[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
IJRR Information::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Subscription::
News & Events::
Web Mail::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
ISSN
Hard Copy 2322-3243
Online 2345-4229
..
Online Submission
Now you can send your articles to IJRR office using the article submission system.
..

AWT IMAGE

AWT IMAGE

:: Search published articles ::
Showing 2 results for Karimkhani

B. Ghadimi, Dr. N. Jabbari, L. Karimkhani, K. Mostafanezhad,
Volume 16, Issue 1 (1-2018)
Abstract

Background: Field-in-field (FIF) technique for treatment of breast cancer has become a widely performed method over the recent years. However, there was no study in the application of FIF technique in patients with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy and lumpectomy. This study is an attempt to compare dosimetric outcomes after applying the FIF technique in these patients. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four patients with right and left breast cancer participated in this study. The FIF planning technique was carried out for patients undergoing mastectomy and lumpectomy using the TiGRT treatment planning system (TPS). For the comparison purpose, we used two main indices, i.e. dose homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI), the number of subfields, as well as mean, maximum, and minimum doses, doses received by 2% (D2) and 98% (D98) of the target volume, volumes received greater than 107% (V>107%) and less than 95% (V<95%) of the prescribed dose, doses to organs at risk (OARs), and total monitor units (MUs). Results: The results indicated that CI and HI are better in patients with right and left breast lumpectomy surgery (p<0.038 and p<0.047) relative to mastectomy patients (p<0.037 and p<0.029), respectively. Other parameters mentioned in Materials and Methods did not show any significant difference between the two groups of patients (p>0.05). Conclusion: The use of alternative subfields resulted in better dose distribution in target volume with the increase in breast volume. Moreover, to disappear the hot spot areas in isodose curves, it is essential to elevate the number of subfields.
 

Ph.d., D. Sardari, E. Saeedzadeh, L. Karimkhani, Ph.d., S.r. Mahdavi,
Volume 23, Issue 1 (1-2025)
Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to assess the accuracy of dose calculations by Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) for critical organs positioned in out-of-field (OOF) regions during two intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques in patients diagnosed with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). Materials and Methods: Computed tomography (CT) images from 10 NPC patients (aged 54-77 years) were used for treatment planning using 7 and 11 fields IMRT techniques with the Monaco TPS. Doses for organs at risk (OARs) in OOF regions, including the eyes, lenses, and optic nerves, were calculated using the TPS and compared with measurements obtained from the OCTAVIUS 4D phantom. Additionally, dose distributions derived from TPS calculations were compared with measurements using the gamma analysis method, with a threshold dose set at 10% of the maximum dose. Results: Although gamma pass rates exceeded 95% for all patients when OOF regions were excluded, measurements indicated that the Monaco TPS generally underestimated doses to OOF organs by approximately 25%. This underestimation tended to increase with lower dose values, and TPS errors varied across different tissues, including the eyes, lenses, and optic nerves. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Monaco TPS demonstrates significant underestimation errors in dose calculations, especially for organs located in OOF regions during IMRT for NPC patients. Considering the potential risk of secondary cancers, it is imperative to prioritize meticulous attention to ensure precise dose estimation in OOF regions by the TPS.


Page 1 from 1     

International Journal of Radiation Research
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.13 seconds with 38 queries by YEKTAWEB 4714