128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12852533)
1. The effect of interobserver differences in post-implant prostate CT image interpretation on dosimetric parameters.
Han BH; Wallner K; Merrick G; Badiozamani K; Butler W
Med Phys; 2003 Jun; 30(6):1096-102. PubMed ID: 12852533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The effect of interobserver variability on transrectal ultrasonography-based postimplant dosimetry.
Xue J; Waterman F; Handler J; Gressen E
Brachytherapy; 2006; 5(3):174-82. PubMed ID: 16864069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Sensitivity of clinically relevant dosimetric parameters to contouring uncertainty in postimplant dosimetry of low-dose-rate prostate permanent seed brachytherapy.
Mashouf S; Safigholi H; Merino T; Soliman A; Ravi A; Morton G; Song WY
Brachytherapy; 2016; 15(6):774-779. PubMed ID: 27720310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Modification of prostate implants based on postimplant treatment margin assessment.
Mueller A; Wallner K; Merrick G; Courveau J; Sutlief S; Butler W; Gong L; Cho P
Med Phys; 2002 Dec; 29(12):2782-7. PubMed ID: 12512711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Prostate post-implant dosimetry: interobserver variability in seed localisation, contouring and fusion.
De Brabandere M; Hoskin P; Haustermans K; Van den Heuvel F; Siebert FA
Radiother Oncol; 2012 Aug; 104(2):192-8. PubMed ID: 22857857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of combined x-ray radiography and magnetic resonance (XMR) imaging-versus computed tomography-based dosimetry for the evaluation of permanent prostate brachytherapy implants.
Acher P; Rhode K; Morris S; Gaya A; Miquel M; Popert R; Tham I; Nichol J; McLeish K; Deehan C; Dasgupta P; Beaney R; Keevil SF
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2008 Aug; 71(5):1518-25. PubMed ID: 18513881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Intraoperative fluoroscopic dose assessment in prostate brachytherapy patients.
Reed DR; Wallner KE; Narayanan S; Sutlief SG; Ford EC; Cho PS
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2005 Sep; 63(1):301-7. PubMed ID: 16111600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Prostate seed implantation using 3D-computer assisted intraoperative planning vs. a standard look-up nomogram: Improved target conformality with reduction in urethral and rectal wall dose.
Raben A; Chen H; Grebler A; Geltzeiler J; Geltzeiler M; Keselman I; Litvin S; Sim S; Hanlon A; Yang J
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2004 Dec; 60(5):1631-8. PubMed ID: 15590195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of CT and MR-CT fusion for prostate post-implant dosimetry.
Maletz KL; Ennis RD; Ostenson J; Pevsner A; Kagen A; Wernick I
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2012 Apr; 82(5):1912-7. PubMed ID: 21550183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of prostate size and isotope selection on dosimetric quality following permanent seed implantation.
Merrick GS; Butler WM; Dorsey AT; Lief JH
Tech Urol; 2001 Sep; 7(3):233-40. PubMed ID: 11575521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. There is a wide range of predictive dosimetric factors for I-125 and pd-103 prostate brachytherapy.
Herstein A; Wallner K; Merrick G; Orio P; Thornton K; Butler W; Sutlief S
Am J Clin Oncol; 2008 Feb; 31(1):6-10. PubMed ID: 18376221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparative study of permanent interstitial prostate brachytherapy post-implant evaluation among seven Italian institutes.
Mangili P; Stea L; Cattani F; Lappi S; Giglioli F; Calamia E; Ziglio F; Martinelli R; Longobardi B
Radiother Oncol; 2004 Apr; 71(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 15066291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Influence of source batch S dispersion on dosimetry for prostate cancer treatment with permanent implants.
Nuñez-Cumplido E; Perez-Calatayud J; Casares-Magaz O; Hernandez-Armas J
Med Phys; 2015 Aug; 42(8):4933-40. PubMed ID: 26233219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparative study of seed localization and dose calculation on pre- and post-implantation ultrasound and CT images for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.
Ali I; Algan O; Thompson S; Sindhwani P; Herman T; Cheng CY; Ahmad S
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Sep; 54(18):5595-611. PubMed ID: 19717887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Dosimetric comparison between model 9011 and 6711 sources in prostate implants.
Zhang H; Beyer D
Med Dosim; 2013; 38(2):199-203. PubMed ID: 23510715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A systematic study of imaging uncertainties and their impact on 125I prostate brachytherapy dose evaluation.
Lindsay PE; Van Dyk J; Battista JJ
Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1897-908. PubMed ID: 12906208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Interobserver variability of 3.0-tesla and 1.5-tesla magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography fusion image-based post-implant dosimetry of prostate brachytherapy.
Watanabe K; Katayama N; Katsui K; Matsushita T; Takamoto A; Ihara H; Nasu Y; Takemoto M; Kuroda M; Kanazawa S
J Radiat Res; 2019 Jul; 60(4):483-489. PubMed ID: 31083713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interpretation of pre- versus postimplant TRUS images.
Smith S; Wallner K; Merrick G; Butler W; Sutlief S; Grimm P
Med Phys; 2003 May; 30(5):920-4. PubMed ID: 12773001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Dosimetry accuracy as a function of seed localization uncertainty in permanent prostate brachytherapy: increased seed number correlates with less variability in prostate dosimetry.
Su Y; Davis BJ; Furutani KM; Herman MG; Robb RA
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jun; 52(11):3105-19. PubMed ID: 17505092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of HDR interstitial breast implants planned by conventional and optimized CT-based dosimetry systems with respect to dose homogeneity and conformality.
Major T; Fodor J; Takácsi-Nagy Z; Agoston P; Polgár C
Strahlenther Onkol; 2005 Feb; 181(2):89-96. PubMed ID: 15702297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
