Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advances in Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Delivery

  • Chapter
Radiation Oncology Advances

Part of the book series: Cancer Treatment and Research ((CTAR,volume 139))

  • 1161 Accesses

Fixed-field radiation treatments delivered using conventional clinical linear accelerators (linacs) fitted with multileaf collimators have rapidly become the most common form of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Several alternative innovative IMRT planning and delivery systems are also now commercially available, and three are reviewed here – tomotherapy, highly manoeuvrable robotic linear accelerators, and conventional linear accelerators modulated by their jaws alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brahme A, Roos JE, Lax I: Solution of an integral equation in rotation therapy. Phys Med Biol 27:1221–1229, 1982.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cormack A: A problem in rotation therapy with X-rays. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13:623–630, 1987.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cormack AM, Cormack RA: A problem in rotation therapy with X-rays: Dose distributions with an axis of symmetry. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13:1921–1925, 1987.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bortfeld T, Bürkelbach J, Boesecke R, et al: Methods of image reconstruction from projections applied to conformation radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 35:1423–1434, 1990.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bortfeld T: Optimized planning using physical objectives and constraints. Semin Radiat Oncol 9:20–34, 1999.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Birkhoff GD: On drawings composed of uniform straight lines. J Math Pures Appl. 19:221–236, 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brahme A: Optimization of stationary and moving beam radiation therapy techniques. Radiother Oncol 12:129–140, 1988.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Webb S: Optimization of conformal radiotherapy dose distributions by simulated annealing. Phys Med Biol 34:1349–1370, 1989.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Webb S: Optimization by simulated annealing of three-dimensional conformal treatment planning for radiation fields defined by multi-leaf collimator II. Inclusion of two-dimensional modulation of X-ray intensity. Phys Med Biol 37:1689–1704, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bortfeld T, Bürkelbach J, Schlegel W: Three-dimensional solution of the inverse problem in conformation radiotherapy, in Breit A: Advanced Radiation Therapy: Tumour Response Modelling and Treatment Planning. Berlin, Springer, 1992, pp 503–508.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wang X-H, Mohan R, Jackson A, et al: Optimization of intensity modulated 3D conformal treatment plans based on biological indices. Radiother Oncol 37:140–152, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ling CC, Burman C, Chui CS, et al: Conformal radiation treatment of prostate cancer using inversely-planned intensity-modulated photon beams produced with dynamic multileaf collimation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 35:721–730, 1996.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Staff: A Practical Guide to Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy. Madison WI, Medical Physics Publishing, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Convery DJ and Rosenbloom ME: The generation of intensity-modulated fields by dynamic collimation. Phys Med Biol 37:1359–1374, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Galvin JM, Smith AR and Lally B: Combining multileaf fields to modulate fluence distributions. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 25:181–192, 1993.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Webb S: The physics of conformal radiotherapy–advances in technology. Bristol, UK, IOP Publishing, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Webb S: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Bristol, UK, IOP Publishing, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kalender WA, Polacin A: Physical performance characteristics of spiral CT scanning. Med Phys 18:910–915, 1991.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mackie TR, Olivera GH, Kapatoes JM et al: Helical Tomotherapy, in Palta JR and Mackie TR: Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy–The State of the Art. Madison WI, Medical Phyics Publishing, 2003, pp 247–284.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Adler JR, Chang SD, Murphy MJ, et al: The Cyberknife: A Frameless Robotic System for Radiosurgery. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 69:124–128, 1997.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Adler JR, Murphy MJ, Chang SD, et al: Image-guided Robotic Radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 44:1299–1306, 1999.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chang SD, Adler Jr: Robotics and Radiosurgery–The Cyberknife. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 76:204–208, 2001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kuo JS, Yu C, Petrovich Z, et al: The CyberKnife Stereotactic Radiosurgery System: Description, Installation, and an Initial Evaluation of Use and Functionality. Neurosurgery 53:1235–1239, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shepard DM, Earl MA, Li XA, et al: Direct aperture optimization: A turnkey solution for step-and-shoot IMRT. Med Phys 29:1007–1018, 2002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Battista JJ, Bauman GS: The Future of IMRT, in Palta JR and Mackie TR: Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy–The State of the Art. Madison WI, Medical Phyics Publishing, 2003, pp 843–873.