CALL FOR PAPERS

CERTIFICATE

IMPACT FACTOR 2019

Subject Area

  • Life Sciences / Biology
  • Architecture / Building Management
  • Asian Studies
  • Business & Management
  • Chemistry
  • Computer Science
  • Economics & Finance
  • Engineering / Acoustics
  • Environmental Science
  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Pharmaceutical Sciences
  • General Sciences
  • Materials Science
  • Mathematics
  • Medicine
  • Nanotechnology & Nanoscience
  • Nonlinear Science
  • Chaos & Dynamical Systems
  • Physics
  • Social Sciences & Humanities

Why Us? >>

  • Open Access
  • Peer Reviewed
  • Rapid Publication
  • Life time hosting
  • Free promotion service
  • Free indexing service
  • More citations
  • Search engine friendly

Plagiarism Detection

IJCR is following an instant policy on rejection those received papers with plagiarism rate of more than 20%. So, All of authors and contributors must check their papers before submission to making assurance of following our anti-plagiarism policies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Comparative planning and dosimetric study comparing volumetric modulated arc therapy (vmat) vs dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (imrt) in head and neck carcinomas

Author: 
Dr. Swathi S Amin, Dr. Bhaskar V., Dr. Geeta S. N. and Dr. Rashmi S.
Subject Area: 
Health Sciences
Abstract: 

Background: Introduction of IMRT techniques for the treatment of Head and Neck carcinomas (HNSCC) has given better dose conformity and sparing of the organs at risk (OARs). Disadvantage of fixed angle IMRT is longer radiation delivery time and increased patient exposure to low dose radiation. Recently, VMAT has been developed which enables IMRT-like dose distributions to be delivered using a single rotation of the gantry and thereby reducing the treatment time. This study is undertaken to compare VMAT (single and double arcs) and IMRT plans for dose homogeneity, dose conformity and ability to spare OARs in HNSCC. Aims and objectives: • To compare IMRT and VMAT (Single and double arc) techniques in terms of tumor coverage, conformity and doses received by normaltissues. • To compare the treatment delivery time between IMRT and VMAT (single arc and double arc) in terms of monitor units(MUs). Methods and Materials: Between January 2014 to December 2015, 43 patients with nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, hypoharyngeal and laryngeal cancers were taken. IMRT, VMAT single arc and VMAT double arc plans were generated. Comparison of doses using dose volume histogram (DVH) was done. Doses to normal structures, tumor coverage and dose homogeneity and dose conformity was compared. Results: VMAT double arc plans had a superior homogeneity index(HI) equal to (0.1 ± 0.01) [p = 0.001] and best conformity(CI95%=1.2±0.16)[p= 0.02] compared to single arc plans with a HI of (0.1 ± 0.02) and slightly inferior conformity(CI95% = 1.3 ± 0.17) and IMRT plans with a HI of (0.1 ± 0.16) and least conformity (CI95%= 1.3 ±0.23). The average MU needed to deliver the dose of 225cGy per fraction was (637 ± 117.6 MU) [0.001] and (600.7 ± 113.95 MU) for double arc and single arc as against (1121.7 ± 390.27 MU) for the IMRT plan. The average number of monitor units was reduced by 53% for VAMT plans and double arc plans required only 10% more monitor units than single arc plans. Interpretation and Conclusion: VMAT double arc proved a significant sparing of OARs without compromising target coverage compared to IMRT. Hence VMAT is a fast, safe and a better treatment option in our comparison for HNSCC that uses lower MUs compared to IMRT.

PDF file: 

IJMCE RECOMMENDATION

ONLINE PAYPAL PAYMENT

CURRENT ISSUE

NEWS

CHIEF EDITOR
Rosane Cavalcante Fragoso, Brasil
ASSOCIATE CHIEF EDITOR

   

Jean-Marc SABATIER
Chief Scientific Officer and Head of a Research Group
France

Advantages of IJCR

  • Rapid Publishing
  • Professional publishing practices
  • Indexing in leading database
  • High level of citation
  • High Qualitiy reader base
  • High level author suport

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL BOARD

Luai Farhan Zghair
Iraq
Hasan Ali Abed Al-Zu’bi
Jordanian
Fredrick OJIJA
Tanzanian
Firuza M. Tursunkhodjaeva
Uzbekistan
Faraz Ahmed Farooqi
Saudi Arabia
Eric Randy Reyes Politud
Philippines
Elsadig Gasoom FadelAlla Elbashir
Sudan
Eapen, Asha Sarah
United State
Dr.Arun Kumar A
India
Dr. Zafar Iqbal
Pakistan
Dr. SHAHERA S.PATEL
India
Dr. Ruchika Khanna
India
Dr. Recep TAS
Turkey
Dr. Rasha Ali Eldeeb
Egypt
Dr. Pralhad Kanhaiyalal Rahangdale
India
DR. PATRICK D. CERNA
Philippines
Dr. Nicolas Padilla- Raygoza
Mexico
Dr. Mustafa Y. G. Younis
Libiya
Dr. Muhammad shoaib Ahmedani
Saudi Arabia
DR. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL MOHMAND
United State
DR. MAHESH SHIVAJI CHAVAN
India
DR. M. ARUNA
India
Dr. Lim Gee Nee
Malaysia
Dr. Jatinder Pal Singh Chawla
India
DR. IRAM BOKHARI
Pakistan
Dr. FARHAT NAZ RAHMAN
Pakistan
Dr. Devendra kumar Gupta
India
Dr. ASHWANI KUMAR DUBEY
India
Dr. Ali Seidi
Iran
Dr. Achmad Choerudin
Indonesia
Dr Ashok Kumar Verma
India
Thi Mong Diep NGUYEN
France
Dr. Muhammad Akram
Pakistan
Dr. Imran Azad
Oman
Dr. Meenakshi Malik
India
Aseel Hadi Hamzah
Iraq
Anam Bhatti
Malaysia
Md. Amir Hossain
Bangladesh
Ahmet İPEKÇİ
Turkey
Mirzadi Gohari
Iran