Comparison of the Helical Tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT Radiation Modalities in Treating Brain and Cranio-spinal Tumors

The investigation of the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) using Multileaf Collimators (MLC) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT) has been an issue of increasing interest over the past few years. In order to assess the suitability of a treatment plan, dosimetric...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Technology in cancer research & treatment 2009-02, Vol.8 (1), p.3-14
Hauptverfasser: Mavroidis, Panayiotis, Ferreira, Brigida Costa, Shi, Chengyu, Delichas, Miltiadis G., Lind, Bengt K., Papanikolaou, Nikos
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 14
container_issue 1
container_start_page 3
container_title Technology in cancer research & treatment
container_volume 8
creator Mavroidis, Panayiotis
Ferreira, Brigida Costa
Shi, Chengyu
Delichas, Miltiadis G.
Lind, Bengt K.
Papanikolaou, Nikos
description The investigation of the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) using Multileaf Collimators (MLC) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT) has been an issue of increasing interest over the past few years. In order to assess the suitability of a treatment plan, dosimetric criteria such as dose-volume histograms (DVH), maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation of the dose distribution are typically used. Nevertheless, the radiobiological parameters of the different tumors and normal tissues are often not taken into account. The use of the biologically effective uniform dose (D̿) together with the complication-free tumor control probability (P+) were applied to evaluate the two radiation modalities. Two different clinical cases of brain and cranio-spinal axis cancers have been investigated by developing a linac MLC-based step-and-shoot IMRT plan and a Helical Tomotherapy plan. The treatment plans of the MLC-based IMRT were developed on the Philips treatment planning station using the Pinnacle 7.6 software release while the dedicated Tomotherapy treatment planning station was used for the HT plan. With the use of the P+ index and the D̿ concept as the common prescription point, the different treatment plans were compared based on radiobiological measures. The tissue response probabilities were plotted against D̿ for a range of prescription doses. The applied plan evaluation method shows that in the brain cancer, the HT treatment gives slightly better results than the MLC-based IMRT in terms of optimum expected clinical outcome (P+ of 66.1% and 63.5% for a D̿ to the PTV of 63.0 Gy and 62.0 Gy, respectively). In the cranio-spinal axis cancer, the HT plan is significantly better compared to the MLC-based IMRT plan over the clinically useful dose prescription range (P+ of 84.1% and 28.3% for a D̿ to the PTV of 50.6 Gy and 44.0 Gy, respectively). If a higher than 5% risk for complications could be allowed, the complication-free tumor control could be increased by almost 30% compared to the initial dose prescription. In comparison to MLC based-IMRT, HT can better encompass the often large PTV while minimizing the volume of the OARs receiving high dose. A radiobiological treatment plan evaluation can provide a closer association of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome by taking into account the dose-response relations of the irradiated tumors and normal tissues. The use of P — D̿ diagrams can complement the traditional to
doi_str_mv 10.1177/153303460900800102
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_AFRWT</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_560102</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_153303460900800102</sage_id><sourcerecordid>66857346</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c539t-5e6df8c641ebc37e64382e2676124038ef33f0301e5e662815c76540d64322183</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ks1u1DAUhS0EoqXwAiyQN7Cp0voncZxlCYVWmlGlamBreZKbwSWJg50I-vbcaNLpArXe2L76zrm2jwl5z9kZ53l-zjMpmUwVKxjTjHEmXpDjuZgwKfXLwzpVR-RNjHeMCaUkf02OeMGVEjI_Jn9L3w02uOh76hs6_gR6Ba2rbEs3vvO4D3a4p7av6XpVJlsboabX69sNvbW1s6ND3drXtnWjg0hdTzcBsNzv6OdgcTsry2B755M4uH72nTof4lvyqrFthHfLfEK-f73clFfJ6ubbdXmxSqpMFmOSgaobXamUw7aSOahUagFC5YqLlEkNjZQNk4wDkkponlW5ylJWIygE1_KEJHvf-AeGaWuG4Dob7o23ziylX7gCk6n5BZEvnuSH4OtH0YOQcy2KQiiO2tMntV_cjwvjw87EyUg8okT6055G298TxNF0LlbQtrYHP0WjlM5yDA9BsQer4GMM0ByMOTPzTzD__wQUfVjcp20H9aNkiR6BjwtgI8bdYEaViwdOcKZxzN3Pl0vZHZg7PwUMMT7X-h83Fsgj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>66857346</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the