BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

56 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7721620)

  • 1. An evaluation of setup uncertainties for patients treated to pelvic sites.
    Hunt MA; Schultheiss TE; Desobry GE; Hakki M; Hanks GE
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 1995 Apr; 32(1):227-33. PubMed ID: 7721620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dosimetric influences of rotational setup errors on head and neck carcinoma intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatments.
    Fu W; Yang Y; Yue NJ; Heron DE; Saiful Huq M
    Med Dosim; 2013; 38(2):125-32. PubMed ID: 23266161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Verification of setup errors in external beam radiation therapy using electronic portal imaging.
    Murthy KK; Al-Rahbi Z; Sivakumar SS; Davis CA; Ravichandran R; El Ghamrawy K
    J Med Phys; 2008 Apr; 33(2):49-53. PubMed ID: 19893690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Adequate margins for random setup uncertainties in head-and-neck IMRT.
    Astreinidou E; Bel A; Raaijmakers CP; Terhaard CH; Lagendijk JJ
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2005 Mar; 61(3):938-44. PubMed ID: 15708278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of two methods for anterior-posterior isocenter localization in pelvic radiotherapy using electronic portal imaging.
    Greer PB; Mortensen TM; Jose CC
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 1998 Jul; 41(5):1193-9. PubMed ID: 9719132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Setup errors in patients treated with intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiation therapy for gynecological malignancies.
    Haslam JJ; Lujan AE; Mundt AJ; Bonta DV; Roeske JC
    Med Dosim; 2005; 30(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 15749010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effect of setup uncertainties on the treatment of nasopharynx cancer.
    Hunt MA; Kutcher GJ; Burman C; Fass D; Harrison L; Leibel S; Fuks Z
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 1993 Sep; 27(2):437-47. PubMed ID: 8407420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Electronic and film portal images: a comparison of landmark visibility and review accuracy.
    Kruse JJ; Herman MG; Hagness CR; Davis BJ; Garces YI; Haddock MG; Olivier KR; Stafford SL; Pisansky TM
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2002 Oct; 54(2):584-91. PubMed ID: 12243839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Setup reproducibility in radiation therapy for lung cancer: a comparison between T-bar and expanded foam immobilization devices.
    Halperin R; Roa W; Field M; Hanson J; Murray B
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 1999 Jan; 43(1):211-6. PubMed ID: 9989528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Portal imaging based definition of the planning target volume during pelvic irradiation for gynecological malignancies.
    Mock U; Dieckmann K; Wolff U; Knocke TH; Pötter R
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 1999 Aug; 45(1):227-32. PubMed ID: 10477027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluating the influence of setup uncertainties on treatment planning for focal liver tumors.
    Balter JM; Brock KK; Lam KL; Tatro D; Dawson LA; McShan DL; Ten Haken RK
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2005 Oct; 63(2):610-4. PubMed ID: 16095848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Setup deviations in wedged pair irradiation of parotid gland and tonsillar tumors, measured with an electronic portal imaging device.
    Bel A; Keus R; Vijlbrief RE; Lebesque JV
    Radiother Oncol; 1995 Nov; 37(2):153-9. PubMed ID: 8747940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of patient setup errors on simultaneously integrated boost head and neck IMRT treatment plans.
    Siebers JV; Keall PJ; Wu Q; Williamson JF; Schmidt-Ullrich RK
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2005 Oct; 63(2):422-33. PubMed ID: 16168835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Use of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device for multileaf collimator quality control and calibration.
    Baker SJ; Budgell GJ; MacKay RI
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(7):1377-92. PubMed ID: 15798330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A randomized trial of supine vs. prone positioning in patients undergoing escalated dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
    Bayley AJ; Catton CN; Haycocks T; Kelly V; Alasti H; Bristow R; Catton P; Crook J; Gospodarowicz MK; McLean M; Milosevic M; Warde P
    Radiother Oncol; 2004 Jan; 70(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 15036850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Three-dimensional surface imaging for detection of intra-fraction setup variations during radiotherapy of pelvic tumors.
    Apicella G; Loi G; Torrente S; Crespi S; Beldì D; Brambilla M; Krengli M
    Radiol Med; 2016 Oct; 121(10):805-10. PubMed ID: 27300649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Observation study of electronic portal images for off-line verification.
    Lavertu S; Girouard LM; Pouliot J
    Radiother Oncol; 2000 Jan; 54(1):47-55. PubMed ID: 10719699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of treatment setup variation on beam's eye view dosimetry for radiation therapy using the multileaf collimator vs. the cerrobend block.
    Frazier A; Yan D; Du M; Wong J; Vicini F; Matter R; Joyce M; Martinez A
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 1995 Dec; 33(5):1247-56. PubMed ID: 7493849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A randomized trial evaluating rigid immobilization for pelvic irradiation.
    Kneebone A; Gebski V; Hogendoorn N; Turner S
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2003 Jul; 56(4):1105-11. PubMed ID: 12829148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Dosimetric effect of translational and rotational errors for patients undergoing image-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases.
    Wang H; Shiu A; Wang C; O'Daniel J; Mahajan A; Woo S; Liengsawangwong P; Mohan R; Chang EL
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2008 Jul; 71(4):1261-71. PubMed ID: 18485614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.