Patent Grant
10595774
This invention relates to radiation treatment. The invention relates particularly to methods and apparatus for planning and delivering radiation to a subject to provide a desired three-dimensional distribution of radiation dose.
The delivery of carefully-planned doses of radiation may be used to treat various medical conditions. For example, radiation treatments are used, often in conjunction with other treatments, in the treatment and control of certain cancers. While it can be beneficial to deliver appropriate amounts of radiation to certain structures or tissues, in general, radiation can harm living tissue. It is desirable to target radiation on a target volume containing the structures or tissues to be irradiated while minimizing the dose of radiation delivered to surrounding tissues. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is one method that has been used to deliver radiation to target volumes in living subjects.
IMRT typically involves delivering shaped radiation beams from a few different directions. The radiation beams are typically delivered in sequence. The radiation beams each contribute to the desired dose in the target volume.
A typical radiation delivery apparatus has a source of radiation, such as a linear accelerator, and a rotatable gantry. The gantry can be rotated to cause a radiation beam to be incident on a subject from various different angles. The shape of the incident radiation beam can be modified by a multi-leaf collimator (MLC). A MLC has a number of leaves which are mostly opaque to radiation. The MLC leaves define an aperture through which radiation can propagate. The positions of the leaves can be adjusted to change the shape of the aperture and to thereby shape the radiation beam that propagates through the MLC. The MLC may also be rotatable to different angles.
Objectives associated with radiation treatment for a subject typically specify a three-dimensional distribution of radiation dose that it is desired to deliver to a target region within the subject. The desired dose distribution typically specifies dose values for voxels located within the target. Ideally, no radiation would be delivered to tissues outside of the target region. In practice, however, objectives associated with radiation treatment may involve specifying a maximum acceptable dose that may be delivered to tissues outside of the target.
Treatment planning involves identifying an optimal (or at least acceptable) set of parameters for delivering radiation to a particular treatment volume. Treatment planning is not a trivial problem. The problem that treatment planning seeks to solve involves a wide range of variables including:
Various conventional methods of treatment planning are described in:
Acquiring sophisticated modem radiation treatment apparatus, such as a linear accelerator, can involve significant capital cost. Therefore it is desirable to make efficient use of such apparatus. All other factors being equal, a radiation treatment plan that permits a desired distribution of radiation dose to be delivered in a shorter time is preferable to a radiation treatment plan that requires a longer time to deliver. A treatment plan that can be delivered in a shorter time permits more efficient use of the radiation treatment apparatus. A shorter treatment plan also reduces the risk that a subject will move during delivery of the radiation in a manner that may significantly impact the accuracy of the delivered dose.
Despite the advances that have been made in the field of radiation therapy, there remains a need for radiation treatment methods and apparatus and radiation treatment planning methods and apparatus that provide improved control over the delivery of radiation, especially to complicated target volumes. There also remains a need for such methods and apparatus that can deliver desired dose distributions relatively quickly.
One aspect of the invention provides a method for planning delivery of radiation dose to a target area within a subject. The method comprises: defining a set of one or more optimization goals, the set of one or more optimization goals comprising a desired dose distribution in the subject; specifying an initial plurality of control points along an initial trajectory, the initial trajectory involving relative movement between a radiation source and the subject in a source trajectory direction; and iteratively Optimizing a simulated dose distribution relative to the set of one or more optimization goals to determine one or more radiation delivery parameters associated with each of the initial plurality of control points. For each of the initial plurality of control points, the one or more radiation delivery parameters may comprise positions of a plurality of leaves of a multi-leaf collimator (MLC). The MLC leaves may be moveable in a leaf-translation direction. During relative movement between the radiation source and the subject along the initial trajectory, the leaf-translation direction is oriented at a MLC orientation angle φ with respect to the source trajectory direction and wherein an absolute value of the MLC orientation angle φ satisfies 0°<|φ|<90°.
Another aspect of the invention provides a method for delivering radiation dose to a target area within a subject. The method comprises: defining a trajectory for relative movement between a treatment radiation source and the subject in a source trajectory direction; determining a radiation delivery plan; and while effecting relative movement between the treatment radiation source and the subject along the trajectory, delivering a treatment radiation beam from the treatment radiation source to the subject according to the radiation delivery plan to impart a dose distribution on the subject. Delivering the treatment radiation beam from the treatment radiation source to the subject comprises varying at least one of: an intensity of the treatment radiation beam; and a shape of the treatment radiation beam over at least a portion of the trajectory.
Varying at least one of the intensity of the treatment radiation beam and the shape of the treatment radiation beam over at least the portion of the trajectory, may comprise varying positions of a plurality of leaves of a multi-leaf collimator (MLC) in a leaf-translation direction. During relative movement between the treatment radiation source and the subject along the trajectory, the leaf-translation direction may be oriented at a MLC orientation angle φ with respect to the source trajectory direction wherein an absolute value of the MLC orientation angle φ satisfies 0°<|φ|<90°.
Varying at least one of the intensity of the treatment radiation beam and the shape of the treatment radiation beam over at least the portion of the trajectory may comprise varying a rate of radiation output of the radiation source while effecting continuous relative movement between the treatment radiation source and the subject along the trajectory.
Other aspects of the invention provide program products comprising computer readable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute, at least in part, any of the methods described herein. Other aspects of the invention provide systems comprising, inter cilia, controllers configured to execute, at least in part, any of the methods described herein.
Further aspects of the invention and features of embodiments of the invention are set out below and illustrated in the accompanying drawings.
The appended drawings illustrate non-limiting example embodiments of the invention.
Throughout the following description specific details are set forth in order to provide a more thorough understanding to persons skilled in the art. However, well known elements may not have been shown or described in detail to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the disclosure. Accordingly, the description and drawings are to be regarded in an illustrative, rather than a restrictive, sense.
This invention relates to the planning and delivery of radiation treatments by modalities which involve moving a radiation source along a trajectory relative to a subject while delivering radiation to the subject. In some embodiments the radiation source is moved continuously along the trajectory while in some embodiments the radiation source is moved intermittently. Some embodiments involve the optimization of the radiation delivery plan to meet various optimization goals while meeting a number of constraints. For each of a number of control points along a trajectory, a radiation delivery plan may comprise: a set of motion axes parameters, a set of beam shape parameters and a beam intensity.
In the illustrated radiation delivery apparatus 10, beam positioning mechanism 13 comprises a gantry 16 which supports radiation source 12 and which can be rotated about an axis 18. Axis 18 and beam 14 intersect at an isocenter 20. Beam positioning mechanism 13 also comprises a moveable couch 15. In exemplary radiation delivery apparatus 10, couch 15 can be translated in any of three orthogonal directions (shown in
Each separately-controllable means for moving source 12 and/or orienting beam 14 relative to subject S may be termed a “motion axis”. In some cases, moving source 12 or beam 14 along a particular trajectory may require motions of two or more motion axes. In exemplary radiation delivery apparatus 10, motion axes include:
Radiation delivery apparatus 10 typically comprises a control system 23 capable of controlling, among other things, the movement of its motion axes and the intensity of radiation source 12. Control system 23 may generally comprise hardware components and/or software components. In the illustrated embodiment, control system 23 comprises a controller 24 capable of executing software instructions. Control system 23 is preferably capable of receiving (as input) a set of desired positions for its motion axes and, responsive to such input, controllably moving one or more of its motion axes to achieve the set of desired motion axes positions. At the same time, control system 23 may also control the intensity of radiation source 12 in response to input of a set of desired radiation intensities.
While radiation delivery apparatus 10 represents a particular type of radiation delivery apparatus in conjunction with which the invention may be implemented, it should be understood that the invention may be implemented on different radiation delivery apparatus which may comprise different motion axes. In general, the invention may be implemented in conjunction with any set of motion axes that can create relative movement between a radiation source 12 and a subject S, from a starting point along a trajectory to an ending point.
Another example of a radiation delivery apparatus 10A that provides an alternative set of motion axes is shown in
In accordance with particular embodiments of the invention, beam positioning mechanism 13 causes source 12 and/or beam 14 to move along a trajectory while radiation dose is controllably delivered to target regions within subject S. A “trajectory” is a set of one or more movements of one or more of the movable parts of beam position mechanism 13 that results in the beam position and orientation changing from a first position and orientation to a second position and orientation. The first and second positions and the first and second orientations are not necessarily different. For example, a trajectory may be specified to be a rotation of gantry 16 from a starting point through an angle of 360° about axis 18 to an ending point in which case the beam position and orientation at the starting and ending points are the same.
The first and second beam positions and beam orientations may be specified by a first set of motion axis positions (corresponding to the first beam position and the first beam orientation) and a second set of motion axis positions (corresponding to the second beam position and the second beam orientation). As discussed above, control system 23 of radiation delivery apparatus 10 can controllably move its motion axes between the first set of motion axis positions and the second set of motion axis positions. In general, a trajectory may be described by more than two beam positions and beam orientations. For example, a trajectory may be specified by a plurality of sets of motion axis positions, each set of motion axis positions corresponding to a particular beam position and a particular beam orientation. Control system 23 can then controllably move its motion axes between each set of motion axis positions.
In general, a trajectory may be arbitrary and is only limited by the particular radiation delivery apparatus and its particular beam positioning mechanism. Within constraints imposed by the design of a particular radiation delivery apparatus 10 and its beam positioning mechanism 13, source 12 and/or beam 14 may be caused to follow an arbitrary trajectory relative to subject S by causing appropriate combinations of movements of the available motion axes. A trajectory may be specified to achieve a variety of treatment objectives. For example, a trajectory may be selected to have a high ratio of target tissue within the beards eye view compared to healthy tissue within the beam's eye view or to avoid important healthy organs or the like.
For the purpose of implementing the present invention, it is useful to discretize a desired trajectory into a number of “control points” at various locations along the trajectory. A set of motion axis positions can be associated with each such control point. A desired trajectory may define a set of available control points. One way to specify a trajectory of radiation source 12 and/or beam 14 is to specify at a set of discrete control points at which the position of each motion axis is defined.
In general, control points 32 may be specified anywhere along trajectory 30, although it is preferable that there is a control point at the start of trajectory 30, a control point at the end of trajectory 30 and that the control points 32 are otherwise spaced-apart along trajectory 30. In some embodiments of the invention, control points 32 are selected such that the magnitudes of the changes in the position of a motion axis over a trajectory 30 are equal as between control points 32. For example, where a trajectory 30 is defined as a 360° arc of gantry 16 about axis 18 and where the number of control points 32 along trajectory 30 is 21, then control points 32 may be selected to correspond to 0° (a starting control point), 360° (an ending control point) and 19 other control points at 18° intervals along the arc of gantry 16.
Although trajectory 30 may be defined arbitrarily, it is preferable that source 12 and/or beam 14 not have to move back and forth along the same path. Accordingly, in some embodiments, trajectory 30 is specified such that it does not overlap itself (except possibly at the beginning and end of trajectory 30). In such embodiments, the positions of the motion axes of the radiation delivery apparatus are not the same except possibly at the beginning and end of trajectory 30. In such embodiments, treatment time can be minimized (or at least reduced) by irradiating subject S only once from each set of motion axis positions.
