ライフサイエンスコーパス: IMRT

1 IMRT also produced lower heart doses ( P < .05), and the

2 IMRT demonstrated better target coverage and sparing of

3 IMRT in STS of the extremity provides excellent local co

4 IMRT is a new treatment paradigm that goes beyond the ca

5 IMRT may result in a dose distribution that is more conf

6 IMRT plans were modified by placing "virtual critical st

7 IMRT should aim to minimize lung V20 and heart V20 to V6

8 IMRT significantly reduced heart V40 compared to 3D-CRT

9 IMRT took the older approach of using fields that confor

10 IMRT use was associated with receipt of treatment at an

11 IMRT vs 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) for PORT.

12 IMRT was associated with a 2-fold reduction in grade 3 o

13 IMRT was associated with improved overall survival compa

14 IMRT was associated with less >/= grade 3 pneumonitis (7

15 IMRT with and without concurrent chemotherapy.

16 between IMRT and proton therapy (n = 1368), IMRT patients had a lower rate of gastrointestinal morbi

17 sted of 1,335 SBRT patients matched to 2,670 IMRT patients.

18 on for locally advanced laryngeal cancers (8 IMRT, 19 IGRT) was undertaken.

19 eated with limb-sparing surgery and adjuvant IMRT.

20 MPT were 90.9% at 5 years versus 81.0% after IMRT (HR 0.58 [95% CI 0.34-0.99]; p=0.045).

21 Outcomes data after IMRT are limited, and follow-up is relatively short.

22 IMRT and then weekly for up to 8 weeks after IMRT.

23 atectomy, permanent seed implant, 3DCRT, and IMRT.

24 cription as planned in 3D-CRT (p < 1e-4) and IMRT (p < 1e-4).

25 scores were 85.30 and 81.76 for IMRT + C and IMRT, respectively.

26 mes suggest that concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT for anal canal cancers is effective and tolerated f

27 ere treated with concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT for anal squamous cell carcinoma at three tertiary-

28 This study compares 3D-CRT and IMRT outcomes for locally advanced NSCLC in a large pros

29 l external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and IMRT.

30 (50 mg/m(2)), daily pazopanib (300 mg), and IMRT 66 Gy given in 33 daily fractions (2 Gy fractions).

31 nventional EBRT was used in 154 patients and IMRT in 165 with similar dosing schedules.

32 ally significant differences between PBT and IMRT in terms of GI or GU toxicity.

33 xpected mean cost of proton beam therapy and IMRT of $63,511 and $36,808, and $64,989 and $39,355 for

34 after treatment with proton beam therapy and IMRT, utility of patients treated with salvage hormone t

35 Compared to TOMO and IMRT, VMAT achieved better target dose distribution and

36 propensity score-matched comparison between IMRT and proton therapy (n = 1368), IMRT patients had a

37 sis-free survival were not different between IMRT and 3D-CRT.

38 morbidities or additional therapies between IMRT and proton therapy.

39 breast radiotherapy in the Cambridge breast IMRT trial (ISRCTN21474421, n=942) or in a prospective s

40 The Cambridge Breast IMRT trial investigated this hypothesis, and the 5-year

41 wo-dimensional RT to implement simple breast IMRT.

42 The heart was spared by IMRT compared to TOMO in terms of mean heart dose, V5, V

43 ) versus conventionally fractionated IMRT (C-IMRT).

44 arcinoma were randomly assigned to receive C-IMRT (76 Gy in 38 fractions) or H-IMRT (70.2 Gy in 26 fr

45 that there were more black patients in the C-IMRT arm (17.8% v 7.3%; P = .02).

46 ulative incidence of BCDF was 25.9% in the C-IMRT arm and was 30.6% in the H-IMRT arm (hazard ratio,

47 3 assessable men were randomly assigned to C-IMRT or H-IMRT.

48 d to demonstrate superiority compared with C-IMRT in long-term disease outcomes.

49 iagnosed with a second primary solid cancer (IMRT, 1306; 3DCRT, 1382).