Helical Tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT Radiation Modalities in Treating Brain and Cranio-spinal Tumors</title><source>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</source><creator>Mavroidis, Panayiotis ; Ferreira, Brigida Costa ; Shi, Chengyu ; Delichas, Miltiadis G. ; Lind, Bengt K. ; Papanikolaou, Nikos</creator><creatorcontrib>Mavroidis, Panayiotis ; Ferreira, Brigida Costa ; Shi, Chengyu ; Delichas, Miltiadis G. ; Lind, Bengt K. ; Papanikolaou, Nikos</creatorcontrib><description>The investigation of the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) using Multileaf Collimators (MLC) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT) has been an issue of increasing interest over the past few years. In order to assess the suitability of a treatment plan, dosimetric criteria such as dose-volume histograms (DVH), maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation of the dose distribution are typically used. Nevertheless, the radiobiological parameters of the different tumors and normal tissues are often not taken into account. The use of the biologically effective uniform dose (D̿) together with the complication-free tumor control probability (P+) were applied to evaluate the two radiation modalities. Two different clinical cases of brain and cranio-spinal axis cancers have been investigated by developing a linac MLC-based step-and-shoot IMRT plan and a Helical Tomotherapy plan. The treatment plans of the MLC-based IMRT were developed on the Philips treatment planning station using the Pinnacle 7.6 software release while the dedicated Tomotherapy treatment planning station was used for the HT plan. With the use of the P+ index and the D̿ concept as the common prescription point, the different treatment plans were compared based on radiobiological measures. The tissue response probabilities were plotted against D̿ for a range of prescription doses. The applied plan evaluation method shows that in the brain cancer, the HT treatment gives slightly better results than the MLC-based IMRT in terms of optimum expected clinical outcome (P+ of 66.1% and 63.5% for a D̿ to the PTV of 63.0 Gy and 62.0 Gy, respectively). In the cranio-spinal axis cancer, the HT plan is significantly better compared to the MLC-based IMRT plan over the clinically useful dose prescription range (P+ of 84.1% and 28.3% for a D̿ to the PTV of 50.6 Gy and 44.0 Gy, respectively). If a higher than 5% risk for complications could be allowed, the complication-free tumor control could be increased by almost 30% compared to the initial dose prescription. In comparison to MLC based-IMRT, HT can better encompass the often large PTV while minimizing the volume of the OARs receiving high dose. A radiobiological treatment plan evaluation can provide a closer association of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome by taking into account the dose-response relations of the irradiated tumors and normal tissues. The use of P — D̿ diagrams can complement the traditional tools of evaluation such as DVHs, in order to compare and effectively evaluate different treatment plans.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1533-0346</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1533-0338</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1533-0338</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/153303460900800102</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19166237</identifier><identifier>CODEN: TCRTBS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Biological and medical sciences ; Brain Neoplasms ; Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Computer-Assisted Radiotherapy Planning ; Fysiologi och farmakologi ; Humans ; Intensity-Modulated methods ; Male ; Medical Radiation Physics ; Medical sciences ; MEDICIN ; Medicin och hälsovetenskap ; MEDICINE ; medicinsk strålningsfysik ; Middle Aged ; Neurology ; Physiology and pharmacology ; Radiofysik ; Radiological physics ; Radiological research ; Radiologisk forskning ; Radiotherapy ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods ; Spinal Cord Neoplasms ; Spinal Cord Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Tomography ; Tomography, Spiral Computed - methods ; Tumors of the nervous system. Phacomatoses</subject><ispartof>Technology in cancer research &amp; treatment, 2009-02, Vol.8 (1), p.3-14</ispartof><rights>2009 SAGE