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Boyer AL: Static MLC IMRT (Step and Shoot), in Palta JR and Mackie TR: Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy–The State of the Art. Madison WI, Medical Physics Publishing, 2003, pp 285–317.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Webb S: Contemporary IMRT. Bristol, UK, IOP Publishing, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Keall P, Wu Q, Wu Y, et al: Dynamic MLC IMRT, in Palta JR and Mackie TR: Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy–The State of the Art. Madison WI, Medical Physics Publishing, 2003, pp 319–371.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Patel R, Orton NP, Tomé WA, et al: Rectal dose sparing with a balloon catheter and ultrasound localization in conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 67:285–294, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fenwick JD, Khoo VS, Nahum AE, et al: Correlations between dose-surface-histograms and the incidence of long-term rectal bleeding following conformal or conventional radiotherapy treatment of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49:473–480, 2001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jackson A, Skwarchuk MW, Zelefsky MJ, et al: Late rectal bleeding after conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer (II): Volume effects and dose–volume histograms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49:685–698, 2001.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Scrimger RA, Tomé WA, Olivera G, et al: Reduction in radiation dose to lung and other normal tissues using helical tomotherapy to treat lung cancer, in comparison to conventional field arrangements. Am J Clin Oncol 26:70–78, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dai J-R, Hu Y-M: Intensity-modulation radiotherapy using independent collimators: an algorithm study. Med Phys 26:2562–2570, 1999.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Earl M, Yu C, Jiang Z, et al: Clinical Feasibility of “jaws-only” IMRT using Direct Aperture Optimization. Med Phys 32:1973, 2005 (abstr).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Carol MP: Where we go from here: one person’s vision, in Sternick ES: The Theory and Practice of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy. Madison, WI, Advanced Medical Publishing, 1997, pp 243–252.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dawson D, Spies R and Carol MP: A volume delivery system for intensity modulation radiation therapy, in Leavitt DD and Starkshall G: Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on the Use of Computers in Radiation Therapy. Madison, WI, Medical Physics Publishing, 1997, p 481 (abstr).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Webb S: A new concept of multileaf collimator (the shuttling MLC)–an interpreter for high-efficiency IMRT. Phys Med Biol 45:3343–3358, 2000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Xu T, Shikhaliev PM, Al-Ghazi M, et al: Re-shapeable physical modulator for intensity modulated radiation therapy. Med Phys 30:2222–2228, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Curran B: IMRT delivery using serial tomotherapy, in Palta JR and Mackie TR: Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy–The State of the Art. Madison WI, Medical Physics Publishing, 2003, pp 285–317.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Low DA, Chao KSC, Mutic S, et al: Quality assurance of serial tomotherapy for head and neck patient treatments. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 42:681–692, 1998.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Low DA, Mutic S, Dempsey JF, et al: Quantitative dosimetric verification of an IMRT planning and delivery system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49:305–316, 1998.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Tsai JS, Rivard MJ and Engler MJ: Dependence of linac output on the switch rate of an intensity-modulated tomotherapy collimator. Med Phys 27:2215–2225, 2000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Woo SY, Grant III W, McGary JE, et al: The evolution of quality assurance for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): sequential tomotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:274–286, 2003.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Low DA, Mutic S, Dempsey JF, et al: Abutment region dosimetry for serial tomotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:193–203, 1999.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mackie TR, Holmes T, Swerdloff S, et al: Tomotherapy: A new concept for the delivery of dynamic conformal radiotherapy. Med Phys 20:1709–1719, 1993.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mackie TR, Balog J, Ruchala K, et al: Tomotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 9:108–117, 1999.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Balog JP, Mackie TR, Reckwerdt P, et al: Characterization of the output for helical delivery of intensity modulated slit beams. Med Phys 26:55–64, 1999.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Balog JP, Mackie TR, Wenman DL, et al: Multileaf collimator interleaf transmission. Med Phys 26:176–186, 1999.