50 In this trial, we aimed to directly compare IMRT with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), bot

51 secondary analysis was performed to compare IMRT with 3D-CRT in NRG Oncology clinical trial RTOG 061

52 Conclusion IMRT was associated with lower rates of severe pneumonit

53 7 second hematologic cancers were diagnosed (IMRT, 603; 3DCRT, 504).

54 DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care for pat

55 For DO-IMRT, the volume of the superior and middle pharyngeal c

56 mittee on Cancer tumour stage) to receive DO-IMRT or standard IMRT.

57 Our findings suggest that DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function compa

58 unrelated to study treatment [nine in the DO-IMRT group and seven in the standard IMRT group] and nin

59 Patients in the DO-IMRT group had significantly higher MDADI composite scor

60 Conclusion For IC responders, reduced-dose IMRT with concurrent cetuximab is worthy of further stud

61 ntegrated boost (SIB-IMRT) vs. standard-dose IMRT (SD-IMRT).

62 atus, and randomising site) to standard-dose IMRT (sd-IMRT: 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) or rd-IMRT with

63 ed in the primary analysis (sd-IMRT n=55; dr-IMRT n=105).

64 WHO grade of OM was assessed biweekly during IMRT and then weekly for up to 8 weeks after IMRT.

65 hip fractures but more erectile dysfunction; IMRT compared with proton therapy was associated with le

66 inute intravenous administration before each IMRT fraction.

67 Patients received either IMRT or proton therapy (uniform scanning or pencil beam

68 median, 8.6; 95% CI, 5.7-15.6 months) and ES-IMRT (median, 8.7; 95% CI, 5.1-10.2 months) (P = .62).

69 atients were randomized to standard RT or ES-IMRT (median age at randomization, 72.0 years [IQR, 65.6

70 zed (1:1) to standard RT (control arm) or ES-IMRT.

71 30 Gy of RT, these findings suggest that ES-IMRT may be most beneficial when the prescription dose i

72 (95% CI, 47.2-53.8) and 54.3 (7.6) in the ES-IMRT arm (95% CI, 51.9-56.7) (P = .06).

73 n this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, ES-IMRT did not significantly improve esophageal QOL but si

74 For IMRT, 2-year PFS was 87.6% (P = .23).

75 cost was $13,645 for SBRT versus $21,023 for IMRT.

76 r MDADI mean scores were 85.30 and 81.76 for IMRT + C and IMRT, respectively.

77 sults in excess spending of $282 million for IMRT, $59 million for brachytherapy plus IMRT, and $4 mi

78 Allowing urologists to self-refer for IMRT may contribute to increased use of this expensive t

79 life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

80 GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.3% versus 2.1% (P = .10), and 8.7%

81 (H-IMRT) versus conventionally fractionated IMRT (C-IMRT).

82 adiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14-48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0.0001).

83 radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23-55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0.0027).

84 radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55-89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0.0015).

85 ly close/positive margin) in the IMRT group, IMRT was associated with significantly reduced local rec

86 H-IMRT failed to demonstrate superiority compared with C-I

87 receive C-IMRT (76 Gy in 38 fractions) or H-IMRT (70.2 Gy in 26 fractions).

88 le men were randomly assigned to C-IMRT or H-IMRT.

89 .9% in the C-IMRT arm and was 30.6% in the H-IMRT arm (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.82 to 2.11).

90 ce of distant metastases was higher in the H-IMRT arm (rate difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 15.1%).

91 ted intensity-modulated radiation therapy (H-IMRT) versus conventionally fractionated IMRT (C-IMRT).

92 ons at 2.7 Gy per fraction (hypofractionated IMRT [HIMRT]); the latter was estimated to be equivalent

93 IG-IMRT results in reduced toxicity with no difference in d

94 Risk of vertebral fracture after IG-IMRT for spinal metastases has not been defined.

95 019, 300 patients were randomly assigned (IG-IMRT 151 and 3D-CRT 149).

96 were randomly assigned to receive either IG-IMRT or 3D-CRT after stratification for the type of hyst

97 fracture is common after single fraction IG-IMRT for metastatic spine lesions.

