158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17926957)
21. The impact of microscopic disease on the tumor control probability in non-small-cell lung cancer.
Siedschlag C; Boersma L; van Loon J; Rossi M; van Baardwijk A; Gilhuijs K; Stroom J
Radiother Oncol; 2011 Sep; 100(3):344-50. PubMed ID: 21955665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Evaluation of clinical margins via simulation of patient setup errors in prostate IMRT treatment plans.
Gordon JJ; Crimaldi AJ; Hagan M; Moore J; Siebers JV
Med Phys; 2007 Jan; 34(1):202-14. PubMed ID: 17278506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Potential benefits of dosimetric VMAT tracking verified with 3D film measurements.
Crijns W; Defraene G; Van Herck H; Depuydt T; Haustermans K; Maes F; Van den Heuvel F
Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2162. PubMed ID: 27147328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Benefit of using biologic parameters (EUD and NTCP) in IMRT optimization for treatment of intrahepatic tumors.
Thomas E; Chapet O; Kessler ML; Lawrence TS; Ten Haken RK
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2005 Jun; 62(2):571-8. PubMed ID: 15890602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Direct segment aperture and weight optimization for intensity-modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancer.
De Meerleer G; Vakaet L; De Gersem W; Villeirs G; De Neve W
Strahlenther Onkol; 2004 Mar; 180(3):136-43. PubMed ID: 14991200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Voxel-level biological optimisation of prostate IMRT using patient-specific tumour location and clonogen density derived from mpMRI.
Her EJ; Haworth A; Reynolds HM; Sun Y; Kennedy A; Panettieri V; Bangert M; Williams S; Ebert MA
Radiat Oncol; 2020 Jul; 15(1):172. PubMed ID: 32660504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Towards biologically conformal radiation therapy (BCRT): selective IMRT dose escalation under the guidance of spatial biology distribution.
Yang Y; Xing L
Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1473-84. PubMed ID: 16013703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Is it beneficial to selectively boost high-risk tumor subvolumes? A comparison of selectively boosting high-risk tumor subvolumes versus homogeneous dose escalation of the entire tumor based on equivalent EUD plans.
Kim Y; Tome WA
Acta Oncol; 2008; 47(5):906-16. PubMed ID: 18568486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Inverse plan optimization accounting for random geometric uncertainties with a multiple instance geometry approximation (MIGA).
McShan DL; Kessler ML; Vineberg K; Fraass BA
Med Phys; 2006 May; 33(5):1510-21. PubMed ID: 16752585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Influence of SBRT fractionation on TCP and NTCP estimations for prostate cancer.
Sukhikh ES; Sukhikh LG; Taletsky AV; Vertinsky AV; Izhevsky PV; Sheino IN
Phys Med; 2019 Jun; 62():41-46. PubMed ID: 31153397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Dosimetric effects of patient rotational setup errors on prostate IMRT treatments.
Fu W; Yang Y; Li X; Heron DE; Huq MS; Yue NJ
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Oct; 51(20):5321-31. PubMed ID: 17019041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Comparison of online IGRT techniques for prostate IMRT treatment: adaptive vs repositioning correction.
Thongphiew D; Wu QJ; Lee WR; Chankong V; Yoo S; McMahon R; Yin FF
Med Phys; 2009 May; 36(5):1651-62. PubMed ID: 19544782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Simultaneous beam geometry and intensity map optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Lee EK; Fox T; Crocker I
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2006 Jan; 64(1):301-20. PubMed ID: 16289912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Development of a simultaneous boost IMRT class solution for a hypofractionated prostate cancer protocol.
Mott JH; Livsey JE; Logue JP
Br J Radiol; 2004 May; 77(917):377-86. PubMed ID: 15121701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. An in silico comparison between margin-based and probabilistic target-planning approaches in head and neck cancer patients.
Fontanarosa D; van der Laan HP; Witte M; Shakirin G; Roelofs E; Langendijk JA; Lambin P; van Herk M
Radiother Oncol; 2013 Dec; 109(3):430-6. PubMed ID: 24044789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Assessment and quantification of patient set-up errors in nasopharyngeal cancer patients and their biological and dosimetric impact in terms of generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD), tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).
Boughalia A; Marcie S; Fellah M; Chami S; Mekki F
Br J Radiol; 2015 Jun; 88(1050):20140839. PubMed ID: 25882689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Robust treatment planning for intensity modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancer based on coverage probabilities.
Baum C; Alber M; Birkner M; Nüsslin F
Radiother Oncol; 2006 Jan; 78(1):27-35. PubMed ID: 16216359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Dose-volume and biological-model based comparison between helical tomotherapy and (inverse-planned) IMAT for prostate tumours.
Iori M; Cattaneo GM; Cagni E; Fiorino C; Borasi G; Riccardo C; Iotti C; Fazio F; Nahum AE
Radiother Oncol; 2008 Jul; 88(1):34-45. PubMed ID: 18395811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. On the radiobiological impact of metal artifacts in head-and-neck IMRT in terms of tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).
Kim Y; Tomé WA
Med Biol Eng Comput; 2007 Nov; 45(11):1045-51. PubMed ID: 17574487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pancreatic and prostate cancer using pulsed low-dose rate delivery techniques.
Li J; Lang J; Wang P; Kang S; Lin MH; Chen X; Chen F; Guo M; Chen L; Ma CM
Med Dosim; 2014; 39(4):330-6. PubMed ID: 25087084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
