149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30209959)
1. Dosimetric assessment of tumor control probability in intensity and volumetric modulated radiotherapy plans.
Wang H; Cooper BT; Schiff P; Sanfilippo NJ; Wu SP; Hu KS; Das IJ; Xue J
Br J Radiol; 2019 Feb; 92(1094):20180471. PubMed ID: 30209959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Treatment plan comparison between helical tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT using radiobiological measures.
Mavroidis P; Ferreira BC; Shi C; Lind BK; Papanikolaou N
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jul; 52(13):3817-36. PubMed ID: 17664579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Radiobiological impact of dose calculation algorithms on biologically optimized IMRT lung stereotactic body radiation therapy plans.
Liang X; Penagaricano J; Zheng D; Morrill S; Zhang X; Corry P; Griffin RJ; Han EY; Hardee M; Ratanatharathom V
Radiat Oncol; 2016 Jan; 11():10. PubMed ID: 26800883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessment of radiobiological metrics applied to patient-specific QA process of VMAT prostate treatments.
Clemente-Gutiérrez F; Pérez-Vara C; Clavo-Herranz MH; López-Carrizosa C; Pérez-Regadera J; Ibáñez-Villoslada C
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 17(2):341-367. PubMed ID: 27074458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Radiotherapy of prostate cancer with or without intensity modulated beams: a planning comparison.
De Meerleer GO; Vakaet LA; De Gersem WR; De Wagter C; De Naeyer B; De Neve W
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2000 Jun; 47(3):639-48. PubMed ID: 10837946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Dose volume histogram analysis and comparison of different radiobiological models using in-house developed software.
Oinam AS; Singh L; Shukla A; Ghoshal S; Kapoor R; Sharma SC
J Med Phys; 2011 Oct; 36(4):220-9. PubMed ID: 22228931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The impact of dose algorithms on tumor control probability in intensity-modulated proton therapy for breast cancer.
Liang X; Bradley JA; Zheng D; Rutenberg M; Mailhot Vega R; Mendenhall N; Li Z
Phys Med; 2019 May; 61():52-57. PubMed ID: 31151579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Dose-volume and radiobiological dependence on the calculation grid size in prostate VMAT planning.
Chow JCL; Jiang R
Med Dosim; 2018 Winter; 43(4):383-389. PubMed ID: 29373184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Conformal irradiation of concave-shaped PTVs in the treatment of prostate cancer by simple 1D intensity-modulated beams.
Fiorino C; Broggi S; Corletto D; Cattaneo GM; Calandrino R
Radiother Oncol; 2000 Apr; 55(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 10788688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Inverse and forward optimization of one- and two-dimensional intensity-modulated radiation therapy-based treatment of concave-shaped planning target volumes: the case of prostate cancer.
Corletto D; Iori M; Paiusco M; Brait L; Broggi S; Ceresoli G; Iotti C; Calandrino R; Fiorino C
Radiother Oncol; 2003 Feb; 66(2):185-95. PubMed ID: 12648791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Potential clinical efficacy of intensity-modulated conformal therapy.
Meeks SL; Buatti JM; Bova FJ; Friedman WA; Mendenhall WM; Zlotecki RA
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 1998 Jan; 40(2):483-95. PubMed ID: 9457839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison for quality assurance of IMRT and VMAT plans.
Paudel NR; Narayanasamy G; Han EY; Penagaricano J; Mavroidis P; Zhang X; Pyakuryal A; Kim D; Liang X; Morrill S
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2017 Sep; 18(5):237-244. PubMed ID: 28771941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Response-probability volume histograms and iso-probability of response charts in treatment plan evaluation.
Mavroidis P; Ferreira BC; Lopes Mdo C
Med Phys; 2011 May; 38(5):2382-97. PubMed ID: 21776773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Integration of radiobiological modeling and indices in comparative plan evaluation: A study comparing VMAT and 3D-CRT in patients with NSCLC.
Roy S; Badragan I; Ahmed SN; Sia M; Singh J; Bahl G
Pract Radiat Oncol; 2018; 8(5):e355-e363. PubMed ID: 29703705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The dosimetric and radiobiological impact of calculation grid size on head and neck IMRT.
Srivastava SP; Cheng CW; Das IJ
Pract Radiat Oncol; 2017; 7(3):209-217. PubMed ID: 27847266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Influence of dose calculation model on treatment plan evaluation in conformal radiotherapy: a three-case study.
Miften MM; Beavis AW; Marks LB
Med Dosim; 2002; 27(1):51-7. PubMed ID: 12019966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Treatment planning for radiotherapy with very high-energy electron beams and comparison of VHEE and VMAT plans.
Bazalova-Carter M; Qu B; Palma B; Hårdemark B; Hynning E; Jensen C; Maxim PG; Loo BW
Med Phys; 2015 May; 42(5):2615-25. PubMed ID: 25979053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison in different dose calculation grid sizes between Acuros XB and anisotropic analytical algorithm for prostate VMAT.
Kim KH; Chung JB; Suh TS; Kang SW; Kang SH; Eom KY; Song C; Kim IA; Kim JS
PLoS One; 2018; 13(11):e0207232. PubMed ID: 30419058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
