1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
f
The disadvantages of a multileaf collimator for proton radiotherapy outweigh its advantages
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4824437
1.
1. B. Gottschalk, “Multileaf collimators, air gap, lateral penumbra, and range compensation in proton radiotherapy,” Med. Phys. 38(11), iii (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3653297
2.
2. J. Daartz, A. Trofimov, and H. Paganetti, “Feasibility study of MLC-based IMPT,” in Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group (PTCOG), Heidelberg, Germany, 2009 [available URL: http://www.egms.de/static/de/meetings/ptcog2009/09ptcog047.shtml].
3.
3. M. Torikoshi, S. Minohara, N. Kanematsu, M. Komori, M. Kanazawa, K. Noda, N. Miyahara, H. Itoh, M. Endo, and T. Kanai, “Irradiation system for HIMAC,” J. Radiat. Res. (Tokyo) 48, A15A25 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1269/jrr.48.A15
4.
4. J. Daartz, M. Bangert, M. R. Bussière, M. Engelsman, and H. M. Kooy, “Characterization of a mini-multileaf collimator in a proton beamline,” Med. Phys. 36, 18861894 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3116382
5.
5. S. Safai, T. Bortfeld, and M. Engelsman, “Comparison between the lateral penumbra of collimated double-scattered beam and uncollimated scanning beam in proton radiotherapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 17291750 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/6/016
6.
6. R. Oozeer, A. Mazal, J. C. Rosenwald, R. Belshi, C. Nauraye, R. Ferrand, and S. Biensan, “A model for lateral penumbra in water of a 200 MeV proton beam devoted to clinical applications,” Med. Phys. 24, 15991604 (1997).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.597967
7.
7. V. Moskvin, C.-W. Cheng, and I. J. Das, “Pitfalls of tungsten multileaf collimator in proton beam therapy,” Med. Phys. 38, 63956406 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3658655
8.
8. V. Moskvin, C.-W. Cheng, Q. Zhao, and I. J. Das, “Comment on ‘Comparison of secondary neutron dose in proton therapy resulting from the use of a tungsten alloy MLC or a brass collimator system’,” Med. Phys. 39, 23032305 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3694489
9.
9. E. S. Diffenderfer, C. G. Ainsley, M. L. Kirk, J. E. McDonough, and R. L. Maughan, “Comparison of secondary neutron dose in proton therapy resulting from the use of a tungsten alloy MLC or a brass collimator system,” Med. Phys. 38, 62486256 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3656025
10.
10. E. S. Diffenderfer, C. G. Ainsley, M. L. Kirk, J. E. McDonough, and R. L. Maughan, “Reply to “Comment on ‘Comparison of secondary neutron dose in proton therapy resulting from the use of a tungsten alloy MLC or a brass collimator system”,” Med. Phys. 39, 23062309 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3694490
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4824437
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4824437
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4824437
2014-01-06
2014-11-23

Abstract

There is no abstract available for this article.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/1.4824437.html;jsessionid=176jcmv9gdv5p.x-aip-live-03?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4824437&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aapm/journal/medphys
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: The disadvantages of a multileaf collimator for proton radiotherapy outweigh its advantages
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/41/2/10.1118/1.4824437
10.1118/1.4824437
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM