Patient positioning, immobilization devices, and fiducial markers in positron emission tomography-computed tomgraphy scanner-based radiation therapy simulation

Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 462-467

  Mutic, Sasa ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMMOBILIZATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT POSITIONING; PATIENT SAFETY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PROCESS MODEL; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; TREATMENT PLANNING; TUMOR VOLUME; WELLBEING; WORK EXPERIENCE;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; FIDUCIAL MARKERS; HUMANS; IMMOBILIZATION; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT POSITIONING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOTHERAPY PLANNING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOTHERAPY, CONFORMAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 78649946075     PISSN: 08872171     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2010.05.007     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Mutic S. PET and PET/CT. New Technologies in Radiation Oncology 2005, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany. W. Schlegel, T. Bortfeld, A.L. Grosu (Eds.).
2. Low D.A., Mutic S. Radiation therapy simulator. Wiley Encyclopedia of Medical Devices and Instrumentation 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. J.G. Webster (Ed.).
3. Mutic S., Palta J.R., Butker E.K., et al. Quality assurance of CT simulators and the CT simulation process: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group. Med Phys 2003, 30:2762-2792. 66.
4. Mutic S., Purdy J.A., Michalski J.M., et al. The simulation process in the determination and definition of the treatment volume and treatment planning. Technical Basis of Radiation Therapy 2006, 107-134. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany. S.H. Levtt (Ed.).
5. Van Dyk J., Taylor J.S. CT-simulators. The Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology: A Compendium for Medical Physicist and Radiation Oncologists 1999, 131-168. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI. J. Van Dyk (Ed.).
6. Van Dyk J., Munro P.N. Simulators. The Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology: A Compendium for Medical Physicist and Radiation Oncologists 1999, 95-129. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI. J. Van Dyk (Ed.).
7. Chao K.S.C., Bosch W.R., Mutic S., et al. A novel approach to overcome hypoxic tumor resistance-ATSM-guided intensity modulation radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001, 49:1171-1182.
8. Dehdashti F., Grigsby P.W., Mintun M.A., et al. Assessing tumor hypoxia in cervical cancer by positron emission tomography with 60Cu-ATSM: Relationship to therapeutic response-a preliminary report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 55:1233-1238.
9. Robinson D., Gagne I., Riauka T., et al. Metallic copper as a fiducial marker for both CT and PET. Med Phys 2004, 31:2520-2526.
10. Mutic S., Dempsey J.F., Bosch W.R., et al. Multimodality image registration quality assurance for conformal three-dimensional treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001, 51:255-260.
11. Zitova B., Flusser J. IAGE registration methods: A survey. Image Vis Comput 2003, 21:977-1000.