205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17368844)
1. Prostate brachytherapy post-implant dosimetry: a comparison between higher and lower source density.
Thomas CW; Kruk A; McGahan CE; Spadinger I; Morris WJ
Radiother Oncol; 2007 Apr; 83(1):18-24. PubMed ID: 17368844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Comparison of inverse planning simulated annealing and geometrical optimization for prostate high-dose-rate brachytherapy.
Hsu IC; Lessard E; Weinberg V; Pouliot J
Brachytherapy; 2004; 3(3):147-52. PubMed ID: 15533807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. High-dose regions versus likelihood of cure after prostate brachytherapy.
Wallner K; Merrick G; Sutlief S; True L; Butler W
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2005 May; 62(1):170-4. PubMed ID: 15850918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Quality of life of patients after permanent prostate brachytherapy in relation to dosimetry.
Van Gellekom MP; Moerland MA; Van Vulpen M; Wijrdeman HK; Battermann JJ
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2005 Nov; 63(3):772-80. PubMed ID: 15964707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Dosimetric quality endpoints for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy using biological effective dose (BED) vs. conventional dose.
Singh R; Al-Hallaq H; Pelizzari CA; Zagaja GP; Chen A; Jani AB
Med Dosim; 2003; 28(4):255-9. PubMed ID: 14684190
[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. 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]
10. Dose-volume conundrum for response of prostate cancer to brachytherapy: summary dosimetric measures and their relationship to tumor control probability.
D'Souza WD; Thames HD; Kuban DA
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2004 Apr; 58(5):1540-8. PubMed ID: 15050335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Is intraoperative nomogram-based overplanning of prostate implants necessary?
D'Souza WD; Lee HK; Palmer MB; Smith LG; Pollack A
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2003 Jun; 56(2):462-7. PubMed ID: 12738321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. CT-ultrasound fusion prostate brachytherapy: a dynamic dosimetry feedback and improvement method. A report of 54 consecutive cases.
Fuller DB; Jin H; Koziol JA; Feng AC
Brachytherapy; 2005; 4(3):207-16. PubMed ID: 16182221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparative study of dosimetry between high-dose-rate and permanent prostate implant brachytherapies in patients with prostate adenocarcinoma.
Wang Y; Sankreacha R; Al-Hebshi A; Loblaw A; Morton G
Brachytherapy; 2006; 5(4):251-5. PubMed ID: 17118319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. The robustness of dose distributions to displacement and migration of 125I permanent seed implants over a wide range of seed number, activity, and designs.
Beaulieu L; Archambault L; Aubin S; Oral E; Taschereau R; Pouliot J
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2004 Mar; 58(4):1298-308. PubMed ID: 15001275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Analysis of the relationship between prescribed dose and dosimetric advantage of real-time intraoperatively built custom-linked seeds in iodine-125 prostate brachytherapy.
Hirose K; Aoki M; Sato M; Akimoto H; Hashimoto Y; Imai A; Kamimura N; Kawaguchi H; Hatayama Y; Fujioka I; Tanaka M; Ohyama C; Takai Y
Radiat Oncol; 2017 Dec; 12(1):192. PubMed ID: 29191234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Correlation between real-time intraoperative and postoperative dosimetry and its implications on intraoperative planning.
Yan C; Huq MS; Heron DE; Beriwal S; Wynn RB
Brachytherapy; 2019; 18(3):338-347. PubMed ID: 30655047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A descriptive analysis of postimplant dosimetric parameters from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group P0019.
Lee WR; Bae K; Lawton CA; Gillin MT; Morton G; Firat S; Baikadi M; Kuettel M; Greven K; Sandler H
Brachytherapy; 2006; 5(4):239-43. PubMed ID: 17118317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The impact of hormone therapy on post-implant dosimetry and outcome following Iodine-125 implant monotherapy for localised prostate cancer.
Ash D; Al-Qaisieh B; Bottomley D; Carey B; Joseph J
Radiother Oncol; 2005 Jun; 75(3):303-6. PubMed ID: 15890423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