In some embodiments, trajectory 30 is selected such that the motion axes of the radiation delivery device move in one direction without having to reverse directions (i.e. without source 12 and/or beam 14 having to be moved back and forth along the same path). Selection of a trajectory 30 involving movement of the motion axes in a single direction can minimize wear on the components of a radiation delivery apparatus. For example, in apparatus 10, it is preferable to move gantry 16 in one direction, because gantry 16 may be relatively massive (e.g. greater than 1 ton) and reversing the motion of gantry 16 at various locations over a trajectory may cause strain on the components of radiation delivery apparatus 16 (e.g. on the drive train associated with the motion of gantry 16).
In some embodiments, trajectory 30 is selected such that the motion axes of the radiation delivery apparatus move substantially continuously (i.e. without stopping). Substantially continuous movement of the motion axes over a trajectory 30 is typically preferable to discontinuous movement, because stopping and starting motion axes can cause wear on the components of a radiation delivery apparatus. In other embodiments, the motion axes of a radiation delivery apparatus are permitted to stop at one or more locations along trajectory 30. Multiple control points 32 may be provided at such locations to allow the beam shape and/or beam intensity to be varied while the position and orientation of the beam is maintained constant.
In some embodiments, trajectory 30 comprises a single, one-way, continuous 360° rotation of gantry 16 about axis 18 such that trajectory 30 only possibly overlaps itself at its beginning and end points. In some embodiments, this single, one-way, continuous 360° rotation of gantry 16 about axis 18 is coupled with corresponding one-way, continuous translational or rotational movement of couch 15, such that trajectory 30 is completely non-overlapping.
Some embodiments involve trajectories 30 which are effected by any combination of motion axes of radiation delivery apparatus 10 such that relative movement between source 12 and/or beam 13 and subject S comprises a discrete plurality of arcs, wherein each arc is confined to a corresponding plane (e.g. a rotation of up to 360° of gantry 16 about axis 18). In some embodiments, each arc may be non-self overlapping. In some embodiments, each arc may overlap only at its beginning and end points. In the course of following such a trajectory 30, the motion axes of radiation delivery apparatus 10 may be moved between individual arcs such that the corresponding planes to which the arcs are confined intersect with one another (e.g. by suitable rotation of couch 15 about axis 22). Alternatively, the motion axes of radiation delivery apparatus 10 may be moved between individual arcs such that the corresponding planes to which the arcs are defined are parallel with one another (e.g. by suitable translational movement of couch 15). In some cases, radiation may not be delivered to subject S when the motion axes of radiation delivery apparatus 10 are moved between individual arcs.
Radiation delivery apparatus, such as exemplary apparatus 10 (
One non-limiting example of an adjustable beam-shaping mechanism 33 comprises a multi-leaf collimator (MLC) 35 located between source 12 and subject S.
As shown in the illustrate embodiment of
It will be appreciated that the angle φ of leaf-translation directions 41 about beam axis 37 may be defined relative to an arbitrary reference axis.
A configuration of MLC 35 can be specified by a set of leaf positions that define a position of each leaf 36 and an MLC orientation angle φ of MLC 35 about beam axis 37. The control system of a radiation delivery device (e.g. control system 23 of radiation delivery device 10) is typically capable of controlling the positions of leaves 36 and the MLC orientation angle φ. MLCs can differ in design details, such as the number of leaves 36, the widths of leaves 36, the shapes of the ends and edges of leaves 36, the range of positions that any leaf 36 can have, constraints on the position of one leaf 36 imposed by the positions of other leaves 36, the mechanical design of the MLC, and the like. The invention described herein should be understood to accommodate any type of configurable beam-shaping apparatus 33 including MLCs having these and other design variations.
The configuration of MLC 35 may be changed (for example, by moving leaves 36 and/or rotating the MLC orientation angle φ of MLC 35 about beam axis 37) while radiation source 12 is operating and while radiation source 12 is moving about trajectory 30, thereby allowing the shape of aperture(s) 38 to be varied dynamically while radiation is being delivered to a target volume in subject S. Since MLC 35 can have a large number of leaves 36, each of leaves 36 can be placed in a large number of positions and MLC 35 can be rotated about beam axis 37, MLC 35 may have a very large number of possible configurations.
Method 50 may be performed, at least in part, by a treatment planning system 25 (e.g. treatment planning system 25 of
A desired amount of radiation dose to be delivered to the target volume (referred to as the “desired dose distribution”) and a suitable trajectory 30 may be defined in advance. Method 50 derives the shape that beam 14 ought to have during movement of source 12 and/or beam 14 along trajectory 30 and the intensity with which radiation ought to be delivered during movement of source 12 and/or beam 14 along trajectory 30. The shape of beam 14 may be determined by a suitable configuration of a beam-shaping mechanism 33, such as MLC 35.
In block 52, method 50 obtains a set of optimization goals 61 and trajectory data 62 defining a desired trajectory 30. Optimization goals 61 comprise dose distribution data 60, which defines a desired dose distribution, and may comprise other optimization goals 63. Optimization goals 61 and/or trajectory data 62 may have been developed by health professionals, such as a radiation oncologist in consultation with a radiation physicist, for example. Optimization goals 61 and/or trajectory data 62 may be specified by an operator as a part of block 52.
The person or persons who develop trajectory a have reference to factors such as:
Radiation delivery apparatus according to some embodiments of the invention may provide one or more pre-defined trajectories. For example, in some embodiments, a pre-defined trajectory 30 may comprise a single, one-way, continuous 360° rotation of gantry 16 about axis 18 such that trajectory 30 overlaps itself only at its beginning and end points. In such cases, block 52 may comprise selecting a pre-defined trajectory 30 or a template that partially defines a trajectory 30 and can be completed to fully define the trajectory 30.
As discussed above, optimization goals 61 comprise dose distribution data 60 and may comprise other optimization goals 63. Other optimization goals 63 may be specified by an operator as a part of block 52. By way of non-limiting example, other optimization goals 63 may comprise a desired uniformity of dose distribution in the target volume (or a desired precision with which the dose distribution in the target volume should match desired dose distribution data 60). Other optimization goals 63 may also define volumes occupied by important structures outside of the target volume and set limits on the radiation doses to be delivered to those structures. Other optimization goals 63 may define a maximum time required to deliver the radiation based on an individual patient's ability to stay still during treatment. For example, a child may be more likely to move during treatment than an adult and such movement may cause incorrect dose delivery. Consequently, it may be desirable to lower the maximum dose delivery time for the child to minimize the risk that the child may move during treatment. Other optimization goals 63 may also set priorities (weights) for different optimization goals.
Other optimization goals 63 may have any of a variety of different forms. For example, a biological model may be used in the computation of a metric which estimates a probability that a specified dose distribution will control a disease from which the subject is suffering and/or the probability that a specified dose delivered to non-diseased tissue may cause complications. Such biological models are known as radiobiological models. Other optimization goals 63 may be based in part on one or more radiobiological models. The physical limitations of a particular radiation delivery apparatus may also be taken into account as another example of an optimization goal 63. As mentioned above, gantry 12 can be relatively massive and controlled movement of gantry 12 may be difficult and may cause strain to various components of the radiation delivery apparatus. As a particular example, one optimization goal 63 may be to have gantry 16 move continuously (i.e. without stopping) over the specified trajectory 30.
Method 50 then proceeds to an optimization process 54, which seeks desirable beam shapes and intensities as a function of the position of source 12 and/or beam 14 along trajectory 30. In the illustrated embodiment of method 50, optimization process 54 involves iteratively selecting and modifying one or more optimization variables affecting the beam shape or the beam intensity. For example, the optimization variable(s) may comprise a position of a leaf 36 in a MLC 35 at a control point 32 (which determines a shape of beam 14), a MLC orientation angle φ of MLC 35 about axis 37 at a control point 32 (which determines a shape of beam 14) and/or an intensity of beam 14 at a control point 32. The quality of the dose distribution resulting from the modified optimization variable(s) is evaluated in relation to a set of one or more optimization goals. The modification is then accepted or rejected. Optimization process 54 continues until it achieves an acceptable set of beam shapes and intensities or fails.
In the illustrated method 50, optimization process 54 begins in block 56 by establishing an optimization function. The block 56 optimization function is based, at least in part, on optimization goals 61. The set of optimization goals 61 includes the desired dose distribution data 60 and may include one or more other optimization goals 63. The block 56 optimization function may comprise a cost function. Higher costs (corresponding to circumstances which are farther from optimization goals 61) may be associated with factors such as:
The result of block 56 is an optimization function which takes as input a dose distribution and produces an output having a value or values that indicate how closely the input dose distribution satisfies a set of optimization goals 61.
Block 58 involves initializing beam shapes and intensities for a number of control points 32 along trajectory 30. The initial beam shapes and intensities may be selected using any of a wide variety of techniques. Initial beam shapes may be selected by specifying a particular configuration of MLC 35. By way of non-limiting example, initial beam shapes specified in block 58 may be selected by any of:
By way of non-limiting example, the initial beam intensities specified in block 58 may be selected by any of:
In some embodiments, the beam shapes are initialized in block 58 to shapes that match a projection of the target (e.g. to approximate a beam's eye view outline of the target volume from each control point 32 along trajectory 30) and the intensities are initialized in block 58 to all have the same value which may be set so that the mean dose in the target volume will equal a prescribed dose.
In block 64, method 50 involves simulating the dose distribution resulting from the initial beam shapes and initial beam intensities. Typically, the block 64 simulation comprises a simulated dose distribution computation which is discussed in more detail below. Method 50 then determines an initial optimization result in block 65. The block 65 determination of the initial optimization result may comprise evaluating the block 56 optimization function on the basis of the block 64 simulated dose distribution.
In block 66, method 50 alters the beam shapes and/or intensities at one or more control points 32. The block 66 alteration of beam shapes and/or intensities may be quasi-random. The block 66 alteration of beam shapes and/or intensities may be subject to constraints. For example, such constraints may prohibit impossible beam shapes and/or intensities and may set other restrictions on beam shapes, beam intensities and/or the rate of change of beam shapes and/or beam intensities. In each execution of block 66, the alteration of beam shapes and/or intensities may involve a single parameter variation or multiple parameter variations to beam shape parameter(s) and/or to beam intensity parameter(s). The block 66 alteration of beam shapes and/or intensities and may involve variation(s) of these parameter(s) at a single control point 32 or at multiple control points 32. Block 68 involves simulating a dose distribution that would be achieved if the block 66 altered beam shapes and/or intensities were used to provide a radiation treatment. Typically, the block 68 simulation comprises a simulated dose distribution computation which is discussed in more detail below.
In some embodiments, the block 66 alteration of beam shapes and/or intensities is not chosen randomly, but rather is selected to give priority to certain parameter(s) that have large impacts on dose distribution quality. “Dose distribution quality” may comprise a reflection of how closely a simulated dose distribution calculation meets optimization goals 61. For example, where the beam is shaped by a MIX 35, certain leaves 36 or positions of leaves 36 may be given priority for modification. This may be done by determining a priori which leaves of MLC 35 have the most impact on dose distribution quality. Such an a priori determination of particularly important MLC leaves may be based, for example, on a calculation of the relative contributions to the block 56 optimization function from each voxel in the target region and the surrounding tissue and by a projection of beam ray lines intersecting a particular voxel to the plane of MLC 35.
