AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/jcitr.2018/005
*Corresponding Author: Hajira Mojdeh, Department of Radiology, Jamal mina, Kabul, Afghanistan.
Citation: Hajira Mojdeh, The developments of innovative technologies of focal radiotherapy a viable, safe, and effective option of treatment, J. Radiology and Therapeutic Interventions. Doi: 10.31579/jcitr.2018/005
Copyright: © 2018 Hajira Mojdeh. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 12 October 2018 | Accepted: 23 October 2018 | Published: 29 October 2018
Keywords: brain metastases; stereotactic radiosurgery; image-guided intervention; local control
Objectives: To determine if the postoperative delivery of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) for resection cavity for patients with single and resectable brain metastases is safe and effective.
Methods: A prospective feasibility protocol was set up to include patients with single and resectable brain metastases who underwent surgery and had low risk profile according to RPA classification. Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy was applied. Single dose: 3.8 Gy, total dose: 41.8 or 49.6 Gy.
Results: There was no case of break due to clinical problems. There was no case of delay of FSRT. The onset acute toxicity was observed in 40 cases (76.9%), no grade 3 and more was seen. Local recurrence free survival was 32.6 months, local control rate at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months were 85%, 77.9%, 65.9% and 65.9%. Overall local failure occurred in 34.1% of patients. Overall survival rates at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months were 90.3%, 63.9%, 47.7% and 31.6%. Median survival was 18.3 months (13.8-22.8) and overall 17.3% were living at the time of last analysis. Distant control rates at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months were 49.4%, 38.2%, 25.5% and 22.3%. Median distant recurrence free survival was 6 months (0-12.0) with overall distant failure in 77.7% of patients.
Conclusion: FSRT for surgical cavity might be one possible option in treatment of single and resectable brain metastases.
Brain metastases occur in approximately 30% of patients with metastasized cancer, greatly shortening their life expectancies as well as detrimentally effecting personal and societal quality of life [1]. Prognostic assessments using validated scoring systems can help clinicians select approaches and management strategies for brain metastases that are tailored to the individual characteristics of the patient and his or her disease. Relevant scoring systems have been developed based on recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) and graded prognostic assessments (GPA) [2].
The exact management of patients with favorable or intermediate prognoses (RPA I and II, respectively; GPA scores ≥3 and 1.5–2.5) can vary depending on the number of metastases [3]. However, whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) or, in the case of resectable tumors, surgery has traditionally been performed for patients with these favorable and intermediate prognoses. Level I evidence indicates that the combination of WBRT and surgery for resectable single metastases is better than surgery alone in terms of local control (LC; 46% versus 10%), but does not confer any survival benefits [4]. Because the addition of WBRT has not been observed to improve survival, physicians and patients may be hesitant to combine WBRT with surgery.
Indeed, there are some disadvantages to WBRT besides its lack survival benefit. First, WBRT has several acute side effects, including hair loss, skin irritation, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. Second, WBRT can have a clinically and statistically significant impact on neurocognitive function, thereby reducing patients' quality of life after treatment [5,6]. Third, WBRT standard doses of 30 Gy (in 10 fractions) and 20 Gy (in 4 or 5 fractions) appear to be suboptimal for cancers that are relatively resistant to radiotherapy, such as melanoma and renal cell carcinoma [7]. Because of these disadvantages, there is a recognized need for alternative treatment strategies. At present, WBRT is vastly used in cases that have especially favorable characteristics: a single resectable cerebral lesion with a good KPS, patient age <65 years, and a controlled or potentially controllable primary tumor. It may be considered in these cases as overtreatment. A variety of alternative therapeutic options is available in these favorable clinical scenarios, including focal high-precision radiotherapy, which we decided to investigate. However, because of the experimental nature of focal high-precision radiotherapy, we decided to begin our investigation more cautiously, using fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT), which is a somewhat less aggressive technique.
Little data are available on hypo fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy with a single daily dose >2.2 Gy up to a total dose of 40-50 Gy that is delivered to the resection cavity after removal of a single and resectable brain metastasis. We specifically designed our study to examine the feasibility and safety of image-guided FSRT, sought to determine whether FSRT was an effective option for single and resectable brain metastases. In the present study, we describe our clinical experiences focusing on issues of reproducibility, patient safety and clinical outcome.