Publications</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c539t-5e6df8c641ebc37e64382e2676124038ef33f0301e5e662815c76540d64322183</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c539t-5e6df8c641ebc37e64382e2676124038ef33f0301e5e662815c76540d64322183</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/153303460900800102$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/153303460900800102$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,21966,27853,27924,27925,44945,45333</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/153303460900800102?utm_source=summon&amp;utm_medium=discovery-provider$$EView_record_in_SAGE_Publications$$FView_record_in_$$GSAGE_Publications</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=21088886$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19166237$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-37653$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:118299261$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mavroidis, Panayiotis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Brigida Costa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Chengyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delichas, Miltiadis G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lind, Bengt K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papanikolaou, Nikos</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the Helical Tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT Radiation Modalities in Treating Brain and Cranio-spinal Tumors</title><title>Technology in cancer research &amp; treatment</title><addtitle>Technol Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><description>The investigation of the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) using Multileaf Collimators (MLC) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT) has been an issue of increasing interest over the past few years. In order to assess the suitability of a treatment plan, dosimetric criteria such as dose-volume histograms (DVH), maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation of the dose distribution are typically used. Nevertheless, the radiobiological parameters of the different tumors and normal tissues are often not taken into account. The use of the biologically effective uniform dose (D̿) together with the complication-free tumor control probability (P+) were applied to evaluate the two radiation modalities. Two different clinical cases of brain and cranio-spinal axis cancers have been investigated by developing a linac MLC-based step-and-shoot IMRT plan and a Helical Tomotherapy plan. The treatment plans of the MLC-based IMRT were developed on the Philips treatment planning station using the Pinnacle 7.6 software release while the dedicated Tomotherapy treatment planning station was used for the HT plan. With the use of the P+ index and the D̿ concept as the common prescription point, the different treatment plans were compared based on radiobiological measures. The tissue response probabilities were plotted against D̿ for a range of prescription doses. The applied plan evaluation method shows that in the brain cancer, the HT treatment gives slightly better results than the MLC-based IMRT in terms of optimum expected clinical outcome (P+ of 66.1% and 63.5% for a D̿ to the PTV of 63.0 Gy and 62.0 Gy, respectively). In the cranio-spinal axis cancer, the HT plan is significantly better compared to the MLC-based IMRT plan over the clinically useful dose prescription range (P+ of 84.1% and 28.3% for a D̿ to the PTV of 50.6 Gy and 44.0 Gy, respectively). If a higher than 5% risk for complications could be allowed, the complication-free tumor control could be increased by almost 30% compared to the initial dose prescription. In comparison to MLC based-IMRT, HT can better encompass the often large PTV while minimizing the volume of the OARs receiving high dose. A radiobiological treatment plan evaluation can provide a closer association of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome by taking into account the dose-response relations of the irradiated tumors and normal tissues. The use of P — D̿ diagrams can complement the traditional tools of evaluation such as DVHs, in order to compare and effectively evaluate different treatment plans.