In block 70, method 50 determines a current optimization result. The block 70 determination may comprise evaluating the block 56 optimization function on the basis of the block 68 simulated dose distribution. In block 72, the current optimization result (determined in block 70) is compared to a previous optimization result and a decision is made whether to keep or discard the block 66 alteration. The first time that method 50 arrives at block 72, the previous optimization result may be the block 65 initial optimization result. The block 72 decision may involve:
If block 72 determines that the block 66 alteration should be preserved (block 72 YES output), then method 50 proceeds to block 73, where the block 66 altered beam shapes and intensities are updated to be the current beam shapes and intensities. After updating the beam shapes and intensities in block 73, method 50 proceeds to block 74. If block 72 determines that the block 66 alteration should be rejected (block 72 NO output), then method 50 proceeds directly to block 74 (i.e. without adopting the block 66 alterations).
Block 74 involves a determination of whether applicable termination criteria have been met. If the termination criteria have been met (block 74 YES output), method 50 proceeds to block 75, where the current beam shapes and intensities are saved as an optimization result. After block 75, optimization process 54 terminates. On the other hand, if the termination criteria have not been met (block 74 NO output), method 50 loops back to perform another iteration of blocks 66 through 74.
By way of non-limiting example, block 74 termination criteria may include any one or more of:
The illustrated method 50 represents a very simple optimization process 54. Optimization process 54 may additionally or alternatively include other known optimization techniques such as:
Method 50 may be used as a part of an overall method for planning and delivering radiation dose to a subject S.
Method 50 involves the simulation of dose distribution that results from a particular set of beam shapes, beam intensities and motion axis positions (e.g. in blocks 64 and 68). Simulation of the dose distribution may be performed in any suitable manner. Some examples of dose calculation methods that may be employed to simulate dose distribution results comprise:
In some embodiments, the dose that would be delivered by a treatment plan is simulated (as in blocks 64 and 68 of method 50) by adding a contribution to the dose from each control point 32. At each of control points 32, the following information is known:
In some embodiments, the contribution to the dose at each control point 32 is determined by pencil beam superposition. Pencil beam superposition involves conceptually dividing the projected area of beam 14 into many small beams known as “beamlets” or “pencil beams”. This may be done by dividing a cross-sectional beam shape (e.g. aperture 38 of MLC 35) into a grid of square beamlets. The contribution to an overall dose distribution from a particular control point 32 may be determined by summing the contributions of the beamlets. The contribution to a dose distribution by individual beamlets may be computed in advance. Such contributions typically take into account radiation scattering and other effects that can result in the radiation from one beamlet contributing to dose in regions that are outside of the beamlet. In a typical MLC 35, there is some transmission of radiation through leaves 36. Consequently, when performing a dose simulation calculation, it is often desirable add some smaller contribution to the dose from outside of the beam shaping aperture 38 to account for transmission through leaves 36 of MLC 35.
Some embodiments achieve efficiencies in this dose simulation computation by providing composite beamlets 82 that are larger than beamlets 80. A range of composite beamlets 82 having different sizes, shapes and/or orientations may be provided.
The size and shape of composite beamlets 82 may be selected to reduce, and preferably minimize, the number of beamlets required to cover the area of aperture 38. This can significantly reduce calculation time without significantly reducing the accuracy of dose simulation. The use of composite beamlets is not limited to pencil beam superposition and may be used in other dose simulation calculation algorithms, such as Monte Carlo dose simulation and collapsed cone convolution dose simulation, for example.
The use of composite beamlets 82 to perform a dose simulation calculation assumes that there are only small changes in the characteristics of the tissue over the cross-sectional dimension of the composite beamlet 82. As composite beamlets are made larger, this assumption may not necessarily hold. Accordingly, the upper size limit of composite beamlets 82 is limited by the necessary calculation accuracy. In some embodiments, at least one dimension of composite beamlets 82 is greater than the largest dimension of conventional beamlet 80. In some embodiments, the maximum dimension of composite beamlets 82 is less than 25 times the size of the largest dimension of conventional beamlet 80.
The dose simulation computation (e.g. the block 68 dose simulation) is performed at a number of control points 32. Based on calculations for those control points 32, an estimated dose distribution is generated for a radiation source 12 that may be continuously moving over a trajectory 30 and continuously emitting a radiation beam 14, where the radiation beam 14 may have a continuously varying shape and intensity. Where a dose distribution is computed by summing contributions from discrete control points 32, the accuracy with which the computed dose will match the actual dose delivered by continuous variation of the position of source 12, the orientation of beam 14, the beam shape and the beam intensity will depend in part upon the number of control points 32 used to perform the dose simulation computation. If there are only a few control points 32, then it may not be possible to obtain accurate estimates of the delivered dose. The dose delivered by source 12 over a continuous trajectory 30 can be perfectly modelled by summing contributions from discrete control points 32 only at the limit where the number of control points 32 approaches infinity. Discretization of the dose simulation calculation using a finite number of control points 32 will therefore degrade the accuracy of the modelled dose distribution.
This concept is graphically illustrated in
In some embodiments of the invention, constraints are imposed on the optimization process (e.g. block 54 of method 50). Such constraints may be used to help maintain the accuracy of the discretized dose simulation calculation to within a given tolerance. In some embodiments, these optimization constraints are related to the amount of change in one or more parameters that may be permitted between successive control points 32. Examples of suitable constraints include:
In addition to improving the accuracy of the dose simulation calculation, the imposition of constraints may also help to reduce total treatment time by accounting for the physical limitations of particular radiation delivery apparatus. For example, if a particular radiation delivery apparatus has a maximum radiation output rate and the optimization solution generated by method 50 involves a desired radiation intensity that results in a radiation output rate higher than this maximum radiation output rate, then the rate of movement of the motion axes of the radiation delivery apparatus will have to slow down in order to deliver the intensity prescribed by the block 54 optimization process. Accordingly, a constraint imposed on the maximum source intensity during the block 54 optimization can force a solution where the prescribed intensity is within the capability of the radiation delivery apparatus (e.g. less than the maximum radiation output rate of the radiation delivery apparatus) such that the motion axes of the radiation delivery apparatus do not have to slow down. Since the motion axes do not have to slow down, such a solution can be delivered to subject S relatively quickly, causing a corresponding reduction in total treatment time. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that other constraints may be used to account for other limitations of particular radiation delivery apparatus and can be used to reduce total treatment time.
An example of how such constraints may be defined is “For an estimated dose to be within 2% of the actual dose distribution, the following parameters should not change by more than the stated amounts between any two consecutive control points 32:
The number of control points 32 used in optimization process 54 also impacts the number of iterations (and the corresponding time) required to implement optimization process 54 as well as the quality of the dose distribution.
The impact of the number of control points 32 on the block 54 optimization process may be summarized as follows. If a relatively small number of control points 32 are used:
If a relatively large number of control points 32 are used:
In some embodiments, the benefits of having a small number of control points 32 and the benefits of having a large number of control points 32 are achieved by starting the optimization process with a relatively small number of control points 32 and then, after a number of initial iterations, inserting additional control points 32 into the optimization process. This process is schematically depicted in
The principal difference between method 50 of
Method 150 starts in block 152 and proceeds in the same manner as method 50 until block 158. In the illustrated embodiment, block 158 differs from block 58 in that block 158 involves the additional initialization of a level counter. In other respects, block 158 is similar to block 58 of method 50. Initialization of the level counter may set the level counter to 1 for example. When the level counter is set to 1, method 150 selects a corresponding level 1 number of control points 32 to begin the block 154 optimization process. The level 1 number of control points 32 is preferably a relatively low number of control points. In some embodiments, the level 1 number of control points 32 is in a range of 2-50. As discussed in more detail below, the level counter is incremented during the implementation of method 150 and each time the level counter is incremented, the corresponding number of control points 32 is increased.
Using a number of control points 32 dictated by the level counter, method 150 proceeds with blocks 164 through 174 in a manner similar to blocks 64 through 74 of method 50 discussed above. Block 174 differs from block 74 in that block 174 involves an inquiry into the termination conditions for a particular level of method 150, The termination conditions for a particular level of method 150 may be similar to the termination conditions in block 74 of method 50. By way of non-limiting example, the termination conditions for block 174 may comprise any one or more of:
Additionally or alternatively, the block 174 termination conditions may include reaching a maximum number of successful iterations of blocks 166 through 174 within a particular level of method 150 (i.e. iterations where method 150 proceeds through the block 172 YES output and the block 166 variation is kept in block 173). Again, the maximum number of successful iterations may vary (increase or decrease) for each level. In some embodiments, the maximum number of successful iterations within a particular level decreases as the level (i.e. the number of control points 32) increases. In one particular embodiment, the maximum number of successful iterations decreases exponentially as the level increases.
If the termination criteria have not been met (block 174 NO output), method 150 loops back to perform another iteration of blocks 166 through 174 at the current level. If the termination criteria have been met (block 174 YES output), method 150 proceeds to block 178, where method 150 inquires into the general termination conditions for optimization process 154, The general termination conditions of block 178 may be similar to the termination conditions in block 174, except the block 178 termination conditions pertain to optimization process 154 as a whole rather than to a particular level of optimization process 154. By way of non-limiting example, the termination conditions for block 178 may comprise any one or more of:
The block 178 termination conditions may additionally or alternatively comprise having minimum threshold level(s) of control points 32 for corresponding changes in the motion axes parameters, the beam shape parameters and/or the beam intensity parameter, in one particular example, the block 178 termination conditions may comprise minimum threshold level(s) of at least one control point 32 for:
If the block 178 termination criteria have been met (block 178 YES output), method 150 proceeds to block 175, where the current beam shapes and intensities are saved as an optimization result. After block 175, method 150 terminates. On the other hand, if the block 178 termination criteria have not been met (block 178 NO output), method 150 proceeds to block 180, where the number of control points 32 is increased.
The addition of new control points 32 in block 180 may occur using a wide variety of techniques. In one particular embodiment, new control points 32 are added between pairs of existing control points 32. In addition to adding new control points 32, block 180 comprises initializing the parameter values associated with the newly added control points 32. For each newly added control point 32, such initialized parameter values may include: motion axes parameters which specify the position of source 12 and the orientation of beam 14 (i.e. the set of motion axis positions corresponding to the newly added control point 32); an initial beam shape parameter (e.g. the configuration of the leaves 36 and/or orientation φ of a MLC 35); and an initial beam intensity parameter.
The motion axes parameters corresponding to each newly added control point 32 may be determined by the previously specified trajectory 30 (e.g. by desired trajectory data 62). The initial beam shape parameters and the initial beam intensity parameters corresponding to each newly added control point 32 may be determined by interpolating between the current beam shape parameters and current beam intensity parameters for previously existing control points 32 on either side of the newly added control point 32. Such interpolation may comprise linear or non-linear interpolation for example.
The initial parameter values for the newly added control points 32 and the subsequent permissible variations of the parameter values for the newly added control points 32 may be subject to the same types of constraints discussed above for the original control points 32. For example, the constraints on the parameter values for newly added control points 32 may include:
After adding and initializing the new control points 32 in block 180, method 180 proceeds to block 182 where the level counter 182 is incremented. Method 150 then returns to block 164, where the iteration process of blocks 164 through 174 is repeated for the next level.
An example of the method 150 results are shown in
As with method 50 discussed above, method 150 describes a simple optimization process 154. In other embodiments, the block 154 optimization process may additionally or alternatively include other known optimization techniques such as: simulated annealing, gradient-based techniques, genetic algorithms, applying neural networks or the like.
In method 150, additional control points 32 are added when the level is incremented. In a different embodiment, the addition of one or more new control points may be treated as an alteration in block 66 of method 50. In such an embodiment, the procedures of block 180 associated with the addition of control points 32 may be performed as a part of block 66. In such an embodiment, the termination conditions of block 74 may also comprise an inquiry into whether the optimization has achieved a minimum number of control points 32. In other respects, such an embodiment is similar to method 50.
