149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36523156)
1. Quantitative assessment of helical tomotherapy plans complexity.
Cavinato S; Fusella M; Paiusco M; Scaggion A
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2023 Jan; 24(1):e13781. PubMed ID: 36523156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Robotic MLC-based plans: A study of plan complexity.
Masi L; Hernandez V; Saez J; Doro R; Livi L
Med Phys; 2021 Mar; 48(3):942-952. PubMed ID: 33332628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An effective and optimized patient-specific QA workload reduction for VMAT plans after MLC-modelling optimization.
Marsac T; Camejo AB; Chiavassa S; Jan S; Lorand H; Moignier A
Phys Med; 2023 Mar; 107():102548. PubMed ID: 36842260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Prediction models as decision-support tools for virtual patient-specific quality assurance of helical tomotherapy plans.
Cavinato S; Bettinelli A; Dusi F; Fusella M; Germani A; Marturano F; Paiusco M; Pivato N; Rossato MA; Scaggion A
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2023 Apr; 26():100435. PubMed ID: 37089905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. On the complexity of helical tomotherapy treatment plans.
Santos T; Ventura T; Mateus J; Capela M; Lopes MDC
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2020 Jul; 21(7):107-118. PubMed ID: 32363800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Patient-specific quality assurance prediction models based on machine learning for novel dual-layered MLC linac.
Zhu H; Zhu Q; Wang Z; Yang B; Zhang W; Qiu J
Med Phys; 2023 Feb; 50(2):1205-1214. PubMed ID: 36342293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Quantification of beam complexity in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans.
Du W; Cho SH; Zhang X; Hoffman KE; Kudchadker RJ
Med Phys; 2014 Feb; 41(2):021716. PubMed ID: 24506607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Assessing software upgrades, plan properties and patient geometry using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) complexity metrics.
McGarry CK; Chinneck CD; O'Toole MM; O'Sullivan JM; Prise KM; Hounsell AR
Med Phys; 2011 Apr; 38(4):2027-34. PubMed ID: 21626935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Development and evaluation of aperture-based complexity metrics using film and EPID measurements of static MLC openings.
Götstedt J; Karlsson Hauer A; Bäck A
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3911-21. PubMed ID: 26133592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Description and evaluation of a new volumetric-modulated arc therapy plan complexity metric.
Li G; Jiang W; Li Y; Wang Q; Xiao J; Zhong R; Bai S
Med Dosim; 2021 Summer; 46(2):188-194. PubMed ID: 33353791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Serial tomotherapy vs. MLC-IMRT (multileaf collimator intensity modulated radiotherapy) for simultaneous boost treatment large intracerebral lesions].
Wolff D; Abo-Madyan Y; Dobler B; Lohr F; Mai S; Polednik M; Wenz F
Z Med Phys; 2009; 19(1):58-66. PubMed ID: 19459586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Correlation between gamma passing rate and complexity of IMRT plan due to MLC position errors.
Wang Y; Pang X; Feng L; Wang H; Bai Y
Phys Med; 2018 Mar; 47():112-120. PubMed ID: 29609812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Clinical implementation of an exit detector-based dose reconstruction tool for helical tomotherapy delivery quality assurance.
Deshpande S; Xing A; Metcalfe P; Holloway L; Vial P; Geurts M
Med Phys; 2017 Oct; 44(10):5457-5466. PubMed ID: 28737014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Clinical significance of treatment delivery errors for helical TomoTherapy nasopharyngeal plans - A dosimetric simulation study.
Deshpande S; Geurts M; Vial P; Metcalfe P; Lee M; Holloway L
Phys Med; 2017 Jan; 33():159-169. PubMed ID: 28110824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
