363 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19297051)
1. The effect of different lung densities on the accuracy of various radiotherapy dose calculation methods: implications for tumour coverage.
Aarup LR; Nahum AE; Zacharatou C; Juhler-Nøttrup T; Knöös T; Nyström H; Specht L; Wieslander E; Korreman SS
Radiother Oncol; 2009 Jun; 91(3):405-14. PubMed ID: 19297051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. SBRT of lung tumours: Monte Carlo simulation with PENELOPE of dose distributions including respiratory motion and comparison with different treatment planning systems.
Panettieri V; Wennberg B; Gagliardi G; Duch MA; Ginjaume M; Lax I
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jul; 52(14):4265-81. PubMed ID: 17664607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Collapsed cone convolution and analytical anisotropic algorithm dose calculations compared to VMC++ Monte Carlo simulations in clinical cases.
Hasenbalg F; Neuenschwander H; Mini R; Born EJ
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jul; 52(13):3679-91. PubMed ID: 17664570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. AAA and PBC calculation accuracy in the surface build-up region in tangential beam treatments. Phantom and breast case study with the Monte Carlo code PENELOPE.
Panettieri V; Barsoum P; Westermark M; Brualla L; Lax I
Radiother Oncol; 2009 Oct; 93(1):94-101. PubMed ID: 19541380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Advanced kernel methods vs. Monte Carlo-based dose calculation for high energy photon beams.
Fotina I; Winkler P; Künzler T; Reiterer J; Simmat I; Georg D
Radiother Oncol; 2009 Dec; 93(3):645-53. PubMed ID: 19926153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. On the dosimetric behaviour of photon dose calculation algorithms in the presence of simple geometric heterogeneities: comparison with Monte Carlo calculations.
Fogliata A; Vanetti E; Albers D; Brink C; Clivio A; Knöös T; Nicolini G; Cozzi L
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1363-85. PubMed ID: 17301460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Optimization of extracranial stereotactic radiation therapy of small lung lesions using accurate dose calculation algorithms.
Dobler B; Walter C; Knopf A; Fabri D; Loeschel R; Polednik M; Schneider F; Wenz F; Lohr F
Radiat Oncol; 2006 Nov; 1():45. PubMed ID: 17132177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A clinical study of lung cancer dose calculation accuracy with Monte Carlo simulation.
Zhao Y; Qi G; Yin G; Wang X; Wang P; Li J; Xiao M; Li J; Kang S; Liao X
Radiat Oncol; 2014 Dec; 9():287. PubMed ID: 25511623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The impact of photon dose calculation algorithms on expected dose distributions in lungs under different respiratory phases.
Fogliata A; Nicolini G; Vanetti E; Clivio A; Winkler P; Cozzi L
Phys Med Biol; 2008 May; 53(9):2375-90. PubMed ID: 18421117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Dose distributions in SBRT of lung tumors: Comparison between two different treatment planning algorithms and Monte-Carlo simulation including breathing motions.
Lax I; Panettieri V; Wennberg B; Amor Duch M; Näslund I; Baumann P; Gagliardi G
Acta Oncol; 2006; 45(7):978-88. PubMed ID: 16982567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Quantitative assessment of the accuracy of dose calculation using pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms and requirements for clinical quality assurance.
Ali I; Ahmad S
Med Dosim; 2013; 38(3):255-61. PubMed ID: 23558145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Superficial dose distribution in breast for tangential radiation treatment, Monte Carlo evaluation of Eclipse algorithms in case of phantom and patient geometries.
Chakarova R; Gustafsson M; Bäck A; Drugge N; Palm Å; Lindberg A; Berglund M
Radiother Oncol; 2012 Jan; 102(1):102-7. PubMed ID: 21741719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The influence of beam model differences in the comparison of dose calculation algorithms for lung cancer treatment planning.
Chetty IJ; Rosu M; McShan DL; Fraass BA; Ten Haken RK
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Mar; 50(5):801-15. PubMed ID: 15798256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Influence of calculation algorithm on dose distribution in irradiation of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) collapsed cone versus pencil beam.
Koelbl O; Krieger T; Haedinger U; Sauer O; Flentje M
Strahlenther Onkol; 2004 Dec; 180(12):783-8. PubMed ID: 15592698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Electron fields in clinical application. A comparison of pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithm].
Treutwein M; Bogner L
Strahlenther Onkol; 2007 Aug; 183(8):454-8. PubMed ID: 17680226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Validation of Varian's AAA algorithm with focus on lung treatments.
Rønde HS; Hoffmann L
Acta Oncol; 2009; 48(2):209-15. PubMed ID: 18803058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Dosimetric validation of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for photon dose calculation: fundamental characterization in water.
Fogliata A; Nicolini G; Vanetti E; Clivio A; Cozzi L
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Mar; 51(6):1421-38. PubMed ID: 16510953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparison of electron beam dose calculation accuracy between treatment planning systems using either a pencil beam or a Monte Carlo algorithm.
Ding GX; Cygler JE; Yu CW; Kalach NI; Daskalov G
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2005 Oct; 63(2):622-33. PubMed ID: 16168854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An efficient framework for photon Monte Carlo treatment planning.
Fix MK; Manser P; Frei D; Volken W; Mini R; Born EJ
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Oct; 52(19):N425-37. PubMed ID: 17881793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Pareto front analysis of 6 and 15 MV dynamic IMRT for lung cancer using pencil beam, AAA and Monte Carlo.
Ottosson RO; Karlsson A; Behrens CF
Phys Med Biol; 2010 Aug; 55(16):4521-33. PubMed ID: 20668346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