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Brain Neoplasms</subject><subject>Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Computer-Assisted Radiotherapy Planning</subject><subject>Fysiologi och farmakologi</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intensity-Modulated methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical Radiation Physics</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>MEDICIN</subject><subject>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><subject>MEDICINE</subject><subject>medicinsk strålningsfysik</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Physiology and pharmacology</subject><subject>Radiofysik</subject><subject>Radiological physics</subject><subject>Radiological research</subject><subject>Radiologisk forskning</subject><subject>Radiotherapy</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods</subject><subject>Spinal Cord Neoplasms</subject><subject>Spinal Cord Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Tomography, Spiral Computed - methods</subject><subject>Tumors of the nervous system. Phacomatoses</subject><issn>1533-0346</issn><issn>1533-0338</issn><issn>1533-0338</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ks1u1DAUhS0EoqXwAiyQN7Cp0voncZxlCYVWmlGlamBreZKbwSWJg50I-vbcaNLpArXe2L76zrm2jwl5z9kZ53l-zjMpmUwVKxjTjHEmXpDjuZgwKfXLwzpVR-RNjHeMCaUkf02OeMGVEjI_Jn9L3w02uOh76hs6_gR6Ba2rbEs3vvO4D3a4p7av6XpVJlsboabX69sNvbW1s6ND3drXtnWjg0hdTzcBsNzv6OdgcTsry2B755M4uH72nTof4lvyqrFthHfLfEK-f73clFfJ6ubbdXmxSqpMFmOSgaobXamUw7aSOahUagFC5YqLlEkNjZQNk4wDkkponlW5ylJWIygE1_KEJHvf-AeGaWuG4Dob7o23ziylX7gCk6n5BZEvnuSH4OtH0YOQcy2KQiiO2tMntV_cjwvjw87EyUg8okT6055G298TxNF0LlbQtrYHP0WjlM5yDA9BsQer4GMM0ByMOTPzTzD__wQUfVjcp20H9aNkiR6BjwtgI8bdYEaViwdOcKZxzN3Pl0vZHZg7PwUMMT7X-h83Fsgj</recordid><startdate>20090201</startdate><enddate>20090201</enddate><creator>Mavroidis, Panayiotis</creator><creator>Ferreira, Brigida Costa</creator><creator>Shi, Chengyu</creator><creator>Delichas, Miltiadis G.</creator><creator>Lind, Bengt K.</creator><creator>Papanikolaou, Nikos</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Adenine Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>DG7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090201</creationdate><title>Comparison of the Helical Tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT Radiation Modalities in Treating Brain and Cranio-spinal Tumors</title><author>Mavroidis, Panayiotis ; Ferreira, Brigida Costa ; Shi, Chengyu ; Delichas, Miltiadis G. ; Lind, Bengt K. ; Papanikolaou, Nikos</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c539t-5e6df8c641ebc37e64382e2676124038ef33f0301e5e662815c76540d64322183</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Brain Neoplasms</topic><topic>Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Computer-Assisted Radiotherapy Planning</topic><topic>Fysiologi och farmakologi</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intensity-Modulated methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical Radiation Physics</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>MEDICIN</topic><topic>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</topic><topic>MEDICINE</topic><topic>medicinsk strålningsfysik</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Physiology and pharmacology</topic><topic>Radiofysik</topic><topic>Radiological physics</topic><topic>Radiological research</topic><topic>Radiologisk forskning</topic><topic>Radiotherapy</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods</topic><topic>Spinal Cord Neoplasms</topic><topic>Spinal Cord Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Tomography, Spiral Computed - methods</topic><topic>Tumors of the nervous system. Phacomatoses</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mavroidis, Panayiotis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Brigida Costa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Chengyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delichas, Miltiadis G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lind, Bengt K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papanikolaou, Nikos</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Stockholms universitet</collection><jtitle>Technology in cancer research &amp; treatment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mavroidis, Panayiotis</au><au>Ferreira, Brigida Costa</au><au>Shi, Chengyu</au><au>Delichas, Miltiadis G.</au><au>Lind, Bengt K.