Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 640

1.

Recommendations for clinical electron beam dosimetry: supplement to the recommendations of Task Group 25.

Gerbi BJ, Antolak JA, Deibel FC, Followill DS, Herman MG, Higgins PD, Huq MS, Mihailidis DN, Yorke ED, Hogstrom KR, Khan FM.

Med Phys. 2009 Jul;36(7):3239-79. Erratum in: Med Phys. 2011 Jan;38(1):548.

PMID:
19673223
2.

AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams.

Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, Hanson WF, Huq MS, Nath R, Rogers DW.

Med Phys. 1999 Sep;26(9):1847-70.

PMID:
10505874
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Absorbed dose to water based dosimetry versus air kerma based dosimetry for high-energy photon beams: an experimental study.

Palmans H, Nafaa L, De JJ, Gillis S, Hoornaert MT, Martens C, Piessens M, Thierens H, Van der Plaetsen A, Vynckier S.

Phys Med Biol. 2002 Feb 7;47(3):421-40.

PMID:
11848121
9.

The IPEM code of practice for electron dosimetry for radiotherapy beams of initial energy from 4 to 25 MeV based on an absorbed dose to water calibration.

Thwaites DI, DuSautoy AR, Jordan T, McEwen MR, Nisbet A, Nahum AE, Pitchford WG; IPEM Working Party.

Phys Med Biol. 2003 Sep 21;48(18):2929-70.

PMID:
14529204
10.

Comparison between TG-51 and TG-21: Calibration of photon and electron beams in water using cylindrical chambers.

Cho SH, Lowenstein JR, Balter PA, Wells NH, Hanson WF.

J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2000 Summer;1(3):108-15.

PMID:
11674825
11.

Clinical reference dosimetry: comparison between AAPM TG-21 and TG-51 protocols.

Ding GX, Cygler JE, Kwok CB.

Med Phys. 2000 Jun;27(6):1217-25.

PMID:
10902550
12.
13.

A dosimetry study comparing NCS report-5, IAEA TRS-381, AAPM TG-51 and IAEA TRS-398 in three clinical electron beam energies.

Palmans H, Nafaa L, de Patoul N, Denis JM, Tomsej M, Vynckier S.

Phys Med Biol. 2003 May 7;48(9):1091-107.

PMID:
12765324
14.

A new approach to electron-beam reference dosimetry.

Rogers DW.

Med Phys. 1998 Mar;25(3):310-20.

PMID:
9547498
15.

Differences in electron beam dosimetry using two commercial ionization chambers and the TG-21 protocol: another reason to switch to TG-51.

Followill DS, Hanson WF, Ibbott GS, Eglezopoulos LR, Chui CS.

J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2003 Spring;4(2):124-31.

PMID:
12777147
16.

A round-robin gamma stereotactic radiosurgery dosimetry interinstitution comparison of calibration protocols.

Drzymala RE, Alvarez PE, Bednarz G, Bourland JD, DeWerd LA, Ma L, Meltsner SG, Neyman G, Novotny J Jr, Petti PL, Rivard MJ, Shiu AS, Goetsch SJ.

Med Phys. 2015 Nov;42(11):6745-56. doi: 10.1118/1.4934376.

PMID:
26520764
18.

Proton dosimetry intercomparison.

Vatnitsky S, Siebers J, Miller D, Moyers M, Schaefer M, Jones D, Vynckier S, Hayakawa Y, Delacroix S, Isacsson U, Medin J, Kacperek A, Lomax A, Coray A, Kluge H, Heese J, Verhey L, Daftari I, Gall K, Lam G, Beck T, Hartmann G.

Radiother Oncol. 1996 Nov;41(2):169-77.

PMID:
9004361
19.

The advantages of absorbed-dose calibration factors.

Rogers DW.

Med Phys. 1992 Sep-Oct;19(5):1227-39.

PMID:
1435604
20.

Combining tissue-phantom ratios to provide a beam-quality specifier for flattening filter free photon beams.

Dalaryd M, Knöös T, Ceberg C.

Med Phys. 2014 Nov;41(11):111716. doi: 10.1118/1.4898325.

PMID:
25370630

Supplemental Content

Support Center