The result of optimization method 50 or optimization method 150 is a set of control points 32 and, for each control point 32, a corresponding set of parameters which includes: motion axes parameters (e.g. a set of motion axis positions for a particular radiation delivery apparatus that specify a corresponding beam position and beam orientation); beam shape parameters (e.g. a configuration of an MLC 35 including a set of positions for leaves 36 and, optionally, an orientation angle φ of MLC 35 about axis 37); and a beam intensity parameter. The set of control points 32 and their associated parameters form the basis of a radiation treatment plan which may then be transferred to a radiation delivery apparatus to effect the dose delivery.
The radiation intensity at a control point 32 is typically not delivered instantaneously to the subject but is delivered continuously throughout the portion of the trajectory 30 defined by that control point 32. The radiation output rate of the source 12 may be adjusted by the radiation delivery apparatus 10 and control system 23 so that the total radiation output for that control point 32 is the same as the intensity determined from the radiation plan. The radiation output rate will normally be determined by the amount of time required for the position of the radiation source 12 and the shape of the radiation beam to change between the previous, current and following control points 32.
A control system of the radiation delivery apparatus (e.g. control system 23 of radiation delivery apparatus 10) uses the set of control points 32 and their associated parameters to move radiation source 12 over a trajectory 30 while delivering radiation dose to a subject S. While the radiation delivery apparatus is moving over trajectory 30, the control system controls the speed and/or position of the motion axes, the shape of the beam and the beam intensity to reflect the motion axis parameters, beam shape parameters and the beam intensity parameters generated by the optimization methods 50, 150. It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the output of the optimization methods 50, 150 described above may be used on a wide variety of radiation delivery apparatus.
Pseudocode for Exemplary Embodiment of Optimization Process
Pre-Optimization
The following represents an illustrative example implementation of a particular embodiment of the invention.
In this example, a trajectory 30 is defined as a 360° rotation of gantry 16 about axis 18 and a movement of couch 15 in the −Z direction (as shown in the coordinate system of
For this example, the optimization goals 61 included a desired dose distribution 60 having a uniform level of 70 Gy for target 200 and a maximum dose of 35 Gy for healthy tissue 202. At each initial control point 32, the beam shape parameters were initialized such that the leaves 36 of a MLC 35 shaped the beam into a beam's eye view outline of target 200. In this example, the orientation φ of MLC 35 was maintained constant at 45° and the orientation φ of MLC 35 was not specifically optimized. At each initial control point 32, the beam intensity was initialized so that the mean dose delivered to the target 200 was 70 Gy.
In this example, the optimization process starts at zero iterations with the 12 control points depicted in
The optimization of this example was terminated after 11,000 iterations because the optimization goals had been attained (to within acceptable tolerances) and there was no further improvement in the dose distribution quality or accuracy with further iterations. The results of this example are shown in
In this example, the optimization time was 15.3 minutes. The treatment time required to deliver this dose distribution is approximately 1.7 minutes (assuming a dose rate of 600 MU/min).
In some embodiments, the methods described herein for delivering radiation dose to a subject S are used in conjunction with one or more imaging techniques and corresponding imaging apparatus. A suitable imaging technique is cone-beam computed tomography (cone-beam CT), which obtains a three-dimensional image of a subject. Cone-beam CT involves a radiation source and a corresponding sensor which can be suitably mounted on a radiation delivery apparatus. For example, a cone-beam CT radiation source may be mounted on gantry 16 of radiation delivery apparatus 10 and a corresponding sensor may be mounted on the opposing side of subject S to detect radiation transmitted through subject S. In some embodiments, the cone-beam CT source is the same as the treatment radiation source 12. In other embodiments, the cone-beam CT source is different than the treatment radiation source 12. The radiation delivery apparatus may move the cone-beam CT source and the CT sensor relative to subject S using the same motion axes (or substantially similar motion axes) used to move the treatment radiation source 12. At any point in which the cone-beam CT source is activated, a 2-dimensional projection image is formed from the transmission of radiation emanating from the cone-beam CT source, passing through subject S and impinging onto the corresponding sensor (which typically comprises a 2-dimensional array of radiation sensors). In some embodiments, the cone-beam CT radiation source and the treatment radiation source are time division multiplexed, such that the cone-beam CT sensor can distinguish between imaging radiation and treatment radiation.
In the acquisition of a 3-dimensional cone-beam CT image, the cone-beam CT source and sensor array move through a trajectory to acquire a plurality of 2-dimensional projection images of subject S. The plurality of 2-dimensional projection images are combined using methods known to those skilled in the art in order to reconstruct the 3-dimensional image of subject S. The 3-dimensional image may contain spatial information of the target and healthy tissue.
In some embodiments, a cone-beam CT image of subject S is acquired while delivering radiation to the subject. The 2-dimensional images may be taken from around the same trajectory 30 and in the same time interval that the radiation is delivered to subject S. In such embodiments, the resultant cone-beam CT image will be representative of the subject position, including the 3-dimensional spatial distribution of target and healthy tissue, at the time the subject was treated. The spatial distribution of target and healthy tissue can be referenced to the particular radiation delivery apparatus, allowing an observer to accurately assess what radiation dose distribution was actually delivered to the target and healthy tissue structures.
Subject S, and more particularly, the locations of target and healthy tissue, can move during radiation delivery. While some movement can be reduced or eliminated, one difficult movement to stop is respiration. For example, when subject S breathes, a target located inside the lung may shift as a function of the breathing cycle. In most dose simulation calculations, subject S is assumed to be stationary throughout the delivery. Accordingly, ordinary breathing by subject S can result in incorrect delivery of dose to the target and healthy tissue. In some embodiments, radiation source 12 is activated only when a position or configuration of subject S is within a specified range.
In some embodiments, one or more sensors are used to monitor the position of subject S. By way of non-limiting example, such sensors may include respirometer, infrared position sensors, electromyogram (EMG) sensors or the like. When the sensor(s) indicate that subject S is in an acceptable position range, radiation source 12 is activated, the configuration of beam-shaping mechanism 33 changes and the motion axes move as described in the radiation treatment plan. When the sensor(s) indicate that subject S is not in the acceptable position range, the radiation is deactivated, the configuration of beam-shaping mechanism 33 is fixed and the motion axes are stationary. An acceptable position range may be defined as a particular portion of the respiratory cycle of subject S. In such embodiments, the radiation treatment plan is delivered intermittently, with intervals where the radiation apparatus and radiation output are paused (i.e. when the subject is out of the acceptable position range) and intervals where the radiation apparatus and radiation output are resumed (i.e. when the subject is in the acceptable position range). Treatment delivery proceeds in this way until the treatment plan has been completely delivered. The process of position dependent delivery of radiation may be referred to as “position gating” of radiation delivery.
In one particular embodiment of the invention, cone-beam CT images are acquired while position gated treatment is being delivered to subject S. The acquisition of 2-dimensional projection images may also gated to the patient position, so that the cone-beam CT images will represent the position of subject S at the time of treatment delivery. Such embodiments have the additional benefit that the 2-dimensional cone-beam CT images are obtained with subject S in a consistent spatial position, thereby providing a 3-dimensional cone-beam CT with fewer motion artifacts.
As discussed above, in some embodiments where beam-shaping mechanism 33 comprises a MLC 35, it is possible to optimize beam-shape parameters including, without limitation: the positions of MLC leaves 36 and the corresponding shape of the MLC apertures 38; and the MLC orientation angle φ about beam axis 37. In other embodiments where beam-shaping mechanism 33 comprises a MLC 35, it may be desired to maintain a constant MLC orientation angle (p about beam axis 37—e.g. where a particular radiation delivery apparatus 10 does not permit adjustment of MLC orientation angle φ during delivery and/or where processing power used in the optimization process is at a premium.
Where MLC orientation angle φ is maintained constant. MLC 35 may have certain limitations in its ability to approximate arbitrary beam shapes. In such instances, the selection of the particular constant MLC orientation angle φ may impact treatment plan quality and ultimately the radiation dose that is delivered to subject S. An example of this scenario is illustrated schematically in
While not explicitly shown in
One aspect of the invention provides for radiation planning and delivery systems which provide a constant MLC orientation angle φ having a generally preferred value. Consider a trajectory 30 where radiation is delivered to a subject where there are substantially opposing radiation beams throughout the trajectory—i.e. beams that are parallel but have opposing directions. By way of non-limiting example, such a trajectory 30 may comprise rotation of gantry 16 through one full rotation of 180° or more.
It follows that a desirable beam shape from parallel and opposing beam directions will also be approximately mirrored. This observed symmetry may be exploited by selecting MLC orientation angles φ that result in a superior radiation plan. Consider the examples shown in
For example, choosing MLC orientation angle φ such that |φ|−45° (where |●| represents an absolute value operator) will result in MLC orientations that are orthogonal to one another (i.e. with respect to the projection of subject S) when the beam is oriented in opposing beam directions. This is shown in
Other MLC orientation angles φ that are not φ=0° or φ=90° may also provide this advantage. Currently preferred embodiments incorporate MLC orientation angles φ such that |φ| is in a range 15°-75° and particularly preferred embodiments incorporate MLC angles φ where |φ| is in a range of 30°-60°. The benefit of selecting MLC orientation angles φ within these ranges may be realized for all substantially opposed beam orientations throughout the delivery of radiation and may be provided by any trajectories which comprise one or more substantially opposed beam directions. Non-limiting examples of such trajectories 30 include: trajectories 30 which comprise rotations of gantry 16 about axis 18 by any amount greater than 180° (e.g. 360° rotations of gantry 16 about axis 18) and trajectories 30 which comprise multiple planar arcs wherein at least one of the arcs comprises opposing beam directions. Selection of MLC orientation angles φ within these ranges is not limited to trajectories 30 comprising opposing beams and may be used for any trajectories. These advantages of increased MLC shaping flexibility may be manifested as increased plan quality, reduced delivery time, reduced radiation beam output requirements or any combination of the above.
A further desirable aspect of providing MLC orientation angles φ that are not φ=0° or φ=90° relates to physical properties of typical MLCs 35. Although individual MLC leaves 36 block most of radiation from radiation source 12, there is often some undesirable radiation leakage that permeates MLC 35 and there is a relatively large amount of radiation leakage at the edges of MLC leaves 36 where they translate independently relative to each other. Choosing a MLC orientation angle φ=0° with respect to the motion of beam 14 along source trajectory direction 43 may result in interleaf radiation leakage that is compounded in planes defined by the edges of MLC leaves 36 and the beam axis 37 for particular trajectories 30. MLC orientation angles φ other than φ=0° may cause the orientation of the interleaf leakage planes to change along the trajectory 30, thereby reducing any systematic accumulation of unwanted radiation leakage and corresponding unwanted dose within subject S.
The edges of MLC leaves 36 may be constructed with a tongue-and-groove shape on each side for reduction of interleaf leakage. For some beam shapes, such tongue-and-groove MLC leaf edges may cause an unwanted reduction in radiation dose delivered to subject S. Similar to the effect on inter-leaf leakage, the tongue-and-groove underdosage effect will be compounded along the leaf edges. Selecting MLC orientation angles φ other than φ=0° may reduce systematic underdosing of the subject S caused by these tongue-and-groove leaf edges.
Additional considerations that affect the selection of MLC orientation angle φ include the maximum speed of MLC leaves 36 as well as the ability of MLC 35 to create shapes that continuously block areas of important healthy tissue 309 while maintaining a relatively high close to target 307.