98 idence of grade 2 late GI toxicity in the IG-IMRT and 3D-CRT arms were 21.1% versus 42.4% (hazard rat

99 ed intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) allows for tumoricidal treatment of traditionally

100 and lesser bowel symptoms (P = .002) with IG-IMRT.

101 In IMRT, the non-hypoxic volume receiving boost prescriptio

102 -differences analysis to evaluate changes in IMRT use according to self-referral status.

103 The regression-adjusted increase in IMRT use associated with self-referral was 16.4 percenta

104 troduction of virtual critical structures in IMRT plans resulted in removal of these hot spots withou

105 Modified IMRT plans also demonstrated better CTV coverage than th

106 ects regarding the practice of head and neck IMRT remain heterogeneous.

107 re clinical data demonstrating head and neck IMRT safety and efficacy remain relatively limited to da

108 lumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT] vs non-IMRT or non-VMAT), cervical cancer stage at screening, a

109 advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), IMRT and three-dimensional conformal external beam radia

110 nt initiation, 43.9% of SBRT versus 36.3% of IMRT patients had GU toxicity (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12 to

111 nt initiation, 15.6% of SBRT versus 12.6% of IMRT patients experienced GU toxicity (odds ratio [OR],

112 Technical aspects of IMRT delivery such as the impact of daily set-up variati

113 zards regression assessed the association of IMRT vs 3DCRT with overall survival.

114 The benefit of IMRT was maintained on multivariate analysis for both ov

115 The capacity of IMRT to produce highly conformal dose distributions affo

116 The mean incremental cost of IMRT versus 3D-CRT was $10,986 (in 2008 dollars); of bra

117 xamined the association between ownership of IMRT services and use of IMRT to treat prostate cancer.

118 Urologists who acquired ownership of IMRT services increased their use of IMRT substantially

119 Stepwise refinement in the practice of IMRT for head and neck cancer patients is advancing worl

120 The rate of IMRT use by self-referring urologists in private practic

121 The rate of IMRT use by urologists working at National Comprehensive

122 g non-self-referring urologists, the rate of IMRT use increased from 14.3 to 15.6%, an increase of 1.

123 se III trials will better define the role of IMRT in coming years.

124 f grade 2 xerostomia at 1 year from start of IMRT was 13.5%.

125 toxicity nor increase of known toxicities of IMRT plus cisplatin.

126 bjective was to test the transportability of IMRT to a multi-institutional setting.

127 th nonmetastatic prostate cancer, the use of IMRT compared with conformal radiation therapy was assoc

128 ial RTOG 0617, which supports routine use of IMRT for locally advanced NSCLC.

129 The use of IMRT has raised multiple issues related to target defini

130 I compared the use of IMRT in the periods before and during ownership and used

131 The use of IMRT involves a learning curve for the practitioner and

132 ship of IMRT services increased their use of IMRT substantially more than urologists who did not own

133 etween ownership of IMRT services and use of IMRT to treat prostate cancer.

134 Use of IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy increased from 0.15%

135 c lymph nodes (PPLN-IMRT) with prostate-only IMRT (PO-IMRT).

136 score of 8-10, hormone therapy plus 3DCRT or IMRT is an excellent treatment choice.

137 ed curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT at a single-institution tertiary academic cancer ce

138 ed curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT at a tertiary academic cancer center from January 1

139 IMPT or IMRT with or without chemotherapy.

140 and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive IMPT or IMRT.

141 iaries age >/= 66 years who received SBRT or IMRT as primary treatment for prostate cancer from 2008

142 was commonly administered as either SBRT or IMRT.

143 mean CI was observed in VMAT than in TOMO or IMRT (P = 0.013, 0.001).

