BACKGROUND: In clinical practice it sometimes happens that with currently available conformal radiotherapy techniques no satisfactory dose distribution can be achieved. In these cases inverse radiotherapy planning and intensity modulated radiotherapy may give better solutions. METHOD: Inverse planning is a technique using a computer program to automatically achieve a treatment plan which has an optimal merit. This merit may either depend on dose or dose-volume constraints like minimum and maximum doses in the target region or critical organs, respectively, or biological indices like the complication free tumor control rate. As the result of inverse planning the inhomogeneous intensity fluence of the beams is calculated. These fluence distributions may be generated by beam compensators or multi-leaf collimation. RESULTS: Clinical studies to prove the advantage of inverse planning are already on the way. It has been shown that this technology is safe and that the dose distributions which can be achieved are superior to conventional methods. CONCLUSIONS: Inverse treatment planning and intensity modulated radiation therapy will almost certainly come to be the technique of choice for selected clinical cases.
BACKGROUND: In clinical practice it sometimes happens that with currently available conformal radiotherapy techniques no satisfactory dose distribution can be achieved. In these cases inverse radiotherapy planning and intensity modulated radiotherapy may give better solutions. METHOD: Inverse planning is a technique using a computer program to automatically achieve a treatment plan which has an optimal merit. This merit may either depend on dose or dose-volume constraints like minimum and maximum doses in the target region or critical organs, respectively, or biological indices like the complication free tumor control rate. As the result of inverse planning the inhomogeneous intensity fluence of the beams is calculated. These fluence distributions may be generated by beam compensators or multi-leaf collimation. RESULTS: Clinical studies to prove the advantage of inverse planning are already on the way. It has been shown that this technology is safe and that the dose distributions which can be achieved are superior to conventional methods. CONCLUSIONS: Inverse treatment planning and intensity modulated radiation therapy will almost certainly come to be the technique of choice for selected clinical cases.
Authors: M Carol; W H Grant; A R Bleier; A A Kania; H S Targovnik; E B Butler; S W Woo Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: T R Mackie; T Holmes; S Swerdloff; P Reckwerdt; J O Deasy; J Yang; B Paliwal; T Kinsella Journal: Med Phys Date: 1993 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: G E Hanks; W R Lee; A L Hanlon; M Hunt; E Kaplan; B E Epstein; B Movsas; T E Schultheiss Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: F Lohr; M Fuss; U Tiefenbacher; M Siegsmund; S Mai; J M Kunnappallil; B Dobler; P Alken; F Wenz Journal: Urologe A Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Felix Zwicker; Benedict Swartman; Peter E Huber; Klaus Herfarth; Jürgen Debus; Henrik Hauswald Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Felix Zwicker; Falk Roeder; Christian Thieke; Carmen Timke; Marc W Münter; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Falk Roeder; Carmen Timke; Felix Zwicker; Christian Thieke; Marc Bischof; Jürgen Debus; Peter E Huber Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2010-02-26 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Falk Roeder; Felix Zwicker; Ladan Saleh-Ebrahimi; Carmen Timke; Christian Thieke; Marc Bischof; Juergen Debus; Peter E Huber Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Stephanie E Combs; Stephan Konkel; Daniela Schulz-Ertner; Marc W Münter; Jürgen Debus; Peter E Huber; Christoph Thilmann Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2006-07-21 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Felix Zwicker; Benedict Swartman; Falk Roeder; Florian Sterzing; Henrik Hauswald; Christian Thieke; Klaus-Josef Weber; Peter E Huber; Kai Schubert; Jürgen Debus; Klaus Herfarth Journal: J Radiat Res Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 2.724
Authors: Ladan Saleh-Ebrahimi; Felix Zwicker; Marc W Muenter; Marc Bischof; Katja Lindel; Juergen Debus; Peter E Huber; Falk Roeder Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: M Hoffmann; L Saleh-Ebrahimi; F Zwicker; P Haering; A Schwahofer; J Debus; P E Huber; F Roeder Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-12-04 Impact factor: 3.481