When it is desirable to block a central portion of radiation beam 14, it can be more efficient to choose a MLC orientation angle φ other than φ=0°. In particular circumstances, blocking a central portion of radiation beam 14 may be achieved more efficiently when the MLC orientation angle φ is approximately φ=90°. In contrast, when there are dramatic changes in desired beam shape as source 12 moves along its trajectory 30, it may be difficult for MLC leaves 36 to move into position with sufficient speed. Generally, the desired projection shape 301 will change more rapidly in the direction 43 of source motion along trajectory 30. It may therefore be desirable to have leaf-translation axis 41 oriented to approximately the same direction 43 as the source motion along trajectory 30. Such a selection would result in a MLC orientation angle φ of approximately φ=0°.
The competing benefits/disadvantages of a MLC orientation angle φ of 0° versus 90° may be mitigated by using a MLC orientation angle φ that is substantially in between these two angles (i.e. approximately |φ|=45°. It will be appreciated that a MLC orientation angle φ of exactly |φ|=45° is not essential and other factors specific to the given subject S to be irradiated may need to be considered when selecting a MLC orientation angle φ.
Certain implementations of the invention comprise computer processors which execute software instructions which cause the processors to perform a method of the invention. For example, one or more data processors may implement the methods of
Where a component (e.g. a software module, processor, assembly, device, circuit, etc.) is referred to above, unless otherwise indicated, reference to that component (including a reference to a “means”) should be interpreted as including as equivalents of that component any component which performs the function of the described component (i.e., that is functionally equivalent), including components which are not structurally equivalent to the disclosed structure which performs the function in the illustrated exemplary embodiments of the invention.
While a number of exemplary aspects and embodiments have been discussed above, those of skill in the art will recognize certain modifications, permutations, additions and sub-combinations thereof. For example:
It is therefore intended that the following appended claims and claims hereafter introduced are interpreted to include all such modifications, permutations, additions and sub-combinations as are within their true spirit and scope.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 15/382,469 filed Dec. 16, 2016. U.S. application Ser. No. 15/382,469 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/710,485 filed May 12, 2015. U.S. application Ser. No. 14/710,485 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/202,305 filed Mar. 10, 2014. U.S. application Ser. No. 14/202,305 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/986,420 filed Jan. 7, 2011. U.S. application Ser. No. 12/986,420 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/132,597 filed Jun. 3, 2008. U.S. application Ser. No. 12/132,597 is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/996,932 which is a 35 USC § 371 application having a 35 USC § 371 date of Jan. 25, 2008 and corresponding to PCT/CA2006/001225. PCT/CA2006/001225 has an international filing date of Jul. 25, 2006 and claims priority from, and the benefit of 35 USC 119 in relation to, U.S. patent application No. 60/701,974 filed on Jul. 25, 2005. PCT application No. PCT/CA2006/001225 and U.S. application Ser. Nos. 15/382,469, 14/710,485, 14/202,305, 12/986,420, 12/132,597, 11/996,932, and 60/701,974 are hereby incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3133227 | Brown et al. | May 1964 | A |
| 3144552 | Schonberg et al. | Aug 1964 | A |
| 3193717 | Nunan | Jul 1965 | A |
| 3906233 | Vogel | Sep 1975 | A |
| 3987281 | Hodes | Oct 1976 | A |
| 4149247 | Pavkovich et al. | Apr 1979 | A |
| 4149248 | Pakovich | Apr 1979 | A |
| 4208675 | Bajon et al. | Jun 1980 | A |
| 4209706 | Nunan | Jun 1980 | A |
| 4521808 | Ong et al. | Jun 1985 | A |
| 4547892 | Richey et al. | Oct 1985 | A |
| 4593967 | Haugen | Jun 1986 | A |
| 4628523 | Heflin | Dec 1986 | A |
| 4675731 | Takasu et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
| 4679076 | Vikterlof et al. | Jul 1987 | A |
| 4726046 | Nunan | Feb 1988 | A |
| 4741621 | Taft et al. | May 1988 | A |
| 4825393 | Nishiya | Apr 1989 | A |
| 4853777 | Hupp | Aug 1989 | A |
| 4868843 | Nunan | Sep 1989 | A |
| 4868844 | Nunan | Sep 1989 | A |
| 5001344 | Kato et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
| 5014292 | Siczek et al. | May 1991 | A |
| 5027818 | Bova et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
| 5039867 | Nishihara et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
| 5080100 | Trotel | Jan 1992 | A |
| 5099505 | Seppi et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5117445 | Seppi et al. | May 1992 | A |
| 5157707 | Ohlson | Oct 1992 | A |
| 5168532 | Seppi et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5207223 | Adler | May 1993 | A |
| 5247555 | Moore et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5262649 | Antonuk et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5332908 | Weidlich | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5335255 | Seppi et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5394452 | Swerdloff et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5400255 | Hu | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5411026 | Carol | May 1995 | A |
| 5427097 | Depp | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5438991 | Yu et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5442675 | Swerdloff et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5471516 | Nunan | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5471546 | Meier | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5509042 | Mazess | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5521957 | Hansen | May 1996 | A |
| 5537452 | Shepherd et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5591983 | Yao | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5647663 | Holmes | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5661773 | Swerdloff et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5663995 | Hu | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5663999 | Siochi | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5673300 | Reckwerdt et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5675625 | Rockseisen | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5692507 | Seppi et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5719914 | Rand et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5724400 | Swerdloff et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5727554 | Kalend et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5748700 | Shepherd et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5748703 | Cosman | May 1998 | A |
| 5751781 | Brown et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5757881 | Hughes | May 1998 | A |
| 5802136 | Carol | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5818902 | Yu | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5835558 | Maschke | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5848126 | Fujita et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5858891 | Auzel et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5877501 | Ivan et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5912943 | Deucher | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5926521 | Tam | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5929449 | Huang | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5949811 | Baba et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5956382 | Wiener-Avnear et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5960055 | Samarasekera et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5999587 | Ning et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6031888 | Ivan et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6038283 | Carol et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6041097 | Roos et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6052430 | Siochi et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6075836 | Ning | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6078638 | Sauer et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6104778 | Murad | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6104780 | Hanover et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6108400 | Siochi | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6113264 | Watanabe | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6134296 | Siochi | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6142925 | Siochi et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6144875 | Schweikard et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6148058 | Dobbs | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6152598 | Tomisaki et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6200024 | Negrelli | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6219403 | Nishihara | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6219441 | Hu | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6222901 | Meulenbrugge et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6240161 | Siochi | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6256366 | Lai | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6260005 | Yang et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6269141 | Proksa et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6269143 | Tachibana | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6278766 | Kooy et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6285739 | Rudin et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6292526 | Patch | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6307914 | Kunieda et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6314159 | Siochi | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6318892 | Suzuki et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6325537 | Watanabe | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6325758 | Carol et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6330300 | Siochi | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6335961 | Wofford et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6345114 | Mackie et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6349129 | Siochi | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6353222 | Dotan | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6370421 | Williams et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6381302 | Berestov | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6385286 | Fitchard et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6385288 | Kanematsu | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6385477 | Werner et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6393096 | Carol et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6411675 | Llacer | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6429578 | Danielsson et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6435715 | Betz | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6438202 | Olivera et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6445766 | Whitham | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6463122 | Moore | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6473490 | Siochi | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6480565 | Ning | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6504892 | Ning | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6504899 | Pugachev et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
| 6508586 | Oota | Jan 2003 | B2 |
| 6546073 | Lee | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6560311 | Shepard et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6582121 | Crain | Jun 2003 | B2 |
| 6590953 | Suzuki et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
| 6661870 | Kapatoes et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6661872 | Bova | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6714620 | Caflisch et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
| 6735277 | McNutt et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6741674 | Lee | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6744848 | Stanton et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