</au><au>Papanikolaou, Nikos</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the Helical Tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT Radiation Modalities in Treating Brain and Cranio-spinal Tumors</atitle><jtitle>Technology in cancer research &amp; treatment</jtitle><addtitle>Technol Cancer Res Treat</addtitle><date>2009-02-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>3</spage><epage>14</epage><pages>3-14</pages><issn>1533-0346</issn><issn>1533-0338</issn><eissn>1533-0338</eissn><coden>TCRTBS</coden><abstract>The investigation of the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) using Multileaf Collimators (MLC) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT) has been an issue of increasing interest over the past few years. In order to assess the suitability of a treatment plan, dosimetric criteria such as dose-volume histograms (DVH), maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation of the dose distribution are typically used. Nevertheless, the radiobiological parameters of the different tumors and normal tissues are often not taken into account. The use of the biologically effective uniform dose (D̿) together with the complication-free tumor control probability (P+) were applied to evaluate the two radiation modalities. Two different clinical cases of brain and cranio-spinal axis cancers have been investigated by developing a linac MLC-based step-and-shoot IMRT plan and a Helical Tomotherapy plan. The treatment plans of the MLC-based IMRT were developed on the Philips treatment planning station using the Pinnacle 7.6 software release while the dedicated Tomotherapy treatment planning station was used for the HT plan. With the use of the P+ index and the D̿ concept as the common prescription point, the different treatment plans were compared based on radiobiological measures. The tissue response probabilities were plotted against D̿ for a range of prescription doses. The applied plan evaluation method shows that in the brain cancer, the HT treatment gives slightly better results than the MLC-based IMRT in terms of optimum expected clinical outcome (P+ of 66.1% and 63.5% for a D̿ to the PTV of 63.0 Gy and 62.0 Gy, respectively). In the cranio-spinal axis cancer, the HT plan is significantly better compared to the MLC-based IMRT plan over the clinically useful dose prescription range (P+ of 84.1% and 28.3% for a D̿ to the PTV of 50.6 Gy and 44.0 Gy, respectively). If a higher than 5% risk for complications could be allowed, the complication-free tumor control could be increased by almost 30% compared to the initial dose prescription. In comparison to MLC based-IMRT, HT can better encompass the often large PTV while minimizing the volume of the OARs receiving high dose. A radiobiological treatment plan evaluation can provide a closer association of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome by taking into account the dose-response relations of the irradiated tumors and normal tissues. The use of P — D̿ diagrams can complement the traditional tools of evaluation such as DVHs, in order to compare and effectively evaluate different treatment plans.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>19166237</pmid><doi>10.1177/153303460900800102</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 1533-0346
ispartof Technology in cancer research & treatment, 2009-02, Vol.8 (1), p.3-14
issn 1533-0346
1533-0338
1533-0338
language eng
recordid cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_560102
source Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024
subjects Adolescent
Biological and medical sciences
Brain Neoplasms
Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy
Computer-Assisted Radiotherapy Planning
Fysiologi och farmakologi
Humans
Intensity-Modulated methods
Male
Medical Radiation Physics
Medical sciences
MEDICIN
Medicin och hälsovetenskap
MEDICINE
medicinsk strålningsfysik
Middle Aged
Neurology
Physiology and pharmacology
Radiofysik
Radiological physics
Radiological research
Radiologisk forskning
Radiotherapy
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods
Spinal Cord Neoplasms
Spinal Cord Neoplasms - radiotherapy
Tomography
Tomography, Spiral Computed - methods
Tumors of the nervous system. Phacomatoses
title Comparison of the Helical Tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT Radiation Modalities in Treating Brain and Cranio-spinal Tumors
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T03%3A30%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_AFRWT&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20Helical%20Tomotherapy%20and%20MLC-based%20IMRT%20Radiation%20Modalities%20in%20Treating%20Brain%20and%20Cranio-spinal%20Tumors&rft.jtitle=Technology%20in%20cancer%20research%20&%20treatment&rft.au=Mavroidis,%20Panayiotis&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=3&rft.epage=14&rft.pages=3-14&rft.issn=1533-0346&rft.eissn=1533-0338&rft.coden=TCRTBS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/153303460900800102&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_AFRWT%3E66857346%3C/proquest_AFRWT%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=66857346&rft_id=info:pmid/19166237&rft_sage_id=10.1177_153303460900800102&rfr_iscdi=true