177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22955649)
1. Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis against conventional measurement based IMRT QA.
Sun B; Rangaraj D; Boddu S; Goddu M; Yang D; Palaniswaamy G; Yaddanapudi S; Wooten O; Mutic S
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2012 Sep; 13(5):3837. PubMed ID: 22955649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Phantomless patient-specific TomoTherapy QA via delivery performance monitoring and a secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation.
Handsfield LL; Jones R; Wilson DD; Siebers JV; Read PW; Chen Q
Med Phys; 2014 Oct; 41(10):101703. PubMed ID: 25281942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A method to reconstruct and apply 3D primary fluence for treatment delivery verification.
Liu S; Mazur TR; Li H; Curcuru A; Green OL; Sun B; Mutic S; Yang D
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2017 Jan; 18(1):128-138. PubMed ID: 28291913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Correlation of phantom-based and log file patient-specific QA with complexity scores for VMAT.
Agnew CE; Irvine DM; McGarry CK
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2014 Nov; 15(6):4994. PubMed ID: 25493524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of MLC leaf positioning accuracy for static and dynamic IMRT treatments using DAVID in vivo dosimetric system.
Karagoz G; Zorlu F; Yeginer M; Yildiz D; Ozyigit G
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 17(2):14-23. PubMed ID: 27074451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A structured FMEA approach to optimizing combinations of plan-specific quality assurance techniques for IMRT and VMAT QA.
O'Daniel JC; Giles W; Cui Y; Adamson J
Med Phys; 2023 Sep; 50(9):5387-5397. PubMed ID: 37475493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Impact of the MLC leaf-tip model in a commercial TPS: Dose calculation limitations and IROC-H phantom failures.
Koger B; Price R; Wang D; Toomeh D; Geneser S; Ford E
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2020 Feb; 21(2):82-88. PubMed ID: 31961036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Monte Carlo based IMRT dose verification using MLC log files and R/V outputs.
Luo W; Li J; Price RA; Chen L; Yang J; Fan J; Chen Z; McNeeley S; Xu X; Ma CM
Med Phys; 2006 Jul; 33(7):2557-64. PubMed ID: 16898460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A Varian DynaLog file-based procedure for patient dose-volume histogram-based IMRT QA.
Calvo-Ortega JF; Teke T; Moragues S; Pozo M; Casals-Farran J
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 15(2):4665. PubMed ID: 24710455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. IMAT-SIM: a new method for the clinical dosimetry of intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT).
Iori M; Cagni E; Nahum AE; Borasi G
Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2759-73. PubMed ID: 17821983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Comparing measurement-derived (3DVH) and machine log file-derived dose reconstruction methods for VMAT QA in patient geometries.
Tyagi N; Yang K; Yan D
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2014 Jul; 15(4):4645. PubMed ID: 25207396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Implementation of phantom-less IMRT delivery verification using Varian DynaLog files and R/V output.
Agnew CE; King RB; Hounsell AR; McGarry CK
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(21):6761-77. PubMed ID: 23032423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinical implementation of a log file-based machine and patient QA system for IMRT and VMAT treatment plans.
Silvestri V; Raspanti D; Guerrisi MG; Falco MD
Phys Med; 2023 Apr; 108():102570. PubMed ID: 36989974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quality assurance for online adapted treatment plans: benchmarking and delivery monitoring simulation.
Li T; Wu Q; Yang Y; Rodrigues A; Yin FF; Jackie Wu Q
Med Phys; 2015 Jan; 42(1):381-90. PubMed ID: 25563278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A tool for patient-specific prediction of delivery discrepancies in machine parameters using trajectory log files.
Chuang KC; Giles W; Adamson J
Med Phys; 2021 Mar; 48(3):978-990. PubMed ID: 33332618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biological consequences of MLC calibration errors in IMRT delivery and QA.
Moiseenko V; Lapointe V; James K; Yin L; Liu M; Pawlicki T
Med Phys; 2012 Apr; 39(4):1917-24. PubMed ID: 22482613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of 4-Hz log files and secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation as patient-specific quality assurance for VMAT prostate plans.
Szeverinski P; Kowatsch M; Künzler T; Meinschad M; Clemens P; DeVries AF
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2021 Jul; 22(7):235-244. PubMed ID: 34151502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical experience with EPID dosimetry for prostate IMRT pre-treatment dose verification.
McDermott LN; Wendling M; van Asselen B; Stroom J; Sonke JJ; van Herk M; Mijnheer BJ
Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3921-30. PubMed ID: 17089854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Monte Carlo based, patient-specific RapidArc QA using Linac log files.
Teke T; Bergman AM; Kwa W; Gill B; Duzenli C; Popescu IA
Med Phys; 2010 Jan; 37(1):116-23. PubMed ID: 20175472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