144 Mean HI was also better using VAMT or IMRT than TOMO (P = 0.002, 0.003).

145 Original IMRT plans showed more conformal dose distributions than

146 Despite limited data on clinical outcomes, IMRT has been widely adopted as a standard technique in

147 herapy (IMPT) has a potential advantage over IMRT due to reduced dose to the surrounding organs at ri

148 A newer concept of dose-painting IMRT is aimed at exploiting inhomogeneous dose distribut

149 986 (in 2008 dollars); of brachytherapy plus IMRT versus brachytherapy plus 3D-CRT was $10,789; of MI

150 for IMRT, $59 million for brachytherapy plus IMRT, and $4 million for MIRP, compared to less costly a

151 incidence in the PPLN-IMRT (n = 780) and PO-IMRT (n = 3,065) groups was 14% for both groups for GI t

152 Patients receiving PPLN-IMRT and PO-IMRT had similar levels of severe GI (adjusted sHR, 1.00

153 odes (PPLN-IMRT) with prostate-only IMRT (PO-IMRT).

154 y (GU) complications for PPLN-IMRT versus PO-IMRT.

155 iven to 7 patients (50 Gy) and postoperative IMRT (median dose, 63 Gy) was given to 34 patients.

156 rial Hospital with curative or postoperative IMRT for HNC were enrolled in this prospective cohort st

157 nd genitourinary (GU) complications for PPLN-IMRT versus PO-IMRT.

158 he prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes (PPLN-IMRT) with prostate-only IMRT (PO-IMRT).

159 Patients receiving PPLN-IMRT and PO-IMRT had similar levels of severe GI (adjust

160 Three-year cumulative incidence in the PPLN-IMRT (n = 780) and PO-IMRT (n = 3,065) groups was 14% fo

161 Preoperative IMRT was given to 7 patients (50 Gy) and postoperative I

162 Prescribed IMRT (target delineation) was given to 83.8%, whereas 64

163 ]), followed by brachytherapy (10.57 QALYs), IMRT (10.51 QALYs), and radical prostatectomy (10.23 QAL

164 ensity-modulated external-beam radiotherapy (IMRT), better implant techniques, and optimum use of hor

165 ity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy (IMRT, and IGRT, respectively) for functional preservatio

166 iotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands.

167 y (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can spare nearby tissue but may result in increase

168 ith simple intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) decreases late breast tissue toxicity.

169 ixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for NSCLC delivering conventionally fractionated r

170 he role of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the standard management of patients with head a

171 Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a method that allows highly conformal delivery

172 ive intent intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with or without chemotherapy.

173 duced-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with or without cisplatin.

174 itaxel and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with the addition of pazopanib or placebo with the

175 delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

176 rted to SEER, and who received radiotherapy (IMRT and/or 3DCRT without proton therapy) within the fir

177 ogies (ie, intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] and robotic prostatectomy) for prostate cancer is

178 rapy type (intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] or volumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT] vs non-

179 of 53) for sd-IMRT and 92% (89 of 97) for rd-IMRT.

180 n sd-IMRT and 39 (37%) of 105 patients in rd-IMRT.

181 n sd-IMRT and 37 (35%) of 105 patients in rd-IMRT.

182 MRT (sd-IMRT: 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) or rd-IMRT with concurrent mitomycin and capecitabine chemothe

183 ed-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (rd-IMRT: 41.4 Gy in 23 fractions) in patients with early-st

184 Early results suggest rd-IMRT is well tolerated with oncological outcomes maintai

185 s; 194 [40.2%] female), 228 (47.2%) received IMRT, and 255 (52.8%) received 3D-CRT (median [IQR] foll

186 cavity or oropharyngeal primaries, received IMRT dose >=60 Gy, current/ex-smokers, and/or stage III

187 At 12 months, fewer patients who received IMRT (vs 3D-CRT) had clinically meaningful decline in FA

188 sted analyses (N = 12,976), men who received IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy were less likely to

189 d 219 to the IMRT group (136 [62%] receiving IMRT).

190 iated with TD in patients with HNC receiving IMRT.

191 Four patients receiving IMRT (2%) vs 0 receiving IMPT had a percutaneous endosco

192 Patients receiving IMRT and 3D-CRT had similar rates of developing secondar

193 finitive or adjuvant intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) for primary HNC from February 9, 2015, to May 27,

194 During intensity modulated RT (IMRT) of PCa, daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)

195 Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) was delivered in all patients.

