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 took the older approach of using fields that confor

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

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

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

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

12 eated with limb-sparing surgery and adjuvant IMRT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 morbidities or additional therapies between IMRT and proton therapy.

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

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

28 wo-dimensional RT to implement simple breast IMRT.

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

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

31 Conclusion IMRT was associated with lower rates of severe pneumonit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

50 Modified IMRT plans also demonstrated better CTV coverage than th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

81 Original IMRT plans showed more conformal dose distributions than

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

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

84 986 (in 2008 dollars); of brachytherapy plus IMRT versus brachytherapy plus 3D-CRT was $10,789; of MI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

97 delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

109 4.6 Gy and 2.0 Gy, respectively, in the SIB-IMRT plans.

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

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

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

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

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

115 radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT.

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

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

118 The IMRT group had larger planning treatment volumes (median

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

137 with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

138 than intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

159 001 to 2012, 2207 patients were treated with IMRT with a median dose of 78 Gy, and a median follow-up

160 EBRT and 42 months for patients treated with IMRT.