Patient selection and study endpoints
Demographic data for all patients were obtained from a prospectively maintained database. Informed consent was obtained from all patients before treatment. The local review committee approved the protocol. We identified 61 patients who had single brain metastases (which had resulted from a variety of different cancers), all of whom underwent resection followed by FSRT between January 2010 and December 2012. Of the 61 identified cases, 52 met our protocol's inclusion criteria: a single resectable cerebral lesion with KPS >60 and a controlled or potentially controllable primary tumor. We did not exclude patients older than 65 years, so long as they were physically fit, active, younger than 75 years, but explicitly wished to receive FSRT.
The median age of included patients was 62.8 years (31–74 years). The study cohort comprised 30 female and 22 male patients. One experienced team performed the surgical procedures, and a second experienced team performed the radio therapeutic procedures. A multidisciplinary team made clinical decisions. The primary endpoints of the study were technical and medical feasibility, including workflows and FSRT-related toxicity greater than grade 2, according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTC AE, version 4.0). The secondary endpoint was local tumor control within the irradiated region.
Treatment
All patients were treated with image-guided frameless (linac)-based FSRT. The majority of patients (n=38, 73%) received 41.8 Gy at 11 fractions of 3.8 Gy. The remaining patients (n=14, 26.9%) received two additional fractions, increasing the total to 49.4 Gy (13 fractions of 3.8 Gy).
Patient immobilization was achieved using a commercially available head mask fixation system (Brainlab AG, Feldkirchen, Germany). The specific characteristics of the system and principles of the technique have been described previously [8]. The clinical target volume (CTV) was identified on the basis of 1 mm gadolinium-enhanced axial MRI (Siemens Medical Systems, Erlangen, Germany) images fused with computed tomography (Siemens Medical Systems, Erlangen, Germany) image data sets. Scanning was conducted in the spiral mode using a pitch of 0.75, and slices of 1.2 mm thickness and spacing were acquired for the entire cranium. Surrounding edema or the operative corridor was not included. The dose prescription was made to the planning target volume (PTV), which consisted of the CTV with an added 2 mm margin around it as the planning target volume (PTV). To ensure that at least 95% of the PTV received the prescribed dose, doses were prescribed constantly to the 80% isodose line, as normalized to the maximum dose. Treatment volumes were achieved with 3–5 dynamic arcs using a dedicated Novalis accelerator (Brainlab AG, Feldkirchen, Germany). Dexamethasone therapy was started by the first day of treatment, orally administered at doses of 4–6 mg per day, and maintained for 10 days following the end of treatment.
Follow-up
Patients were clinically observed before and during FSRT. The first follow-up appointment was scheduled three months later, with additional appointments occurring at least once every six months. We planned to document treatment-related toxicity in first three months following FSRT. Local progression was defined as new contrast enhancement in the PTV. Distant intracranial progression was defined by the presence of new brain metastases or leptomeningeal enhancement outside the PTV. For each patient who died, we attempted to determine the cause of death.
Statistics
LC, distant control (DC), and OS were defined as beginning at the time of FSRT and were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. In univariate analyses, we used the log-rank test to assess survival differences for categorical variables and the Cox proportional hazards model to assess survival differences for continuous variables. Significant prognostic factors (p<0.05) were included in a multivariate analysis, using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Statistical evaluations were performed using a commercial statistical software package (SPSS version 20.0, IBM Germany GmBH).
Patient and tumor characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The most common primary tumors were non-small cell lung cancer (16/52, 30.8%), breast cancer (10/52, 21.1%), melanoma (7/52, 9.2%), and colorectal cancer (5/52, 6.6%). Median follow-up time with imaging was 9.6 months (1–45 months).
The median interval between surgery and FSRT was 1.9 months (0.53–4.01 months). Median KPS at the time of FSRT was 80 (60–90). Ten patients were excluded from the analyses of LC, DC, and salvage therapy because sufficient imaging data were unavailable.
Primary endpoints: feasibility, acute toxicity
With respect to feasibility, we observed that all patients completed FSRT. No cases involved breaks or pauses in FSRT because of adverse responses. In three cases, there was a short break (1–2 days) because of technical problems with the machines. All delays in the time of FSRT were scheduled in advance; there were no unscheduled delays.