| 6757355 | Siochi | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6760402 | Ghelmansarai | Jul 2004 | B2 |
| 6792074 | Erbel et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
| 6813336 | Siochi | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6842502 | Jaffray et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 6850252 | Hoffberg | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6852974 | Kochi et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6853705 | Chang | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6865254 | Nafstadius | Mar 2005 | B2 |
| 6888919 | Graf | Mar 2005 | B2 |
| 6879659 | Alber | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6882702 | Luo | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6907105 | Otto | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6914959 | Bailey et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
| 6934653 | Ritt | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6937693 | Svatos | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6968035 | Siochi | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6990175 | Nakashima | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 7030386 | Pang | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7046762 | Lee | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7085348 | Kamath et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7096055 | Schwelkard | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7151258 | Kochi et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7162008 | Earl et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7180980 | Nguyen | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7221733 | Takai et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
| 7227925 | Mansfield et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
| 7329867 | Kochi et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7333591 | Earl et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7346144 | Hughes et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
| 7349522 | Yan et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
| 7352370 | Wang et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7369645 | Lane | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7438685 | Burdette et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7471765 | Jaffray et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7525090 | Krzeczowski | Apr 2009 | B1 |
| 7556596 | Mourtada et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
| 7657304 | Mansfield et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7693683 | Ihara | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7755043 | Gubbens | Jul 2010 | B1 |
| 7813822 | Hoffberg | Oct 2010 | B1 |
| 7826592 | Jaffray et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7831289 | Riker et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7872236 | Zhang | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7880154 | Otto | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7881772 | Ghelmansarai | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7906770 | Otto | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7907987 | Dempsey | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7945021 | Shapiro et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 8116430 | Shapiro et al. | Feb 2012 | B1 |
| 8696538 | Otto | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8788020 | Mostafavi et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 20010001807 | Green | May 2001 | A1 |
| 20010008271 | Ikeda et al. | Jul 2001 | A1 |
| 20020006182 | Kim et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020066860 | Possin | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020179812 | Kochi et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030007601 | Jaffray et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030086530 | Otto | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030212325 | Cortrutz et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030219098 | McNutt et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20040001569 | Luo | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040022438 | Hibbard | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040071261 | Earl et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040116804 | Mostafavi | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040120452 | Shapiro et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040190680 | Chang | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040254448 | Amies et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050040332 | Kochi et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050061972 | Kochi et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050096515 | Geng | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050111621 | Riker et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050197564 | Dempsey | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20060060780 | Masnaghetti et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060176295 | Toho et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060235260 | Mourtada et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060256915 | Otto et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060274061 | Wang et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060274925 | West et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060289757 | Kochi et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070015991 | Fu et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220108 | Whitaker | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070221842 | Morokuma et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070230770 | Kulkarni et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070242797 | Stewart et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20080114564 | Ihara | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080226030 | Otto | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080298550 | Otto | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080317330 | Takeda et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090161827 | Gertner et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090230304 | Hatano et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090297019 | Zafar et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090322973 | Ito et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100020931 | Otto et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20110012911 | Nakamura et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 746987 | Feb 2000 | AU |
| 2002215340 | Apr 2002 | AU |
| 3828639 | Mar 1989 | DE |
| 4223488 | Jan 1994 | DE |
| 19800946 | Jul 1997 | DE |
| 19614643 | Oct 1997 | DE |
| 69319010 | Oct 1998 | DE |
| 19931243 | Feb 2000 | DE |
| 10139934 | Mar 2003 | DE |
| 10305421 | Aug 2004 | DE |
| 0062941 | Oct 1982 | EP |
| 0062941 | Sep 1984 | EP |
| 0205720 | Dec 1986 | EP |
| 0480035 | Apr 1992 | EP |
| 0480035 | Nov 1994 | EP |
| 713677 | May 1996 | EP |
| 656797 | Sep 1998 | EP |
| 0922943 | Jun 1999 | EP |
| 0948930 | Oct 1999 | EP |
| 810006 | Aug 2000 | EP |
| 1095628 | May 2001 | EP |
| 965104 | Sep 2001 | EP |
| 471455 | Apr 2002 | EP |
| 989886 | Sep 2004 | EP |
| 814869 | Dec 2004 | EP |
| 1165182 | Mar 2005 | EP |
| 948930 | Sep 2007 | EP |
| 1318857 | Jul 2008 | EP |
| 1308185 | Dec 2010 | EP |
| 1383427 | Mar 2011 | EP |
| 1525902 | Apr 2015 | EP |
| 1397700 | Jul 2015 | EP |
| 2269745 | Apr 1974 | FR |
| 2269745 | Nov 1975 | FR |
| 2551664 | Sep 1983 | FR |
| 2551664 | Mar 1985 | FR |
| 1328033 | Aug 1973 | GB |
| 11-160440 | Jun 1983 | JP |
| 59000076 | Jan 1984 | JP |
| 1040069 | Feb 1989 | JP |
| H01162682 | Jun 1989 | JP |
| 5057028 | Mar 1993 | JP |
| H0557028 | Mar 1993 | JP |
| 06-79006 | Mar 1994 | JP |
| 06-339541 | Dec 1994 | JP |
| 07-255717 | Oct 1995 | JP |
| 9239044 | Sep 1997 | JP |
| 10-113400 | May 1998 | JP |
| 10-328318 | Dec 1998 | JP |
| S63294839 | Dec 1998 | JP |
| 11-99148 | Apr 1999 | JP |
| 2000116638 | Apr 2000 | JP |
| 2000140137 | May 2000 | JP |
| 2000317000 | Nov 2000 | JP |
| 2001029489 | Feb 2001 | JP |
| 2001029491 | Feb 2001 | JP |
| 2001120528 | May 2001 | JP |
| 2000152927 | Jun 2001 | JP |
| 2001095793 | Oct 2001 | JP |
| 2004097646 | Apr 2004 | JP |
| 2004166975 | Jun 2004 | JP |
| 2004194697 | Jul 2004 | JP |
| 2008163575 | Jul 2008 | JP |
| 58-94835 | Mar 2012 | JP |
| 1985003212 | Aug 1985 | WO |
| 1990014129 | Nov 1990 | WO |
| 1992000567 | Jan 1992 | WO |
| 92002277 | Feb 1992 | WO |
| 1992020202 | Nov 1992 | WO |
| 95000204 | Jan 1995 | WO |
| 9713552 | Apr 1997 | WO |
| 9742522 | Nov 1997 | WO |
| 9852635 | Nov 1998 | WO |
| 9903397 | Jan 1999 | WO |
| 1999048558 | Sep 1999 | WO |
| 2000015299 | Mar 2000 | WO |
| 2001060236 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| 2002013907 | Feb 2002 | WO |
| 2002024277 | Mar 2002 | WO |
| 02061680 | Aug 2002 | WO |
| 03008986 | Jan 2003 | WO |
| 2003003796 | Jan 2003 | WO |
| 2003099380 | Dec 2003 | WO |
| 2005057738 | Jun 2005 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Comparison of CT numbers determined by a simulator CT & a diagnostic scanner, M. Hartson, D. Champney, J. Currier, J. Krise, J. Marvel, M. Schrijvershof, J. Sensing, 1995, pp. 37-45. |
| Digital radiotherapy simulator, P. Cho, K. Lindsley, J. Douglas, K. Stelzer, T. Griffin, 1998, pp. 1-7. |
| A prototype 3D CT extension for radiotherapy simulators, S. Agostinelli, F. Foppiano, 2001, pp. 11-21. |
| A cone-beam megavoltage CT scanner for treatment verification in conformal radiotherapy, M. Shirazi, P. Evans, W. Swindell, S. Webb, M. Partridge, 1998, pp. 319-328. |
| Flat-panel Cone-beam Computed Tomography for Image-Guided Radiation Therapy, Jaffray et al, 2002, pp. 1337-1349. |
| Comparison of flat-panel detector and image-intensifier detector for cone-beam CT, R. Baba, Y. Konno, K. Ueda, S. Ikeda, 2002, pp. 153-158. |
| Radiotherapeutic System, 00480035/EP-B1, Citation from World Patent, 1994, p. 1. |
| Sampling Issues for Optimization in Radiotherapy, Ferns et al., Apr. 8, 2004, pp. 1-47. |
| Optimization of Gamma Knife Radiosurgery, Ferris et al., Apr. 8, 2004, pp. 1-58. |
| Linear accelerator output variations and their consequences for megavoltage imaging, Partridge et al., 1998, pp. 1443-1452. |
| Fast and Accurate Three-Dimensional Reconstruction from Cone-Beam Projection Data Using Algebraic Methods, Mueller, 1998, pp. 1-114. |
| Novel Approximate Approach for High-Quality Image Reconstruction in Helical Cone Beam CT at Arbitrary Pitch, Schaller et al., 2001, pp. 113-127. |
| Abutment Region Dosimetry for Serial Tomography, Low et al., 1999, pp. 193-203. |
| Signal, noise, and readout considerations in the development of amorphous silicon photodiode arrays for radiotherapy and diagnostic x-ray imaging, Antonuk et al., 1991, pp. 108-119. |
| Electronic portal imaging devices: a review and historical perspective of contemporary technologies and research, Antonuk, 2002, pp. R31-R65. |
| A review of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs), Boyer et al., 1992, pp. 1-16. |
| Article, Dynamic Stereotactic Radiosurgery, Podgorsak, Ervin B et al., 1988, pp. 115-126. |
| Non-coplanar beam direction optimization for intensity, Meedt et al., 2003, pp. 2999-3019. |
| Combining Multileaf Fields to Modulate Fluence Distributions, Galvin et al., 1993, pp. 697-705. |
| Whole Abdonominopelvic Radiotheraphy, Duthoy, 2003. |
| Joint Submission Regarding Constructions of Disputed and Undisputed Claim Terms dated Mar. 1, 2016 in Certain Radiotherapy Systems and Treatment Planning Software, and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-968. |
| Selected pages of Appendix 2 to Complainants' Eighth Supplemental Responses and Objections to Respondents' First Set of Interrogatories, dated Mar. 28, 2016 in Certain Radiotherapy Systems and Treatment Planning Software, and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-968. |
| Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), Supplement 11, Radiotherapy Objects, final text dated Jun. 4, 1997, as a supplement to the DICOM Standard, and an extension to Parts 3, 4, and 6 of the published DICOM Standard. |
| Russian Doll Search for Solving Constraint Optimization Problems, Verfaillie, 1996. |
| The application of dynamic field shaping and dynamic does rate control in conformal rotational treatment of prostate, Tobler, 2003. |
| Clinical Implementation of Non-Physical Wedges, 1999 AAPM Refresher Course, presented at 41st Annual Meeting, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Chang. |