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Balog JP, Mackie TR, Pearson D, et al: Benchmarking beam alignment for a clinical helical tomotherapy device. Med Phys 30:1118–1127, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Balog J, Olivera G, Kapatoes J: Clinical helical tomotherapy commissioning dosimetry. Med Phys 30:3097–3106, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Fenwick JD, Tomé WA, Jaradat HA, et al: Quality assurance of a helical tomotherapy machine. Phys Med Biol 49:2933–2953, 2004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Fenwick JD, Tomé WA, Kissick MW, et al: Modelling simple helically delivered dose distributions. Phys Med Biol 50:1505–1517, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kissick MW, Fenwick J, James JA, et al: The helical tomotherapy thread effect. Med Phys 32:1414–1423, 2005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Stein J, Mohan R, Wang X-H, et al: Number and orientations of beams in intensity-modulated radiation treatments. Med Phys 24:149–160, 1997.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Webb S: Optimizing the planning of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 39:2229–2246, 1994.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rowbottom CG, Nutting CM, Webb S: Beam-orientation optimization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: clinical application to parotid gland tumours. Radiother Oncol 59:169–177, 2001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ferreira BC, Svensson R, Löff J, et al: The Clinical Values of Non-Coplanar Photon Beams in Biologically Optimized Intensity Modulated Dose Delivery on Deep-Seated Tumours. Acta Oncol 42:852–864, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Meedt G, Alber M, Nüsslin F: Non-coplanar beam direction optimization for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 48:2999–3019, 2003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Gaede S, Wong E, Rasmussen H: An algorithm for systematic selection of beam directions for IMRT. Med Phys 31:376–388, 2004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Rodriguez G, Yartslev S, Chen J, et al: A comparison of prostate IMRT and helical tomotherapy class solutions. Radiother Oncol 80:374–377, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wieland P, Dobler B, Mai S, et al: IMRT for postoperative treatment of gastric cancer covering large target volumes in the upper abdomen: a comparison of a step-and-shoot and an arc therapy approach. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59:1236–1244, 2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kron T, Grigorov G, Yu E, et al: Planning evaluation of radiotherapy for complex lung cancer cases using helical tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol 49:3675–3690, 2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Fiorino C, Dell’Oca I, Pierelli A, et al: Significant improvement in normal tissue sparing and target coverage for head and neck cancer by means of helical tomotherapy. Radiother. Oncol. 78:276–282, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  64. van Vulpen M, Field C, Raaijmakers CPJ, et al: Comparing step-and-shoot IMRT with dynamic helical tomotherapy plans for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:1535–1539, 2005.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Harari PM, Jaradat HA, Connor NP, et al: Refining target coverage and normal tissue avoidance with helical tomotherapy vs linac-based IMRT for oropharyngeal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60:S160, 2004 (suppl 1) (abstr).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sheng K, Molloy JA and Read PW: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dosimetry of the head and neck: a comparison of treatment plans using linear accelerator-based IMRT and helical tomotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol, Biol, Phys 65:917–923, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sheng K, Molloy JA, Larner JM, et al: A dosimetric comparison of non-coplanar IMRT versus Helical Tomotherapy for nasal cavity and paranasal sinus cancer. Radiother Oncol 82:174–178, 2007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Soisson ET, Tomé WA, Richards GM, et al: Comparison of linac based fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy and tomotherapy for treatment of skull-base tumors. Radiother Oncol 78:313–321, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Yartslev S, Cozzi L, Fogliata A, et al: Tomotherapy planning of small brain tumours. Radiother Oncol 74:49–52, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Khoo VS, Oldham M, Adams EJ, et al: Comparison of intensity-modulated tomotherapy with stereotactically guided conformal radiotherapy for brain tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:415–425, 1999.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Han C, Liu A, Schultheiss TE, et al: Dosimetric comparisons of helical tomotherapy treatment plans and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiosurgery treatment plans in intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol, Biol, Phys 65:608–616, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Yu CX: Intensity modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: an alternative to tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol 40:1435–1449, 1995.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Wong E, Chen JZ, Greenland J: Intensity-modulated arc therapy simplified. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53:225–235, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Yu CX, Li XA, Ma L, et al: Clinical implementation of intensity-modulated arc therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53:453–463, 2002.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Duthoy W, de Gersem W, Vergote K, et al: Clinical implementation of intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) for rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60:794–806, 2004.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Wong E, D’Souza DP, Chen JZ, et al: Intensity-modulated arc therapy for treatment of high-risk endometrial malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:830–841, 2005.