With respect to FSRT-related toxicity, new-onset acute toxicity was observed in 40 cases (76.9%). However, none of these cases involved acute toxicity of grade 3 or higher. Patients reported manageable fatigue (grade 2, n=32, 61.5%), lethargy (grade 2, n=32, 61.5%), headache (grade 2, n=18, 34.6%), dizziness, (grade 2, n=12, 23%), and ataxia (grade 2, n=6, 11.5%).
Secondary endpoint: local control
In 10 cases a recurrence occurred. Median local recurrence-free survival was 32.6 months. LC rates at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months were 85%, 77.9%, 65.9%, and 65.9%, respectively (Figure 1). Overall, local failure occurred in 34.1% of patients. Univariate analysis identified residual tumor mass after resection as a highly significant factor associated with local failure (p<0.001).
Tertiary endpoint: overall survival and distant control
Median survival was 18.3 months (range: 13.8–22.8 months), with 17.3% of patients alive at the time of last follow-up. OS rates at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months were 90.3%, 63.9%, 47.7%, and 31.6% (Figure 2). RPA and KPS were identified prognostic factors for OS. Univariate analysis also indicated that RPA class 2 was predictive of OS (p<0.02), and that RPA class 1 was associated with better survival than RPA class 3 (p<0.061). An analysis of patients stratified according to KPS (Group 1 KPS: 80–90, Group 2 KPS: 60–70) confirmed KPS of Group 1 was predictive of better survival (p<0.048).
DC rates at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months were 49.4%, 38.2%, 25.5%, and 22.3%, respectively. Median distant recurrence-free survival was 6 months (range: 0–12.0 months) with distant failure ultimately occurring in 77.7% of patients.
Salvage therapy
Twenty-six of 42 patients (61.9%) received salvage therapy: 42.3% received WBRT (n=11), 42.3% received FSRT (n=11), and 9.5% underwent resection (n=4). Among the 26 patients, the median time to salvage therapy was 5.3 months (range: 1.87–19.91 months). The median subsequent survival time was 8.4 months (range: 5.2–11.6 months). In 69.23% of cases (18/26), the patient received initial salvage therapy because of distant failure alone.
Our results demonstrate the technical and medical feasibility of focal high-precision radiotherapy (FSRT) of the resection cavity after removal of single brain metastases. Our decision to defer investigation of whole-brain radiotherapy was motivated by the only prior study that provided level 1 evidence [4] and the few other relevant studies that provided lower-level evidence and were available when we planned our study [9-12]. We were additionally motivated by outcome data showing that, for a variety of cancers, improvements in systemic therapy lead to longer survival times.
Currently, the delayed effects of WBRT are becoming a more serious issue. During study planning, we generated a specific hypothesis for investigation: WBRT is deferrable, and it is better to postpone WBRT for patients who have resectable single brain metastases and favorable risk profiles, and therefore longer life expectancies. However, WBRT undoubtedly reduces local and regional recurrence when assessed in a prospective setting [4,13]. For patients with multiple, unresectable or medium–high risk brain metastases, WBRT should remain the standard treatment.
Technical and medical feasibility
our preliminary results indicate that FSRT is feasible from a technical perspective, at least for departments that have sufficient technical infrastructure and experienced teams. FSRT is also safe, causing no severe side effects. However, the duration of FSRT may be a critical limitation; FSRT is delivered over the course of two weeks. To date, few studies have considered hypo fractionation. To our knowledge, this study's dose regimen (a single dose of 3.8 Gy delivered in 11–13 fractions) is the only regimen of this type.
Few previous studies of FSRT have reported toxicity. In a recent study of 33 cases, Steinmann et al., reported no toxicities of grade 2 or higher [14]. Their study examined a dose prescription that nominally differed from our own, but was actually similar in terms of biologic equivalence. The authors reported side effects including mild alopecia, dermatitis, and fatigue. Only eight patients received corticosteroids at the end of radiotherapy. In an excellent study of 33 patients with solitary brain metastases, Connolly et al., reported side effects experienced during and after a hypo fractionated radiotherapy regimen (2.67 Gy, 15 times) that was similar to our own. It was observed that none of the patients experienced additional neurological symptoms related to the therapy [15].
