Point/Counterpoint. A 3D-conformal technique is better than IMRT or VMAT for lung SBRT.
Publication
, Journal Article
Cai, J; Malhotra, HK; Orton, CG
Published in: Med Phys
April 2014
Duke Scholars
Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats
Published In
Med Phys
DOI
EISSN
2473-4209
Publication Date
April 2014
Volume
41
Issue
4
Start / End Page
040601
Location
United States
Related Subject Headings
- Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
- Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
- Radiotherapy Dosage
- Radiosurgery
- Quality Control
- Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
- Lung Neoplasms
- Humans
- 5105 Medical and biological physics
- 4003 Biomedical engineering
Citation
APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Cai, J., Malhotra, H. K., & Orton, C. G. (2014). Point/Counterpoint. A 3D-conformal technique is better than IMRT or VMAT for lung SBRT. Med Phys, 41(4), 040601. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4856175
Cai, Jing, Harish K. Malhotra, and Colin G. Orton. “Point/Counterpoint. A 3D-conformal technique is better than IMRT or VMAT for lung SBRT.” Med Phys 41, no. 4 (April 2014): 040601. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4856175.
Cai J, Malhotra HK, Orton CG. Point/Counterpoint. A 3D-conformal technique is better than IMRT or VMAT for lung SBRT. Med Phys. 2014 Apr;41(4):040601.
Cai, Jing, et al. “Point/Counterpoint. A 3D-conformal technique is better than IMRT or VMAT for lung SBRT.” Med Phys, vol. 41, no. 4, Apr. 2014, p. 040601. Pubmed, doi:10.1118/1.4856175.
Cai J, Malhotra HK, Orton CG. Point/Counterpoint. A 3D-conformal technique is better than IMRT or VMAT for lung SBRT. Med Phys. 2014 Apr;41(4):040601.
Published In
Med Phys
DOI
EISSN
2473-4209
Publication Date
April 2014
Volume
41
Issue
4
Start / End Page
040601
Location
United States
Related Subject Headings
- Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
- Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
- Radiotherapy Dosage
- Radiosurgery
- Quality Control
- Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
- Lung Neoplasms
- Humans
- 5105 Medical and biological physics
- 4003 Biomedical engineering