p. 1−18
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 19−25
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 26−35
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 36−45
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 46−55
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 56−67
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 68−77
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 78−86
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 87−97
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 98−110
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 111−117
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 118−124
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 125−130
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 131−143
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 144−147
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 148−158
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 159−166
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 167−176
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 177−188
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
0.05) in comparison to 3D-CRT in both beam energies. IMRT was better than 3D-CRT in terms of organs at risk (OARs) sparing and conformity index (CI) in both 6 and 15-MV whereas 3D-CRT in both 6 and 15-MV yielded better homogeneity index (HI) compared to IMRT 6 and 15-MV. The number of monitor units (MU) increased in IMRT compared to 3D-CRT. Also, MU increased in low energy compared to high energy whether in 3D-CRT or IMRT (p<0.05). When IMRT 6-MV and IMRT 15-MV were compared, no significant difference was found in terms of target coverage and OARs except the rectum was better in IMRT 6-MV compared to IMRT 15-MV. IMRT 6-MV technique should be prioritized when user has options for treatment and then 3D-CRT as a second line when the former is not available. The choice of the energies (6 and 15MV) used with 3D-CRT depend largely on patient's body geometry while the use of high energy IMRT 15-MV is not recommended.]]>
p. 189−200
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2
p. 201−207
2090-4258
Vol.53/No.2