AIM: Investigation of options of virtual simulation in patients with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients suffering from prostate cancer were virtual simulated. The clinical target volume was contoured and the planning target volume was defined after CT scan. The isocenter of the planning target volume was determined and marked at patient's skin. The precision of patients marking was controlled with conventional simulation after physical radiation treatment planning. RESULTS: Mean differences of the patient's mark revealed between the 2 simulations in all room axes around 1 mm. The organs at risk were visualized in the digital reconstructed radiographs. CONCLUSIONS: The precise patient's mark of the isocentre by virtual simulation allows to skip the conventional simulation. The visualisation of organs at risk leeds to an unnecessarily of an application of contrast medium and to a further relieve of the patient. The personal requirement is not higher in virtual simulation than in conventional CT based radiation treatment planning.
AIM: Investigation of options of virtual simulation in patients with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients suffering from prostate cancer were virtual simulated. The clinical target volume was contoured and the planning target volume was defined after CT scan. The isocenter of the planning target volume was determined and marked at patient's skin. The precision of patients marking was controlled with conventional simulation after physical radiation treatment planning. RESULTS: Mean differences of the patient's mark revealed between the 2 simulations in all room axes around 1 mm. The organs at risk were visualized in the digital reconstructed radiographs. CONCLUSIONS: The precise patient's mark of the isocentre by virtual simulation allows to skip the conventional simulation. The visualisation of organs at risk leeds to an unnecessarily of an application of contrast medium and to a further relieve of the patient. The personal requirement is not higher in virtual simulation than in conventional CT based radiation treatment planning.
Authors: G W Sherouse; J D Bourland; K Reynolds; H L McMurry; T P Mitchell; E L Chaney Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1990-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: T Nishidai; Y Nagata; M Takahashi; M Abe; N Yamaoka; H Ishihara; Y Kubo; H Ohta; C Kazusa Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1990-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C A Perez; J A Purdy; W Harms; R Gerber; J Matthews; P W Grigsby; M L Graham; B Emami; H K Lee; J M Michalski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1994-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M Pernot; L Malissard; S Hoffstetter; E Luporsi; P Aletti; D Peiffert; C Allavena; P Kozminski; P Bey Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1994-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J Stromberg; A Martinez; R Benson; G Garton; A Diokno; J Gonzalez; H Zincke; M Schray; G Edmundson; D Brabbins Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1994-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038