233"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145253716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Stereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation to Avoid Acute Left Anterior Descending Coronary Lesion in a Patient with Electrical Storm","authors":"Michele Magnocavallo MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Pietro Rossi MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Giorgio Caramia MD ,&nbsp;Marco Polselli MD ,&nbsp;Antonio Bisignani MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Tiziana Malatesta MD ,&nbsp;Giacomo Silvetti MD ,&nbsp;Filippo Cauti MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Francesco Miccichè MD ,&nbsp;Stefano Bianchi MD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.10.008","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.10.008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages 202-203"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145453936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Segment-Targeted Precision Ablative Radiation Therapy With Exact Delivery (SPARE): A Novel Anatomically Guided Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Technique","authors":"Shinya Neri MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Masashi Nozue MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Katsumasa Nakamura MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.09.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.09.005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer achieves excellent local control but may cause radiation pneumonitis in uninvolved lung segments. Conventional SBRT planning using ring-shaped optimization structures enhances conformity but disregards segmental anatomy, allowing low-dose spillage into adjacent intact lung. We developed Segment-targeted Precision Ablative Radiotherapy with Exact delivery (SPARE), an anatomically-guided SBRT technique that confines radiation exposure to the tumor-bearing bronchopulmonary segment, essentially performing a “radiation segmentectomy.” SPARE integrates three complementary strategies: segment-specific beam orientation that avoids adjacent uninvolved segments, optimization constraints that penalize dose to neighboring segments, and high-gradient dose shaping with Monte Carlo or Acuros calculation for precision near tissue interfaces. The tumor-bearing segment is identified using high-resolution CT to trace bronchial branches and vascular landmarks, defining natural intersegmental boundaries. A representative case of left upper lobe adenocarcinoma located in the S1+2b subsegment treated with 56 Gy in 4 fractions demonstrated successful dose confinement to the target segment while sparing adjacent S3. Grade 1 radiation pneumonitis at 4 months was localized exclusively to the treated subsegment, with compensatory expansion observed in uninvolved areas, confirming predictable toxicity localization. SPARE offers functional preservation through anatomically-guided dose containment, transforms diffuse lung injury into localized injury, and enables safer retreatment situations. This technique is executable with standard SBRT equipment and compatible with conventional fractionation schemes. This concept extends beyond lung to other segmented organs like liver and kidney, where anatomical units can be targeted while preserving overall organ function. SPARE represents a paradigm shift in SBRT planning that aligns radiation therapy with surgical principles of anatomical preservation while maintaining oncologic efficacy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages e204-e209"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145433188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"To Space or Not to Space: The EPIC Question for Prostate Stereotactic Radiation Therapy With or Without Hydrogel Rectal Spacer","authors":"Madeline M. Flanagan MD ,&nbsp;Mhd Hasan Almekdash PhD ,&nbsp;Sean P. Collins MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Brian Collins MD ,&nbsp;Simeng Suy PhD ,&nbsp;Daniel A. Hamstra MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.007","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>After prostate radiation therapy (RT), bowel, urinary, and sexual side effects and quality of life (QOL) declines are common. Phase 3 trials of rectal spacers (RSs) using ≥20 fractions found clinical and dose benefits and reduced QOL declines. However, the role of RS in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is undefined.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>A prospective single-institution registry of prostate SBRT from 2012 to 2023 was analyzed by RS use (n = 290) versus no-RS (n = 1815). QOL scores were collected via Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 at baseline and up to 5 years post-RT. Treatment used computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging fusion and 3 to 6 fiducials for real-time tracking with Robotic SBRT (CyberKnife, Accuray Inc). Clinical target volume included prostate plus proximal seminal vesicles. Planning target volume margins were 5 mm except 3 mm posteriorly (35-36.25 Gy was delivered in 5 fractions). The primary endpoint was QOL trend over time by RS versus no-RS as evaluated by linear mixed-effects models that accounted for within-subject variability by controlling for key clinical and demographic characteristics. Clinically important change analyses were conducted using established minimally important difference (MID) thresholds to compare proportion of patients in each group with meaningful QOL declines at each timepoint.