| Clinac 600C & 600 C/D Equipment Specification, Varian Medical Systems, 2000. |
| Clinac Accelerators, Varian Medical Systems, 2003. |
| Automatic Variation of Field Size and Dose Rate in Rotation Therapy, Mantel and Perry, 1977, pp. 697-704. |
| The Physics of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, Boyer, 2002, pp. 38-44. |
| The Relationship Between the Number of Shots and the Quality of Gamma Knife Radiosurgeries, Cheek et al., 2004, pp. 1-13. |
| An optimization approach for radiosurgery treatment planning, Ferns et al., 2001, pp. 1.22. |
| Clinical application of IMRT, Hatano, 2002, pp. 199-204. |
| Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee, Ezzell et al., Aug. 2003, pp. 2089-2115. |
| Analysis of various beamlet sizes for IMRT with 6 MV Photons, Sohn et al., 2004, pp. 2432-2439. |
| Effects of the intensity levels and beam map resolutions on static IMRT plans, Sun et al., 2004, pp. 2402-2411. |
| AAPM Report No. 54—Stereotactic Radiosurgery, Schell et al., Jun. 1995, pp. 1-88. |
| Performance of a Volumetric CT Scanner Based Upon a Flat-Panel Imager, D. Jaffray, J. Siewersen, D. Drake, Feb. 1999, pp. 204-214. |
| Flat-Panel Cone-Beam CT on a Mobile Isocentric C-Arm for Image-Guided Brachytherapy, D. Jaffray, J. Siewerdsen, G. Edmundson, J. Wong, A. Martinez, 2002, pp. 209-217. |
| Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: Initial performance characterization, D. Jaffray, J. Siewerdsen, Jun. 2000, pp. 1311-1323. |
| A Radiographic and Tomographic Imaging System Integrated into a Medical Linear Accelerator for Localization of a Bone and Soft-Tissue Targets, D. Jaffray, D. Drake, M. Moreau, A. Martinez, J. Wong, 1999, pp. 773-789. |
| Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: Effects of image lag, J. Siewerdsen, D. Jaffray, 1999, pp. 2635-2647. |
| Cone-Beam CT with a Flat-Panel Imager: Noise Considerations for Fully 3-D Computed Tomography, J. Siewerdsen, D. Jaffray, 2000, pp. 408-416. |
| Optimization of x-ray imaging geometry (with specific application to flat-panel cone-beam computed tomography), J. Siewerdsen, D. Jaffray, Aug. 2000, pp. 1903-1914. |
| Adaptive Modification of Treatment Planning to Minimize the Deleterious Effects of Treatment Setup Errors, D. Yan, J. Wong, F. Vicini, J. Michalski, C. Pan, A. Frazier, E. Horwitz, A. Martinez, 1997, pp. 197-206. |
| Intensity Modulated Arc Therapy: Technology and Clinical Implementation, C. Yu, Sep. 1995, pp. 1-14. |
| Dose Optimization with Computer-Controlled Gantry Rotation, Collimator Motion and Dose-Rate Variation, Chin, P. Kijewski, G. Svensson, B. Bjarngard, May 1983, pp. 723-729. |
| Intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) with centrally blocked rotational fields, C. Cotrutz, C. Kappas, S. Webb, 2000, pp. 2185-2206. |
| Clinical Implementation of Intensity-Modulated Arc Therapy (IMAT) for Rectal Cancer, W. Duthoy, W. De Gersem, K. Vergote, T. Boterberg, C. Derie, P. Smeets, C. Wagter, W. De Neve, 2004, pp. 794-806. |
| Whole Abdominopelvic Radiotherapy (WAPRT) Using Intensity-Modulated Arc Therapy (IMAT): First Clinical Experience, W. Duthoy, W De Gersem, K. Vergote, M. Coghe, T. Boterberg, Y. De Deene, C. De, 2003, pp. 1019-1032. |
| Development of technical equipment for conformal proton radiotherapy, Shvidkii S.V., 2004. |
| Dosimetric and technological support of static and moving radiotherapy, Bocharova I.A., 2001. |
| Dosimetric and technological support of static and moving radiotherapy, Blinov N.N., 2005. |
| Optimization of exposure modes in radiation therapy, Moskvina N.A., 2004. |
| Hardware-software complex for planning proton and combined irradiation, Antonova et al, 2004, v. 1, pp. 16-23. |
| Flat-panel Cone-beam CT for Image-guided External Beam Radiotherapy, Jaffray D. et al., Oct. 1999, pp. 1-36. |
| Notification of Reasons for Rejection in Patent Application No. 2001-559337, dated Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 1-8. |
| Three dimensional radiation treatment planning, Kutcher, GJ, et al., 1987. |
| 6th International Workshop on Electronic Portal Imaging, EP12K: Program and Abstract Book, 2000, pp. 1-221. |
| The physics of conformal radiotherapy, Webb, 1997. |
| PhD Thesis “Mathematical modeling and optimization of the methods of dose fractionation in tumor RT”, Molchanova E.V., 2003, pp. 1-247. |
| Office Action dated Sep. 23, 2016 with respect to U.S. Appl. No. 14/710,485. |
| Office Action dated Nov. 30, 2016 with respect to U.S. Appl. No. 15/266,156. |
| Office Action dated Nov. 30, 2016 with respect to U.S. Appl. No. 15/266,225. |
| Office Action dated Nov. 30, 2016 with respect to U.S. Appl. No. 15/266,264. |
| Office Action dated Dec. 5, 2016 with respect to U.S. Appl. No. 15/266,313. |
| Office Action dated Dec. 5, 2016 with respect to U.S. Appl. No. 15/266,193. |
| Office Action dated Dec. 19, 2016 with respect to U.S. Appl. No. 15/266,371. |
| Office Action dated Dec. 19, 2016 with respect to U.S. Appl. No. 15/266,467. |
| File history of Otto U.S. Pat. No. 7,880,154, issued Feb. 1, 2011, entitled Methods and Apparatus for the Planning and Delivery of Radiation Treatments. |
| File history of Otto U.S. Pat. No. 7,906,770, issued Mar. 15, 2011, entitled Methods and Apparatus for the Planning and Delivery of Radiation Treatments. |
| File history of Otto U.S. Pat. No. 8,658,992, issued Feb. 25, 2014, entitled Methods and Apparatus for the Planning and Delivery of Radiation Treatments. |
| File history of Otto U.S. Pat. No. 8,696,538, issued Apr. 15, 2014, entitled Methods and Apparatus for the Planning and Delivery of Radiation Treatments. |
| File history of Otto U.S. Pat. No. 9,050,459, issued Jun. 9, 2015, entitled Methods and Apparatus for the Planning and Delivery of Radiation Treatments. |
| A multiray model for calculating electron pencil beam distribution, Yu C. et al., 1988, pp. 662-671. |
| Photon dose perturbations due to small inhomogeneities, Yu C. et al., 1987, pp. 78-83. |
| Photon does calculation incorporating explicit electron transport, Yu C. et al., Jul. 1995, pp. 1157-1166. |
| Optimization of the scintillation detector in a combined 3D megavoltage CT scanner and portal imager, Mosleh-Shirazi M. et al., Oct. 1998, pp. 1880-1890. |
| Advanced Workstation for Irregular Field Simulation and Image Matching, MDS Nordion, 1999, 7 pages. |
| A video-Based Patient Contour Acquisition System for the Design Radiotherapy Compensators, Andrew, et al., 1989, pp. 425-430. |
| Daily Targeting of Intrahepatic Tumors for Radiotherapy, Baiter, James M. et al., 2002, pp. 266-271. |
| Automatic generation of beam apertures, Brewster, et al., 1993, pp. 1337-1342. |
| Intensity-modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: An alternative to tomotherapy, C. X. Yu, 1995, pp. 1435-1449. |
| Cone-Beam CT for Radiotherapy Applications, Cho, Paul S. et al., 1995, pp. 1863-1883. |
| Characterization of a Fluoroscopic Imaging System for kV and MV Radiography, Drake, D.G. et al., May 2000, pp. 898-905. |
| Inverse Planning for Intensity-Modulated Arc Therapy Using Direct Aperture Optimization, Earl et al., 2003, pp. 1075-1089. |
| Interactive image segmentation for radiation treatment planning, Elliott, PJ, et al., 1992, pp. 620-634. |
| Three-Dimensional Computed Tomographic Reconstruction Using a C-Arm Mounted XRII: Image Based Correction of Gantry Motion Nonidealities, Fahrig and Holdsworth, Jan. 2000, pp. 30-38. |
| Practical Cone-Beam Algorithm, Feldkamp, L.A. et al., Jun. 1984, pp. 612-619. |
| Three-dimensional radiation planning. Studies on clinical integration, Gademann, G, et al., 1993, pp. 159-167. |
| A Performance Comparison of Flat-Panel Imager-Based MV and kV Conebeam CT, Groh, B.A., et al., Jun. 2002, pp. 967-975. |
| A ghost story: spatio-temporal response characteristics of an indirect-detection flat-panel imager, J. H. Siewerdsen and D.A. Jaffray, 1999, pp. 1624-1641. |
| A Radiographic and Tomographic Imaging System Integrated into a Medical Linear Accelerator for Localization of Bone and Soft-Tissue Targets, Jaffray, D A., et al., 1999, pp. 773-789. |
| Cone-beam CT: applications in image-guided external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy, Jaffray, DA, et al., Jul. 2000, p. 2044. |
| A CCTV-Microcomputer Biostereometric System for Use in Radiation Therapy (Topography, Medical Physics, Tissue Compensators) Optimization by simulated annealing, Keys, D , et al., 1984, p. 3857. |
| Feasible Cone Beam Scanning Methods for Exact Reconstruction in Three-Dimensional Tomography, Kudo et al., 1990, p. 2169. |
| AIM Project A2003: COmputer Vision in RAdiology (COVIRA), Kuhn, MH, Oct. 1994, pp. 17-31. |
| New development of integrated CT simulation system for radiation therapy planning, Kushima, T, et al., 1993, pp. 197-213. |
| Patient Beam Positioning System Using CT Images, Masshiro, et al., 1982, pp. 301-305. |
| A Feasibility Study for Megavoltage Cone Beam CT Using a Commercial EPID, Midgley, S., et al., 1998, pp. 155-169. |
| Intersection of shaped radiation beams with arbitrary image sections, Mohan, R, et al., Jun. 1987, pp. 161-168. |
| Megavoltage CT-Assisted Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Thoracic Tumors: Original Research in the Treatment of Thoracic Neoplasms, Nakagawa, Keiichi, M.D. et al., 2000, pp. 449-457. |
| Flat Panel Detector-Based Cone-Beam Volume CT Angiography Imaging: System Evaluation, Ning et al., Sep. 2000, pp. 949-963. |
| Image Intensifier-Based Volume Tomographic Angiography Imaging System: System Evaluation, Ning et al., 1995, pp. 280-290. |
| Office Action dated Sep. 18, 2012 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/043,892, filed Mar. 9, 2011, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for the Planning and Delivery of Radiation Treatments”, Sep. 18, 2011. |
| Setup Error in Radiotherapy: On-line Correction Using Electronic Kilovoltage and Megavoltage Radiographs, Pisani, Laura, M.S. et al., 2000, pp. 825-839. |
| Correction for Distortion in a Beam Outline Transfer Device in Radiotherapy CT-Based Simulation, Ragan, 1993, pp. 179-185. |
| Use of a simulator and treatment planning computer as a CT scanner for radiotherapy planning, Redpath, AT, et al., 1984, pp. 281-287. |
| An algorithm for three-dimensional visualization of radiation therapy beams, Reynolds, RA, et al., 1988, pp. 24-28. |
| Comparison of two three-dimensional x-ray cone-beam-reconstruction algorithms with circular source trajectories, Rizo at al., 1991, p. 1639. |
| Megavoltage CT on a Tomotherapy System, Ruchala, K.J. et al., 1999, pp. 2597-2621. |
| Optimization of X-Ray Imaging Geometry (With Specific Application to Flat-Paneled Cone-Beam Computed Tomography), Siewerdsen, J H., et al., Aug. 2000, pp. 1903-1914. |
| Cone-Beam Computed Tomography With a Flat:Panel Imager: Magnitude and Effects of X-Ray Scatter, Siewerdsen, Jeffery H. and Jaffray, David A., Feb. 2001, pp. 220-231. |
| Supplementary European Search Report dated Jan. 12, 2011; EP Appln No. 03786979.9; 3 pages. |
| Computed Tomography With a Linear Accelerator With Radiotherapy Applications, Swindell, William et al., 1983, pp. 416-420. |
| A Dual Computed Tomography Linear Accelerator Unit for Stereotactic Radiation Therapy: A New Approach Without Cranially Fixated Stereotactic Frames, Uematsu, M , et al., 1996, pp. 587-592. |
| Daily Positioning Accuracy of Frameless Stereotactic Radiation Therapy with a Fusion of Computed Tomography and Linear Accelerator (FOCAL) Unit: Evaluation of Z-axis with a Z-marker Accelerator (FOCAL) Unit: Evaluation of Z-axis with a Z-marker, Uematsu, M , et al., Mar. 1999, pp. 337-339. |
| Bortfeld et al., “Clinically relevant intensity modulation optimization using physical criteria,” In Proceedings of the XII International Conference on the Use of Computers in Radiation Therapy, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1-4 (1997). |
| Yan, D. et al., “Computed tomography guided management of interfractional patient variation”, Semin. Radiat, Oncol. 15, 168-179 (2005). |
| Court, L. et al., “An automatic CT-guided adaptive radiation therapy technique by on-line modification of MLC leaf positions for prostate cancer”, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 62(1), 154-163 (2005). |
| Mohan, R. et al., “Use of deformed intensity distributions for on-line modification of image-guided IMRT to account for interfractional anatomic changes”, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 61(4), 1258-1266 (2005). |
| Mackie, T.R. et al., “Image guidance for precise conformal radiotherapy”, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 56(1), 89-105 (2003). |
