These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9227259)

  • 1. Monitor unit calculation in 6 MV irregularly shaped beams--accuracy in clinical practice.
    Lombardi P; Fiorino C; Cattaneo GM; Calandrino R
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Jun; 70(834):638-44. PubMed ID: 9227259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. On empirical methods to determine scatter factors for irregular MLC shaped beams.
    Georg D; Olofsson J; Künzler T; Karlsson M
    Med Phys; 2004 Aug; 31(8):2222-9. PubMed ID: 15377088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Dose calculation and dosimetry tests for clinical implementation of 1D tissue-deficit compensation by a single dynamic absorber.
    Corletto D; Fiorino C; Cattaneo GM; Mangili P; Calandrino R
    Radiother Oncol; 1998 Apr; 47(1):53-62. PubMed ID: 9632293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of the ESTRO formalism for monitor unit calculation with a Clarkson based algorithm of a treatment planning system and a traditional "full-scatter" methodology.
    Pirotta M; Aquilina D; Bhikha T; Georg D
    Z Med Phys; 2005; 15(4):235-46. PubMed ID: 16422352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Monte Carlo- versus pencil-beam-/collapsed-cone-dose calculation in a heterogeneous multi-layer phantom.
    Krieger T; Sauer OA
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Mar; 50(5):859-68. PubMed ID: 15798260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dosimetric characterization of the iBEAM evo carbon fiber couch for radiotherapy.
    Smith DW; Christophides D; Dean C; Naisbit M; Mason J; Morgan A
    Med Phys; 2010 Jul; 37(7):3595-606. PubMed ID: 20831067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Clinical implementation of enhanced dynamic wedges into the Pinnacle treatment planning system: Monte Carlo validation and patient-specific QA.
    Ahmad M; Deng J; Lund MW; Chen Z; Kimmett J; Moran MS; Nath R
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Jan; 54(2):447-65. PubMed ID: 19098353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Quantitative assessment of the accuracy of dose calculation using pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms and requirements for clinical quality assurance.
    Ali I; Ahmad S
    Med Dosim; 2013; 38(3):255-61. PubMed ID: 23558145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A sector-integration method for dose/MU calculation in a uniform scanning proton beam.
    Zhao Q; Wu H; Wolanski M; Pack D; Johnstone PA; Das IJ
    Phys Med Biol; 2010 Feb; 55(3):N87-95. PubMed ID: 20057011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. AAA and PBC calculation accuracy in the surface build-up region in tangential beam treatments. Phantom and breast case study with the Monte Carlo code PENELOPE.
    Panettieri V; Barsoum P; Westermark M; Brualla L; Lax I
    Radiother Oncol; 2009 Oct; 93(1):94-101. PubMed ID: 19541380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Dosimetric characterization of a multileaf collimator].
    Stasi M; Baiotto B; Palamara F; Gabriele P; Scielzo G
    Radiol Med; 1999 May; 97(5):382-8. PubMed ID: 10432971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The nth root percent depth dose method for calculating monitor units for irregularly shaped electron fields.
    Kehwar TS; Huq MS
    Med Phys; 2008 Apr; 35(4):1214-22. PubMed ID: 18491513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Patient-specific IMRT verification using independent fluence-based dose calculation software: experimental benchmarking and initial clinical experience.
    Georg D; Stock M; Kroupa B; Olofsson J; Nyholm T; Ahnesjö A; Karlsson M
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Aug; 52(16):4981-92. PubMed ID: 17671348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Verification of a pencil beam based treatment planning system: output factors for open photon beams shaped with MLC or blocks.
    Hansson H; Björk P; Knöös T; Nilsson P
    Phys Med Biol; 1999 Sep; 44(9):N201-7. PubMed ID: 10495127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Commissioning stereotactic radiosurgery beams using both experimental and theoretical methods.
    Ding GX; Duggan DM; Coffey CW
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2549-66. PubMed ID: 16675869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Dosimetric validation of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for photon dose calculation: fundamental characterization in water.
    Fogliata A; Nicolini G; Vanetti E; Clivio A; Cozzi L
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Mar; 51(6):1421-38. PubMed ID: 16510953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Technical note: Determining equivalent squares of high-energetic photon fields.
    Ringholz J; Wegener S; Sauer OA
    Med Phys; 2023 Feb; 50(2):1242-1250. PubMed ID: 36289176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Advanced kernel methods vs. Monte Carlo-based dose calculation for high energy photon beams.
    Fotina I; Winkler P; Künzler T; Reiterer J; Simmat I; Georg D
    Radiother Oncol; 2009 Dec; 93(3):645-53. PubMed ID: 19926153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Monitor unit calculations for wedged asymmetric photon beams.
    Smulders B; Bruinvis IA; Mijnheer BJ
    Phys Med Biol; 2002 Jun; 47(12):2013-30. PubMed ID: 12118598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Decomposition of pencil beam kernels for fast dose calculations in three-dimensional treatment planning.
    Bortfeld T; Schlegel W; Rhein B
    Med Phys; 1993; 20(2 Pt 1):311-8. PubMed ID: 8497215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.