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were no differences in age, prostate specific antigen, or prostate volume between groups. RS was associated with more recent treatment (<em>p</em> &lt; .001), intermediate- and high-risk disease (96% vs 85%; <em>p</em> &lt; .001), androgen deprivation therapy use (52% vs 39%; <em>p</em> &lt; .001), and Caucasian patients (63% vs 55%; <em>p</em> &lt; .001). Baseline EPIC scores were similar. Declines in EPIC scores post-SBRT were small, approaching baseline after 6 months and remaining stable to 5 years. There were no clinically significant differences in QOL trend over time by RS vs no-RS. For the 2-month post-RT timepoint alone, the RS group had more favorable QOL with 1×MID and/or 2×MID thresholds met for urinary irritation, bowel, and vitality domains. No durable clinically significant QOL differences occurred between RS groups even in the baseline sexual domain EPIC ≥60/no androgen deprivation therapy subgroup.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>SBRT produced only modest, largely transient QOL declines that resolved by ∼6 months. RS did not confer a durable clinically meaningful QOL improvement; an isolated 2×MID signal at 2 months favored RS in select domains, but this was transient, and nondurable.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages 276-288"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145745013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Dose-Volume Histogram Compendium of Dose Constraints for Treatment Planning: An ASTRO Consensus Paper","authors":"Lindsay L. Puckett MD ,&nbsp;Smith Apisarnthanarax MD ,&nbsp;Leslie K. Ballas MD ,&nbsp;Bhishamjit S. Chera MD ,&nbsp;Indrin J. Chetty PhD ,&nbsp;Samantha L. Dawes CMD ,&nbsp;John DeMarco PhD ,&nbsp;Christine E. Eyler MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Karyn A. Goodman MD, MS ,&nbsp;Dustin Jacqmin PhD ,&nbsp;Evangelia Katsoulakis MD ,&nbsp;Christine Ko Bang MD ,&nbsp;Ksenija Kujundzic ,&nbsp;Elizabeth M. Nichols MD ,&nbsp;Jennifer Pursley PhD ,&nbsp;Mihaela Rosu-Bubulac PhD ,&nbsp;Charles B. Simone II MD ,&nbsp;Ping Xia PhD ,&nbsp;Abhishek A. Solanki MD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.003","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.003","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This dose-volume histogram (DVH) compendium shares the knowledge and resources compiled by disease-site experts during an immense undertaking by the Veterans Affairs (VA) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) to develop performance indicators for radiation therapy as part of quality surveillance. The guidance for breast, head and neck, liver, lung, prostate, and rectal cancers supports physician decision-making during dosimetric treatment planning, directs the reader to additional resources, and contributes to the evolution of DVH metrics for external beam radiation therapy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>DVH tables were developed for each disease site relating to the most common dose/fractionation regimens used in VA and non-VA radiation oncology centers nationwide. Dosimetric values with validation through prior clinical data and those used in ongoing multisite trials were prioritized, with references listed in the tables. In scenarios with a paucity of data for specific constraints, the disease-site panels discussed and agreed on appropriate clinical guidance. After panel discussion, each metric was voted on to obtain panel consensus. Panel consensus was evaluated with a modified Delphi approach using a prespecified threshold of ≥75% of raters who agree or strongly agree to establish consensus via a confidential survey. Where the content did not meet this threshold, it was removed or revised. Significant revisions went back to the full disease-site panel for review, approval, and a final consensus vote.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The dose constraints are the result of quality measure development between the VA and ASTRO. They represent the body of work thus far, with the goal of expanding future resources to include other disease sites. There is still work to be done to optimize dose goals and constraints for target volumes and normal tissues. Different methodologies for calculating doses have produced varying data, and ongoing efforts will harmonize the lack of concordance where possible. Wide variation when reporting on toxicities and efforts to standardize provide an opportunity for future trial data to add to the depth of knowledge. This DVH compendium is pragmatic and reflective of general practice and established treatment regimens. Having accessible default constraints supports standardization and will help improve the quality of treatment planning and radiation delivery for all patients.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages 294-317"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146020368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Standardization Versus Adaptability: Where Is the Sweet Spot?","authors":"Mohammad Bakhtiari PhD, DABR, EMBA, CPPS, CPHQ, CSSBB","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.006","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Standardization in clinical workflows is widely recognized as a driver of safety, efficiency, and consistency. The challenge for modern practice is determining the appropriate degree and rigidity of standardization, especially as automation and adaptive technologies reshape workflows.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>This Special Article synthesizes literature from radiation oncology, human factors engineering, and safety science to evaluate the balance between standardization and adaptability. We use the Law of Requisite Variety as a conceptual framework, supplemented by examples from quality assurance, adaptive radiation therapy, and emerging technologies.