146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31056376)
1. Fluence-weighted average subfield size in helical TomoTherapy.
Howitz S; Wiezorek T; Wittig A; Vorwerk H; Zink K
Z Med Phys; 2019 Dec; 29(4):337-348. PubMed ID: 31056376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Independent calculation of dose distributions for helical tomotherapy using a conventional treatment planning system.
Klüter S; Schubert K; Lissner S; Sterzing F; Oetzel D; Debus J; Schlegel W; Oelfke U; Nill S
Med Phys; 2014 Aug; 41(8):081709. PubMed ID: 25086519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Helical tomotherapy with dynamic running-start-stop delivery compared to conventional tomotherapy delivery.
Rong Y; Chen Y; Shang L; Zuo L; Lu W; Chen Q
Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051709. PubMed ID: 24784375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Investigation of pitch and jaw width to decrease delivery time of helical tomotherapy treatments for head and neck cancer.
Moldovan M; Fontenot JD; Gibbons JP; Lee TK; Rosen II; Fields RS; Hogstrom KR
Med Dosim; 2011; 36(4):397-403. PubMed ID: 21377865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Dosimetric effects of rotational output variation and x-ray target degradation on helical tomotherapy plans.
Staton RJ; Langen KM; Kupelian PA; Meeks SL
Med Phys; 2009 Jul; 36(7):2881-8. PubMed ID: 19673187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Converting Treatment Plans From Helical Tomotherapy to L-Shape Linac: Clinical Workflow and Dosimetric Evaluation.
Yuan Z; Nair CK; Benedict SH; Valicenti RK; Rao S; Fragoso RC; Wright C; Qiu J; Rong Y
Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Jan; 17():1533033818785279. PubMed ID: 29986638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Patient performance-based plan parameter optimization for prostate cancer in tomotherapy.
Cao YJ; Lee S; Chang KH; Shim JB; Kim KH; Park YJ; Kim CY
Med Dosim; 2015; 40(4):285-9. PubMed ID: 25869936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A planning comparison of dynamic IMRT for different collimator leaf thicknesses with helical tomotherapy and RapidArc for prostate and head and neck tumors.
Jacob V; Bayer W; Astner ST; Busch R; Kneschaurek P
Strahlenther Onkol; 2010 Sep; 186(9):502-10. PubMed ID: 20803184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Dosimetric impacts of gantry angle misalignment on prostate cancer treatment using helical tomotherapy.
Su FC; Shi C; Crownover R; Swanson G; Papanikolaou N
Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2008 Aug; 7(4):287-93. PubMed ID: 18642967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy
Chung E; Kwon D; Park T; Kang H; Chung Y
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 Nov; 19(6):193-199. PubMed ID: 30354001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Dose-volume histogram comparison between static 5-field IMRT with 18-MV X-rays and helical tomotherapy with 6-MV X-rays.
Hayashi A; Shibamoto Y; Hattori Y; Tamura T; Iwabuchi M; Otsuka S; Sugie C; Yanagi T
J Radiat Res; 2015 Mar; 56(2):338-45. PubMed ID: 25609741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy treatment plans for total marrow irradiation created using GPU and CPU dose calculation engines.
Nalichowski A; Burmeister J
Med Phys; 2013 Jul; 40(7):071716. PubMed ID: 23822420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Effects of changing modulation and pitch parameters on tomotherapy delivery quality assurance plans.
Binny D; Lancaster CM; Harris S; Sylvander SR
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2015 Sep; 16(5):87–105. PubMed ID: 26699293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Helical tomotherapy-based STAT RT: Dosimetric evaluation for clinical implementation of a rapid radiation palliation program.
McIntosh A; Dunlap N; Sheng K; Geezey C; Turner B; Blackhall L; Weiss G; Lappinen E; Larner JM; Read PW
Med Dosim; 2010; 35(4):280-6. PubMed ID: 19944589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparative analysis of 60Co intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Fox C; Romeijn HE; Lynch B; Men C; Aleman DM; Dempsey JF
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Jun; 53(12):3175-88. PubMed ID: 18506074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Impact of the fixed gantry angle approximation on dosimetric accuracy for helical tomotherapy plans.
Tudor GS; Thomas SJ
Med Phys; 2013 Jan; 40(1):011711. PubMed ID: 23298081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Tomotherapy-like versus VMAT-like treatments: a multicriteria comparison for a prostate geometry.
Pardo-Montero J; Fenwick JD
Med Phys; 2012 Dec; 39(12):7418-29. PubMed ID: 23231292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