Local control
A 65.9% LC rate was observed in the present study. This is the lowest LC rate of among the studies compared, possibly because 9.5% of patients included in the estimation of intracranial control had residual tumor mass, which was strongly associated with local failure. We observed no significant difference in LC rates between the two dose regimens. The median prescription dose of 41.8 Gy was comparable to studies with a wide range of LC rates. For example, in a study with a prescription dose of 40 Gy, Steinmann et al., observed a 73% LC rate [14], while in a study with a prescription dose of 40.5 Gy, Connolly et al., observed an 85% LC rate [15]. Considering the small sizes of study cohorts, the LC rate that was observed in the present study may be not be unusual at all (Table 2).
Overall survival
Median OS times have ranged from 18.3 to 30.7 months in studies of patients with single brain metastasis who received focal radiotherapy after resection [14-16], including the OS in the present study. In comparison, median OS times have ranged from 11 to 17 months for cohorts that include multiple brain metastases [10-12,17-22].
Among patients with brain metastases, single brain metastasis is predictive of longer survival [11]. Accordingly, the present study's median survival time of 18.3 months reasonably consistent with previous reports, particularly in comparison to the approximately 20 month median OS that was observed in a prior study of a similar number of patients [16]. Three retrospective studies of single brain metastases that incorporated the present study's treatment mode reported a median survival time of 20–30.7 months [14-16], whereas studies with initial postoperative WBRT reported median survival times of 10.7–12 months [4,13]. Therefore, research on the difference in survival times for patients with single brain metastasis could provide a major argument for proper treatment.
Our analysis of RPA indicated that classes 1 and 2 were associated with better OS than class 3. However, we did not observe any significant difference in OS between RPA classes 1 and 2, perhaps because the factors contributing to RPA classification (age, extra-cranial metastases) were not significantly associated with OS in our univariate analyses. Therefore, KPS could be the major factor that contributes to the survival differences that were observed. Additionally, the number of patients and the case censoring varied across RPA classes.
Distant intracranial control
The 6-month median DC time fell short of the18.3-month median OS time. The rather low 22.3% DC rate suggests the underlying reason for the majority of first salvage interventions (69.2% of salvage therapies followed loss of DC). Therefore, patients were burdened by complications of distant metastases and the associated therapeutic aftermath. Higher DC rates have previously been reported for WBRT as standard treatment after surgery (range: 76–86%) [4,13].
These findings lead us to question the value of enhanced DC conferred by WBRT, drawing attention to the specifics of the application of WBRT in the present study. First, STs of the relevant cases were conducted after a median of 5.37 months. In the present study, 26.19% of first salvage therapies after recurrence were WBRT. Compared with traditional upfront WBRT, use of WBRT as salvage therapy delays possible side effects. Second, 16.7% (7/42) of people in the present study lived longer than 18 months without recurrence, and 11.9% (5/42) lived longer than two years without recurrence. These patients are proof that WBRT is not necessary for long-term survival. Indeed, these patients entirely avoided the risks of upfront WBRT. Apart from these two arguments in favor of image-guided stereotactic radiotherapy, there is little evidence concerning the balance of benefits and harms of upfront WBRT and WBRT as a salvage therapy after DF.
However, despite the side effects of WBRT [5,23], which include loss of health-related quality of life [24], there is some contradictory evidence concerning its effects. Indeed, overall neurocognitive benefit has been claimed [25], as well as the possibility of reducing harm by sparing portions of the brain [26,27].
In the last decade, the developments of innovative technologies have made focal radiotherapy a viable, safe, and effective option of treatment. Accordingly, the predominance of WBRT treatment strategies should be critically revised. The use of WBRT as a one-size-fits-all treatment should be reconsidered. In the present study, we examined FSRT of the surgical cavity and demonstrated that it could be a treatment option for single and resectable brain metastases.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
My Testimonial Covering as fellowing: Lin-Show Chin. The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews.
My experience publishing in Psychology and Mental Health Care was exceptional. The peer review process was rigorous and constructive, with reviewers providing valuable insights that helped enhance the quality of our work. The editorial team was highly supportive and responsive, making the submission process smooth and efficient. The journal's commitment to high standards and academic rigor makes it a respected platform for quality research. I am grateful for the opportunity to publish in such a reputable journal.
My experience publishing in International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews was exceptional. I Come forth to Provide a Testimonial Covering the Peer Review Process and the editorial office for the Professional and Impartial Evaluation of the Manuscript.