196 cially in the era of intensity-modulated RT (IMRT).

197 ive or postoperative intensity-modulated RT (IMRT; 60 to 72 Gy [>= 50 Gy to two or more oral sites])

198 ormal RT [3D-CRT] vs intensity-modulated RT [IMRT]).

199 For RT, IMRT utilization increased substantially (28.7% v 81.7%;

200 For 3-angles, SA-IMRT yielded significantly improved dose conformity (med

201 r-based platform was employed to generate SA-IMRT and CRT plans with 2-15 beam angles for seventeen m

202 0% difference = 13.0 Gy [ideal], 13.1 Gy [SA-IMRT], 7.3 Gy [CRT]).

203 ts were included in the primary analysis (sd-IMRT n=55; dr-IMRT n=105).

204 onses at 6 months were 87% (46 of 53) for sd-IMRT and 92% (89 of 97) for rd-IMRT.

205 boost (SIB-IMRT) vs. standard-dose IMRT (SD-IMRT).

206 randomising site) to standard-dose IMRT (sd-IMRT: 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) or rd-IMRT with concurren

207 as reported in 25 (46%) of 55 patients in sd-IMRT and 37 (35%) of 105 patients in rd-IMRT.

208 ns occurred in 27 (49%) of 55 patients in sd-IMRT and 39 (37%) of 105 patients in rd-IMRT.

209 for EC patients administered SIB-IMRT vs. SD-IMRT treatment.

210 rmed by using tomotherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT, 3D CRT, and 2D techniques.

211 with tomotherapy, 97.1% with step-and-shoot IMRT, 84.7% with 3D CRT, and 69.4% with 2D techniques.

212 prediction for EC patients administered SIB-IMRT vs. SD-IMRT treatment.

213 rapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) vs. standard-dose IMRT (SD-IMRT).

214 4.6 Gy and 2.0 Gy, respectively, in the SIB-IMRT plans.

215 th standard RT, fewer patients in the simple IMRT group developed suboptimal overall cosmesis (odds r

216 Improved dose homogeneity with simple IMRT translates into superior overall cosmesis and reduc

217 d radiotherapy (RT) or replanned with simple IMRT; 330 patients with satisfactory dose homogeneity we

218 is adjusting for patient age and tumor size, IMRT retained significance as an independent predictor o

219 assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia.

220 radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT.

221 tumour stage) to receive DO-IMRT or standard IMRT.

222 ars; 57 [86.4%] male) and 65 in the standard IMRT arm (mean [SD] age at inclusion, 60 [8] years; 57 [

223 s at 12 months than patients in the standard IMRT group (mean score 77.7 [SD 16.1] vs 70.6 [17.3]; me

224 the DO-IMRT group and seven in the standard IMRT group] and nine serious adverse reactions [two vs s

225 d swallowing function compared with standard IMRT.

226 or men receiving brachytherapy, supplemental IMRT increased significantly (8.5% v 31.1%; P < .001).

227 er a greater biologic dose of radiation than IMRT, toxicity could be increased.

228 The IMRT group had larger planning treatment volumes (median

229 6.5) at 5 years; corresponding rates for the IMRT group were 83.0% (76.7-87.7) and 76.2% (68.0-82.6;

230 e conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months.

231 es of grade 3 acute AEs were reported in the IMRT + C arm.

232 was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23-61] of 44 patients given

233 initive patients, 47 of 1210 patients in the IMRT group (3-year rate, 2.38%; 95% CI, 1.61-3.51%) deve

234 T group compared with 8 cases (16.3%) in the IMRT group (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.01-1.21; P = .15).

235 ogression occurred in 27 patients; 18 in the IMRT group and nine in the IMPT group.

236 at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (

237 es (especially close/positive margin) in the IMRT group, IMRT was associated with significantly reduc

238 ith 160 [72%] receiving IMPT) and 219 to the IMRT group (136 [62%] receiving IMRT).

239 ntent intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (>=45 Gy) from 2011 to 2017 were included.

