Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Year:2022 | Volume:40 | Issue:681|Papers Count:3

Background: Osteoarthritis is a common cause of knee pain and disability. So far, limited studies have been performed on the effects of herbal medicines containing Elaeagnus angustifolia versus curcumin extracts on knee osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the therapeutic effect of Elaeagnus angustifolia vs. curcumin extracts in mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis. Methods: This clinical trial study was performed on 50 patients with knee osteoarthritis in Isfahan during 2019-2020. Patients' pain and function were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Roles and Maudsley Scale. Patients were divided into two groups and treated orally with 250 mg Elartrit capsules (Elaeagnus angustifolia extract) and with 370 mg Curcumin capsules (curcumin extract) (one capsule every 12 hours for 15 days). Variables were compared before, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks after treatment. Also, the outcomes were compared between two groups. Findings: The use of both drugs was effective in treating pain and improving patients' function. After 4 weeks, patients had no differences in the following items: knee discomfort, joint stiffness, pain, daily activity, exercise and recreation, quality of life and total score of KOOS questionnaire. Also, in terms of functional status, there was no significant difference between the two groups. However, compared to the beginning of the study, patients in both groups had significant improvements in parameters of joint stiffness, pain, daily activity, and the total score of the KOOS questionnaire during the study. Conclusion: In improving pain, joint stiffness (VAS and KOOS questionnaire) and function (Roles and Maudsley Scale) in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis, there is no difference between Elaeagnus angustifolia and curcumin extracts in the short-term treatment.

Background: Among the effective and non-invasive factors in predicting and evaluating the treatment outcome of cancerous tumors including cerebral astrocytoma is the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) resulting from diffusion weight imaging (DW-MRI). The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation of dose per unit volume of treatment target with ADC changes after radiation therapy. Methods: In this prospective, cross-sectional study, 40 patients with astrocytoma tumor were investigated. From DW-MRI images, each patient performed once before surgery and again 30 to 45 days after radiation therapy to investigate the relationship between. Statistical findings from data analysis showed that the amount of apparent diffusion coefficient after radiation therapy increased significantly and the amount of these changes was directly related to the dose reached per unit volume of treatment. Findings: Performing statistical analysis on the resulting data showed that there is a significant increase in the amount of Apparent diffusion coefficient after radiation therapy, that the amount of these changes is directly related to the Planning target volume and the amount of emission changes in Apparent diffusion coefficient due to receiving radiation in the tumor area. It can be determined by radiation therapy. Conclusion: The results of this research show the advantage of using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance images in the treatment design of patients with astrocytoma tumors and selecting the optimal Planning target volume. Also, with the possibility of calculating the secondary apparent diffusion coefficient in the tumor area, which indicates the tumor response and the patient's survival rate, the treatment result can be predicted with appropriate accuracy.

Background: One of the most important factors in determining prognosis and therapeutic plan in patients with breast cancer is tumor size. Our aim in this study was to compare the estimated tumor size in two common imaging modalities, ultrasound and mammography with pathologic assessment. Methods: In this cross sectional study, we analyzed 287 patients with breast cancer diagnosis whose pathologic specimen was reported in pathology department of Omid hospital (Isfahan, Iran) from March 2015 to March 2020. The difference in tumor size were evaluated based on imaging and pathological reports. Then, we classified them in three groups as concordant, underestimated, and overestimated for which the effect of various factors such as age, tumor type, T stage and molecular subtype on accuracy of each modality was assessed. Findings: Concordance rate was 58. 3% in ultrasonography and 51. 7% in mammography. Ultrasonography and mammography respectively underestimated the tumor size in 30. 6% and 31%, and overestimated in 11. 1% and 17. 2% of cases indicating no statistically significant difference between the two modalities. Ultrasonography and mammography underestimate large tumors more commonly than small tumors. For tumors smaller than 20 mm and HER2-tumors, ultrasonography is more accurate than mammography. Also, mammography estimates the size of Luminal A tumors compared to ultrasound. Conclusion: There was no significant difference between the accuracy of ultrasonography and mammography measurement of tumor size, but inherent factors such as T stage, her2 expression and molecular subtype influence this issue.