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Earl MA, Shepard DM, Naqvi S, et al: Inverse planning for intensity-modulated arc therapy using direct aperture optimization. Phys Med Biol 48:1075–1089, 2003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Bratengeier K: 2-Step IMAT and 2-Step IMRT: A geometrical approach. Med Phys 32:777–785, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Chang SD, Main W, Martin DP, et al: An Analysis of the Accuracy of the CyberKnife: A Robotic Frameless Stereotactic Radiosurgical System. Neurosurgery 52:140–147, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Yu C, Main W, Taylor D, et al: An Anthropomorphic Phantom Study of the Accuracy of CyberKnife Spinal Radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 55:1138–1149, 2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Ryu SI, Chang SD, Kim DH, et al: Image-guided Hypo-fractionated Setereotactic Radiosurgery to Spinal Lesions. Neurosurgery 49:838–846.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Pham CJ, Chang SD, Gibbs IC, et al: Preliminary Visual Field Preservation after Staged CyberKnife Radiosurgery for Perioptic Lesions. Neurosurgery 54:799–812, 2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Gertzen PC, Ozhasoglu C, Burton SA, et al: CyberKnife Frameless Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Spinal Lesions: Clinical Experience in 125 Cases. Neurosurgery 55:89–99, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Kajiwara S, Saito K, Yoshikawa K, et al: Image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery with the Cyberknife for pituitary adenomas. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 48: 91–96, 2005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Chang SD, Gibbs IC, Sakamoto GT, et al: Staged stereotactic irradiation for acoustic neuroma. Neurosurgery 56: 1254–1261, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Gwak HS, Yoo HJ, Youn SM, et al: Hypofractionated stereotactic radiation for skull base and upper cervical chordoma and chondrosarcoma–preliminary results. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 83: 233–243, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Lim M, Cotrutz C, Romanelli P, et al: Stereotactic radiosurgery using CT cisternography and non-isocentric planning for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. Comput Aided Surg 11: 11–20, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Dodd RL, Ryu MR, Kamnerdsupaphon P, et al: Cyberknife radiosurgery for benign intradural extramedullary spinal tumors. Neurosurgery 58: 674–685, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Sinclair J, Chang SD, Gibbs IC, et al: Multisession Cyberknife radiosurgery for intramedullary spinal cord areteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery 58: 1081–1089, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Adler JR, Gibbs IC, Puataweepong P, et al: Visual field preservation after multisession cyberknife radiosurgery for perioptic lesions. Neurosurgery 59: 244–254, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Voynov G, Heron DE, Burton S, et al: Frameless stereotactic radiosurgery for recurrent head and neck carcinoma. Technol Cancer Res Treat 5: 529–535, 2006.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Nishizaki T, Saito K, Jimi Y, et al: The role of cyberknife radiosurgery/radiotherapy for brain metastases of multiple or large-size tumors. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 49: 203–209, 2006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Yu C, Jozsef G, Apuzzo MLJ, et al: Measurements of the Relative Output Factors for CyberKnife Collimators. Neurosurgery 54:157–162, 2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Hamamoto Y, Manabe T, Nishizaki O, et al: Influence of Collimator Size on Three-dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy of the CyberKnife. Radiat Med 22:442–448, 2004.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Tombropoulos RZ, Adler JR, Latombe J-C: CARABEAMER: a treatment planner for a robotic radiosurgical system with general kinematics. Med Image Analysis 3:237–264, 1999.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Webb S: Conformal intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivered by robotic linac–testing IMRT to the limit? Phys Med Biol 44:1639–1654, 1999.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Schweikard A, Adler JR: Robotic Radiosurgery With Non-cylindrical Collimators. Computer Aided Surgery 2:124–134, 1997.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Physics, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Bebington, Wirral, UK

    John D. Fenwick Ph.D, Stephen W. Riley MSc & Alison J. D. Scott MSc

Authors
  1. John D. Fenwick Ph.D
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen W. Riley MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alison J. D. Scott MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, K4/310, 53792, Madison, WI, USA

    Søren M. Bentzen Ph.D., D.Sc , Paul M. Harari M.D , Wolfgang A. Tomé M.D., Ph.D  & Minesh P. Mehta M.D , ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fenwick, J.D., Riley, S.W., Scott, A.J.D. (2008). Advances in Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Delivery. In: Bentzen, S.M., Harari, P.M., Tomé, W.A., Mehta, M.P. (eds) Radiation Oncology Advances. Cancer Treatment and Research, vol 139. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36744-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36744-6_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-36743-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-36744-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation