97 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32631380)
1. Study on the ability of 3D gamma analysis and bio-mathematical model in detecting dose changes caused by dose-calculation-grid-size (DCGS).
Bai H; Zhu S; Wu X; Liu X; Chen F; Yan J
Radiat Oncol; 2020 Jul; 15(1):161. PubMed ID: 32631380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact of grid size on uniform scanning and IMPT plans in XiO treatment planning system for brain cancer.
Rana S; Zheng Y
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2015 Sep; 16(5):447–456. PubMed ID: 26699310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of gamma index based on dosimetric error and clinically relevant dose-volume index based on three-dimensional dose prediction in breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Kaneko A; Sumida I; Mizuno H; Isohashi F; Suzuki O; Seo Y; Otani K; Tamari K; Ogawa K
Radiat Oncol; 2019 Feb; 14(1):36. PubMed ID: 30808377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. A novel approach to EPID-based 3D volumetric dosimetry for IMRT and VMAT QA.
Alhazmi A; Gianoli C; Neppl S; Martins J; Veloza S; Podesta M; Verhaegen F; Reiner M; Belka C; Parodi K
Phys Med Biol; 2018 May; 63(11):115002. PubMed ID: 29714714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Correlation between gamma index passing rate and clinical dosimetric difference for pre-treatment 2D and 3D volumetric modulated arc therapy dosimetric verification.
Jin X; Yan H; Han C; Zhou Y; Yi J; Xie C
Br J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 88(1047):20140577. PubMed ID: 25494412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Novel Radiobiological Gamma Index for Evaluation of 3-Dimensional Predicted Dose Distribution.
Sumida I; Yamaguchi H; Kizaki H; Aboshi K; Tsujii M; Yoshikawa N; Yamada Y; Suzuki O; Seo Y; Isohashi F; Yoshioka Y; Ogawa K
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2015 Jul; 92(4):779-86. PubMed ID: 25936816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. The 3D isodose structure-based method for clinical dose distributions comparison in pretreatment patient-QA.
Tamborra P; Martinucci E; Massafra R; Bettiol M; Capomolla C; Zagari A; Didonna V
Med Phys; 2019 Feb; 46(2):426-436. PubMed ID: 30450559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Motion as a perturbation: measurement-guided dose estimates to moving patient voxels during modulated arc deliveries.
Feygelman V; Stambaugh C; Zhang G; Hunt D; Opp D; Wolf TK; Nelms BE
Med Phys; 2013 Feb; 40(2):021708. PubMed ID: 23387731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Impact of small MU/segment and dose rate on delivery accuracy of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).
Huang L; Zhuang T; Mastroianni A; Djemil T; Cui T; Xia P
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 May; 17(3):203-210. PubMed ID: 27167278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Modeling the target dose fall-off in IMRT and VMAT planning techniques for cervical SBRT.
Brito Delgado A; Cohen D; Eng TY; Stanley DN; Shi Z; Charlton M; Gutiérrez AN
Med Dosim; 2018 Spring; 43(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 29223302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Independent calculation-based verification of IMRT plans using a 3D dose-calculation engine.
Arumugam S; Xing A; Goozee G; Holloway L
Med Dosim; 2013; 38(4):376-84. PubMed ID: 23790325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Analysis of direct clinical consequences of MLC positional errors in volumetric-modulated arc therapy using 3D dosimetry system.
Nithiyanantham K; Mani GK; Subramani V; Mueller L; Palaniappan KK; Kataria T
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2015 Sep; 16(5):296–305. PubMed ID: 26699311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Tomotherapy treatment plan quality assurance: the impact of applied criteria on passing rate in gamma index method.
Bresciani S; Di Dia A; Maggio A; Cutaia C; Miranti A; Infusino E; Stasi M
Med Phys; 2013 Dec; 40(12):121711. PubMed ID: 24320497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Correlation analysis between 2D and quasi-3D gamma evaluations for both intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy.
Kim JI; Choi CH; Wu HG; Kim JH; Kim K; Park JM
Oncotarget; 2017 Jan; 8(3):5449-5459. PubMed ID: 27690300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Angular under-sampling effect on VMAT dose calculation: An analysis and a solution strategy.
Park JY; Li F; Li J; Kahler D; Park JC; Yan G; Liu C; Lu B
Med Phys; 2017 Jun; 44(6):2096-2114. PubMed ID: 28370002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Influence of the jaw tracking technique on the dose calculation accuracy of small field VMAT plans.
Swinnen AC; Öllers MC; Roijen E; Nijsten SM; Verhaegen F
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2017 Jan; 18(1):186-195. PubMed ID: 28291941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