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Well-designed standards enhance reliability, reduce variability, and facilitate training and compliance. However, excessive standardization may create brittle systems incapable of managing novel situations, whereas insufficient standardization increases variability and risk of preventable incidents. Examples illustrate how rigid quality assurance protocols can limit flexibility in addressing non-routine clinical scenarios, and how overly prescriptive adaptive workflows can hinder responsiveness to patient-specific needs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Radiation oncology requires a dynamic balance between standardization and adaptability. Overstandardization can compromise resilience; understandardization can erode consistency. Applying the Law of Requisite Variety can help identify when to enforce rigid standards and when to preserve flexibility, ensuring both safety and efficiency. This approach supports informed policy-making, technology integration, and sustainable quality improvement in clinical physics practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages e245-e252"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146031639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Trial of Reirradiation for Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma","authors":"Peter Mathen MD ,&nbsp;Andra V. Krauze MD ,&nbsp;Lindsay Rowe MD ,&nbsp;Huma Chaudhry MD ,&nbsp;Megan Mackey MSN, CRNP ,&nbsp;Theresa Cooley-Zgela RN ,&nbsp;Erich Huang PhD ,&nbsp;Uma Shankavaram PhD ,&nbsp;Chris Zalewski PhD ,&nbsp;Joseph Snow PhD ,&nbsp;Martha Quezado MD ,&nbsp;Jing Wu MD ,&nbsp;DeeDee Smart MD ,&nbsp;Kevin Camphausen MD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.12.015","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.12.015","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>A dose-escalation trial of reirradiation (reRT) was conducted in patients with a diagnosis of recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) to increase the total overall dose given to the tumor without increasing toxicity. The primary objective of this study was to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for reRT in patients with rGBM.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>A phase 1 dose-escalation study using a “3 plus 3” design aimed at identifying reRT MTD with secondary study endpoints of overall survival, progression-free survival, Health-Related Quality of Life, and neurocognitive outcomes. Patients with histologically proven rGBM, Karnofsky Performance Status ≥70, and &gt;12 months since standard chemoradiation, were enrolled in the study. Patients received daily radiation therapy, 5 fractions per week, with dose levels (DLs) (total radiation dose [Gy]/number fractions): DL1 1(35/10), DL2 (42/12), and DL3 (49/14). Response and progression were defined as per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria. Neurocognition and patient-reported outcomes were obtained before reRT, at completion of treatment and at follow-up intervals.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fourteen patients were enrolled (64% male, median Karnofsky Performance Status 80 [range, 70-90], median age 54 [range, 38-65]) in DL1(3), DL2(6), and DL3(5). The median time between upfront radiation therapy to completion of reRT was 47.2 months (range, 12.6-93.5 months) with patients enrolled from 2016 to 2022. Median progression-free survival was 5.09 months (3.5, 7.2, and 5.2 months for DL 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Overall survival was 10.3 months (6.1, 14.4, and 13.3 months for DL 1, 2, and 3, respectively). No treatment-related toxicity was observed for DLs 1 and 2. In DL3, 3 of 5 patients experienced neurologic decline without prior radiographic evidence of tumor and were therefore designated as grade 3 treatment-related toxicity. However, no dose-limiting toxicity was observed at any DL.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Results of the trial reveal 4200 cGy in 12 fractions as the MTD for the group of patients with rGBM.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages 266-275"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146133520","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Supportive Mentorship in Medical Training: Creating the Culture We Wish We Had","authors":"Lisa A. McGee MD,&nbsp;Steven E. Schild MD,&nbsp;Brady Laughlin MD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.12.006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.12.006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages 243-245"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145795375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In Reply to Shaffer et al","authors":"James B. Yu MD, MHS ,&nbsp;David Grew MD ,&nbsp;Matthew B. Spraker MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Jason M. Beckta MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Chirag Shah MD ,&nbsp;Jeffrey V. Brower MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.10.016","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.10.016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"16 3","pages":"Page 320"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147826783","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Commentary on Editorial: Omitting Radiation for Breast Cancer Patients Eligible for the NSABP B51 Trial Who Achieve ypN0 After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy","authors":"Bruce G. Haffty MD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.12.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.12.005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages 256-257"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147826826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}