240 eived intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) 54 Gy with weekly cetuximab; those with less than

241 T) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) after all intended chemotherapy and approximately

242 Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and image-guided radiation therapy represent new p

243 Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and laparoscopic or robotic minimally invasive rad

244 ch as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton therapy despite greater cost and limite

245 itive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer.

246 le of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for PORT remains unclear.

247 se of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer patients, where the average Di

248 on of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the early 1990s created the possibility of gene

249 se of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of t

250 hough intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is increasingly used to treat locally advanced non

251 about intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is that its tight dose distribution, an advantage

252 Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reirradiation of nonmetastatic recurrent or second

253 Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represents a potentially significant new advance i

254 ty of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes (PPLN-I

255 field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) was then used to demonstrate dose targeting to the

256 rated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), a radiation treatment with a high reimbursement r

257 rapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or radical prostatectomy or followed up by active

258 y and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

259 with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

260 than intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

261 ) were administered once per week throughout IMRT.

262 re significantly reduced by TOMO compared to IMRT (P = 0.019, 0.029).

263 IMPT showed non-inferiority to IMRT for progression-free survival, improvement in overa

264 and reduced high-grade toxicity relative to IMRT.

265 It was feasible to transport IMRT with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of NP

266 Each SBRT patient was matched to two IMRT patients with similar follow-up (6, 12, or 24 month

267 ) underwent 3DCRT and 2367 (52.8%) underwent IMRT.

268 It is possible to use IMRT to target dose to metabolically active sites based

269 east cancer treated with external APBI using IMRT technique in 5 once-daily fractions is low and not

270 Radiotherapy planning using IMRT demonstrated the capability of this technique to ta

271 5-year disease control rates for IMPT versus IMRT were similar between treatment groups (local recurr

272 ients receiving chemoradiotherapy (3D-CRT vs IMRT) for locally advanced NSCLC based on stratification

273 IMPT vs IMRT with or without chemotherapy.

274 oxic effects and treatment modality (IMPT vs IMRT), and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare L

275 vely with better results for VMAT (0.4%) vs. IMRT (1.6%) plans.

276 This suggests that the precision with which IMRT dose is distributed has a beneficiary effect in spa

277 s, 53% were treated with 3D-CRT and 47% with IMRT.

278 Disadvantages associated with IMRT include increased risk of a marginal miss, decrease

279 ression identified variables associated with IMRT.

280 and 51 patients continued to cetuximab with IMRT 54 Gy.

281 Chemoradiotherapy with IMRT aiming to reduce dysphagia can be performed safely

282 erostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% C

283 ly higher after proton therapy compared with IMRT (6.36% vs 2.69% at 3 years; hazard ratio [HR], 2.62

284 ng grade 2 or higher acute AEs compared with IMRT (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.60; P = .01)

285 Gy escalation of prostate dose compared with IMRT photons, proton beam therapy is not cost effective

286 y for patients undergoing SBRT compared with IMRT, and prospective correlation with randomized trials

287 ated with a higher rate of ORN compared with IMRT, particularly in the definitive setting, although h

288 reduced acute toxicity burden compared with IMRT, with few chronic toxic effects and favorable oncol

289 ced acute toxicity burden in comparison with IMRT, with rare late complications and excellent oncolog

290 ] and paclitaxel 30 mg/m(2)) concurrent with IMRT aiming to spare noninvolved parts of the swallowing

291 onal laryngeal preservation is feasible with IMRT and IGRT for locally advanced laryngeal cancer.

292 Sparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia a

293 Gy with 2D plans to approximately 28 Gy with IMRT.

294 re seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were cl

295 ith IMPT (98%) and 215 of those treated with IMRT (92%) had HPV-p16-positive disease.

296 ocally advanced prostate cancer treated with IMRT in the English National Health Service between 2010

297 Patients treated with IMRT were older (P = .08), had more high-grade lesions (

298 001 to 2012, 2207 patients were treated with IMRT with a median dose of 78 Gy, and a median follow-up

299 d with IMPT, and 234 (80%) were treated with IMRT.

300 EBRT and 42 months for patients treated with IMRT.