196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16956682)
1. A separated primary and scatter model for independent dose calculation of intensity modulated radiotherapy.
Baker CR; Clements R; Gately A; Budgell GJ
Radiother Oncol; 2006 Sep; 80(3):385-90. PubMed ID: 16956682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Patient-specific IMRT verification using independent fluence-based dose calculation software: experimental benchmarking and initial clinical experience.
Georg D; Stock M; Kroupa B; Olofsson J; Nyholm T; Ahnesjö A; Karlsson M
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Aug; 52(16):4981-92. PubMed ID: 17671348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Independent dosimetric calculation with inclusion of head scatter and MLC transmission for IMRT.
Yang Y; Xing L; Li JG; Palta J; Chen Y; Luxton G; Boyer A
Med Phys; 2003 Nov; 30(11):2937-47. PubMed ID: 14655941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. An independent dose calculation algorithm for MLC-based radiotherapy including the spatial dependence of MLC transmission.
Lorenz F; Nalichowski A; Rosca F; Killoran J; Wenz F; Zygmanski P
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Feb; 53(3):557-73. PubMed ID: 18199902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The use of spatial dose gradients and probability density function to evaluate the effect of internal organ motion for prostate IMRT treatment planning.
Jiang R; Barnett RB; Chow JC; Chen JZ
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1469-84. PubMed ID: 17301465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of IMRT planning with two-step and one-step optimization: a way to simplify IMRT.
Ludlum E; Xia P
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Feb; 53(3):807-21. PubMed ID: 18199916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A dose verification method using a monitor unit matrix for dynamic IMRT on Varian linear accelerators.
Chen X; Yue NJ; Chen W; Saw CB; Heron DE; Stefanik D; Antemann R; Huq MS
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Dec; 50(23):5641-52. PubMed ID: 16306658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A feasibility study of using conventional jaws to deliver IMRT plans in the treatment of prostate cancer.
Kim Y; Verhey LJ; Xia P
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Apr; 52(8):2147-56. PubMed ID: 17404460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of conformal and intensity modulated treatment planning techniques for early prostate cancer.
Vaarkamp J; Malde R; Dixit S; Hamilton CS
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2009 Jun; 53(3):310-7. PubMed ID: 19624299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Clinical evaluation of direct aperture optimization when applied to head-and-neck IMRT.
Jones S; Williams M
Med Dosim; 2008; 33(1):86-92. PubMed ID: 18262129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A Monte Carlo-based procedure for independent monitor unit calculation in IMRT treatment plans.
Pisaturo O; Moeckli R; Mirimanoff RO; Bochud FO
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Jul; 54(13):4299-310. PubMed ID: 19531844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Development and validation of a beam model applicable to small fields.
Caprile P; Hartmann GH
Phys Med Biol; 2009 May; 54(10):3257-68. PubMed ID: 19420429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment and minimization of contralateral breast dose for conventional and intensity modulated breast radiotherapy.
Burmeister J; Alvarado N; Way S; McDermott P; Bossenberger T; Jaenisch H; Patel R; Washington T
Med Dosim; 2008; 33(1):6-13. PubMed ID: 18262117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Elements of commissioning step-and-shoot IMRT: delivery equipment and planning system issues posed by small segment dimensions and small monitor units.
Aspradakis MM; Lambert GD; Steele A
Med Dosim; 2005; 30(4):233-42. PubMed ID: 16275566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A practical Monte Carlo MU verification tool for IMRT quality assurance.
Fan J; Li J; Chen L; Stathakis S; Luo W; Du Plessis F; Xiong W; Yang J; Ma CM
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2503-15. PubMed ID: 16675866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Improving dose homogeneity in large breasts by IMRT: efficacy and dosimetric accuracy of different techniques.
Abo-Madyan Y; Polednik M; Rahn A; Schneider F; Dobler B; Wenz F; Lohr F
Strahlenther Onkol; 2008 Feb; 184(2):86-92. PubMed ID: 18259700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A finite size pencil beam for IMRT dose optimization.
Jeleń U; Söhn M; Alber M
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(8):1747-66. PubMed ID: 15815094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. IMRT in a pregnant patient: how to reduce the fetal dose?
Josipović M; Nyström H; Kjaer-Kristoffersen F
Med Dosim; 2009; 34(4):301-10. PubMed ID: 19854389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reducing the number of monitor units in multileaf collimator field segmentation.
Kalinowski T
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Mar; 50(6):1147-61. PubMed ID: 15798314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Use of benchmark dose-volume histograms for selection of the optimal technique between three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy in prostate cancer.
Luo C; Yang CC; Narayan S; Stern RL; Perks J; Goldberg Z; Ryu J; Purdy JA; Vijayakumar S
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2006 Nov; 66(4):1253-62. PubMed ID: 17145540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