| Brock, K.K. et al., “Feasibility of a novel deformable image registration technique to facilitate classification, targeting, and monitoring of tumor and normal tissue”, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 64(4), 1245-1254 (2006). |
| Davis, B.C. et al., “Automatic segmentation of intra-treatment CT images for adaptive radiation therapy of the prostate”, Med. Image Comput. Comput. Assist. Interv. Int. Conf. Med. Image. Comput. Comput. Assist Interv. 8(Pt 1), 442-450 (2005). |
| Foskey, M., “Large deformation three-dimensional image registration in image-guided radiation therapy”, Phys. Med. Biol. 50(24), 5869-5892 (Dec. 7, 2005). |
| Munbodh, R. et al., “Automated 2D-3D registration of a radiograph and a cone beam CT using line-segment enhancement”, Med. Phys. 33(5), 1398-1411 (Apr. 27, 2006). |
| Court, L.E. et al., “Automatic online adaptive radiation therapy techniques for targets with significant shape change: A feasibility study”, Phys. Med. Biol. 51(10), 2493-2501 (Apr. 27, 2006). |
| Godfrey, D.J. et al., “Digital tomosynthesis with an on-board kilovoltage imaging device”, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol. Phys. 65(1), 8-15 (2006). |
| Mestovic, A. et al., “Direct aperture optimization for online adaptive radiation therapy”, Med. Phys. 34(5), Apr. 19, 2007, pp. 1631-1646. |
| Cortrutz, C. et al., “Segment-based dose optimization using a genetic algorithm”, Phys. Med. Biol. 48(18), 2987-2998 (2003). |
| Bedford, J.L. et al., “Constrained segment shapes in direct-aperture optimization for step-and shoot IMRT”, Med. Phys. 33(4). 944-958 (Mar. 17, 2006). |
| Kirkpatrick, S. et al., “Optimization by simulated annealing”, Science 220, 671-680 (1983). |
| I.M.R.T.C.W. Group, “Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Current status and issues of interest”, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 51(4), 880-914 (2001). |
| Niemierko, A. et al., “Random sampling for evaluation treatment plans”, Med. Phys. 17(5), 753-762 (1990). |
| Chui, C.S. et al., “Dose calculation for photon beams with intensity modulation generated by dynamic jaw or multileaf collimations”, Med. Phys, 21(8), 1237-1244 (1994). |
| Ghilezan, M.J. et al., “Prostate gland motion assessed with cine-magnetic resonance imaging (cine-MRI)”, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 62(2), 406-417 (2005). |
| Nichol, A.M. et al., “Intra-prostatic fiducial markers and concurrent androgen deprivation”, Clin. Oncol. (R Coll. Radiol) 17(6), 465-468 (2005). |
| Zellars, R.C. et al., “Prostate position late in the course of external beam therapy: Patterns and predictors”, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 47(3), 655-660 (2000). |
| Sanguineti, G. et al., “Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and prostate gland shrinkage during conformal radiotherapy”, Radiother, Oncol. 66(2), 151-157 (2003). |
| Nichol, A.M. et al., “A magnetic resonance imaging study of prostate deformation relative to implanted gold fiducial markers”, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 67(1), 48-56 (2007). |
| R.T.O.G. 0415, “A Phase III Randomized Study of Hypofractionated 3D-CRT/IMRT Versus Conventionally Fractionated 3D-CRT/IMRT in patients with favourable-risk prostate cancer”, (www.RTOG.orgaccessed on Jul. 2006) (2006). |
| Yan, D. et al., “The influence of interpatient and intrapatient rectum variation on external beam treatment of prostate cancer”, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 51(4), 1111-1119 (2001). |
| Hoogeman, M.S. et al, “A model to simulate day-to-day variations in rectum shape”, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 54(2), 615-625 (2002). |
| Jiang, Z. et al., “An examination of the number of required apertures for step-and-shoot- IMRT”, Phys. Med. Biol. 50 (23), 5653-5663 (Nov. 24, 2005). |
| Earl et al., “Inverse Planning for Intensity-Modulated Arc Therapy Using Direct Aperture Optimization”, Physics in Medicine and Biology 48 (2003), Institute of Physics Publishing, pp. 1075-1089. |
| Spirou et al., “A Gradient Inverse Planning Algorithm with Dose-Volume Contraints”, Med. Phys. 25, pp. 321-333 (1998). |
| Wu et al., “Algorithm and Functionality of an Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Optimization System”, Med. Phys. 27, pp. 701-711 (2000). |
| Spirou et al., “Generation of Arbitrary Intensity Profiles by Dynamic Jaws or Multileaf Collimators”, Med. Phys. 21, pp. 1031-1041 (1994). |
| Xia et al., “Multileaf Collimator Leaf Sequencing Algorithm for Intensity Modulated Beams with Multiple Static Segments”, Med. Phys. 25, pp. 1424-1434 (1998). |
| Otto et al., “Enhancement of IMRT Delivery through MLC Rotation”, Phys. Med. Biol. 47, 3997-4017 (2002). |
| Shepard et al., “Direct Aperture Optimization: A Turnkey Solution for Step-and-Shoot IMRT”, Med. Phys. 29 (6) (2002), pp. 1007-1018. |
| Tervo et al., “A Model for the Control of a Multileaf Collimator in Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning”, Inverse Problems 16 (2000), pp. 1875-1895. |
| Shepard et al., “An Arc-Sequencing Algorithm for Intensity Modulated Arc Therapy”, Med. Phys. 34 (2) (2007), pp. 464-470. |
| Cao et al., “Continuous Intensity Map Optimization (CIMO): A Novel Approach to Leaf Sequencing in Step and Shoot IMRT”, Med. Phys. 33 (4) (2006), pp. 859-867. |
| Ulrich et al., “Development of an Optimization Concept for Arc-Modulated Cone Beam Therapy”, Phys. Med. Biol. 52 (2007), pp. 4099-4119. |
| Hardemark et al., “Direct Machine Parameter Optimization with RayMachine in Pinnacle”, RaySearch White Paper, RaySearch Laboratories (2003), pp. 1-8. |
| C. X. Yu, “Intensity-modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: An alternative to tomotherapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 40, pp. 1435-1449, 1995. |
| Gladwish, A. et al., “Segmentation and leaf sequencing for intensity modulated arc therapy,” Med. Phys. 34, pp. 1779-1788, 2007. |
| Wong, E. et al., “Intensity-modulated arc therapy simplified,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 53, pp. 222-235, 2002. |
| Bratengeier, K. “2-Step IMAT and 2-Step IMRT in three dimensions,” Med. Phys. 32, pp. 3849-3861, 2005. |
| Cameron, C., “Sweeping-window arc therapy: An implementation of rotational IMRT with automatic beam-weight calculation,” Phys. Med. Biol. 50, pp. 4317-4336, 2005. |
| Crooks, S.M. et al., “Aperture modulated arc therapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 48, pp. 1333-1344, 2003. |
| De Gersem, W. et al. “Leaf position optimization for step-and-shoot IMRT,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 51, pp. 1371-1388, 2001. |
| Milette, M.P. et al., “Maximizing the potential of direct aperture optimization through collimator rotation,” Med. Phys. 34, pp. 1431-1438, 2007. |
| Qiuwen, Wu et al., Dynamic Splitting of Large Intensity-Modulated Fields, Phys. Med. Biol. 45 (2000), Richmond, VA, USA, p. 1731-1740. |
| Gerard Verfaillie et al., Russian Doll Search for Solving Constraint Optimization Problems, AAAI-96 Proceedings, 1996, p. 181-187. |
| New Gating System from BrainLAB Enables Breakthrough in the Radiotherapy Treatment of Lung and Liver Patients, Sep. 28, 2004, 4 pages. |
| Improving the Dosimetric Coverage of Interstitial High-Dose-Rate Breast Implants, Kestin L. et al., 2000, pp. 35-43. |
| Intensity Modulation to Improve Dose Uniformity With Tangential Breast Radiotherapy: Initial Clinical Experience, Kestin L. et al., 2000, pp. 1559-1568. |
| Use of Three-Dimensional Radiation Therapy Planning Tools and Intraoperative Ultrasound to Evaluate High Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy Implants., Kini V. et al., 1999, pp. 571-578. |
| Evaluation of High Energy Photon External Beam Treatment Planning: Project Summary, Laughlin J. et al. 1991, pp. 3-8. |
| Improvement in Dose Escalation Using the Process of Adaptive Radiotherapy Combined with Three-Dimensional Conformal or Intensity-Modulated Beams for Prostate Cancer, Martinez A. et al., 2001, pp. 1226-1234. |
| Interinstitutional Experience in Verification of External Photon Dose Calculations, Masterson M. et al., 1991, pp. 37-58. |
| An Evaluation of Two Methods of Anatomical Alignment of Radiotherapy Portal Images, Michalski J. et al., 1993, pp. 1199-1206. |
| Prospective Clinical Evaluation of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device, Michalski J. et al., 1996, pp. 943-951. |
| The Use of On-line Image Verification to Estimate the Variation in Radiation Therapy Dose Delivery, Michalski J. et al., 1993, pp. 707-716. |
| Verification of the omni wedge technique, Milliken B. et al., 1998, pp. 1419-1423. |
| Three-Dimensional Dose Calculations for Radiation Treatment Planning, Mohan R., 1991, pp. 25-36. |
| Practical aspects of in situ 16O (y,n) 15O activation using a conventional medical accelerator for the purpose of perfusion imaging, Oldham M. et al., Aug. 2001, pp. 16690-1678. |
| Rapid Two-Dimensional Dose Measurement in Brachytherapy Using Plastic Scintillator Sheet: Linearity, Signal-to-Noise Ratio, and Energy Response Characteristics, Perera H. et al., 1992, pp. 1059-1069. |
| State of the Art of High Energy Photon Treatment Planning, Purdy J. et al., 1987, pp. 4-24. |
| Compensation of x-ray beam penumbra in conformal radiotherapy, Shame M. et al., Aug. 2000, pp. 1739-1745. |
| Monitor unit settings for intensity modulated beams delivered using a step-and-shoot approach, Shame M. et al., Dec. 2000, pp. 2719-2725. |
| Verification data for electron beam dose algorithms, Shiu A. et al., 1992, pp. 623-636. |
| Empirical and theoretical investigation of the noise performance of indirect detection, active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) for diagnostic radiology, Siewerdsen J. et al., Jan. 1997, pp. 71-89. |
| Signal, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency of indirect-detection flat-panel imagers for diagnostic radiology, Siewerdsen J. et al., May 1998, pp. 614-628. |
| State-of-the-Art of External Photon Beam Radiation Treatment Planning, Sontag M. et al., 1991, pp. 9-23. |
| Active Breathing Control (ABC) for Hodgkin's Disease: Reduction in Normal Tissue Irradiation with Deep Inspiration and Implications for Treatment, Stromberg J. et al., 2000, pp. 797-806. |
| Allosteric effectors of hemoglobin as modulators of chemotherapy and radiation therapy in vitro and in vivo, Teicher B. et al., 1998, pp. 24-30. |
| Three-Dimensional Display in Planning Radiation Therapy: A Clinical Perspective, Tepper J. et al., 1991, pp. 79-89. |
| The Role of Uncertainty Analysis in Treatment Planning, Urie M. et al., 1991, pp. 91-107. |
| Dose-Volume Analysis for Quality Assurance of Interstitial Brachytherapy for Breast Cancer, Vicini F. et al., 1999, pp. 803-810. |
| Implementation of 3D-Virtual Brachytherapy in the Management of Breast Cancer: A Description of a New Method of Interstitial Brachytherapy, Vicini F. et al., 1998, pp. 620-635. |
| Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as the Sole Radiation Modality in the Management of Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer Treated with Breast-Conserving Therapy: Preliminary Results of a Pilot Trial, Vicini F. et al., 1997, pp. 301-310. |
| One-dimensional scatter-subtraction method for brachytherapy dose calculation near bounded heterogeneities, Williamson J. et al., 1993, pp. 233-244. |
| Conservative management of osteoradionecrosis, Wong J. et al., Jul. 1997, pp. 16-21. |
| The Cumulative Verification Image Analysis Tool for Offline Evaluation of Portal Images, Wong J. et al., 1995, pp. 1301-1310. |
| Development of a Second-Generation Fiber- Optic On-Line Image Verification System, Wong J. et al., 1993, pp. 311-320. |
| Effect of small Inhomogeneities on dose in a cobalt-60 beam, Wong J. et al., 1981, pp. 783-791. |
| On methods of inhomogeneity corrections for photon transport, Wong J. and Purdy J., 1990, pp. 807-814. |
| A new approach to CT pixel-based photon dose calculations in heterogeneous media, Wong J. and Henkelman M., 1983, pp. 199-208. |
| On-line image verification in radiation therapy: an early USA experience, Wong J. et al., 1993, pp. 43-54. |
| On-line Readiotherapy Imaging with an Array of Fiber-Optic Image Reducers, Wong J. et al., 1990, pp. 1477-1484. |
| Portal Dose Images I: Quantitative Treatment Plan Verification, Wong J. et al., 1990, pp. 1455-1463. |
| Reconsideration of the power-law (Batho) equation for inhomogeneity corrections, Wong J. and Henkelman M., 1982, pp. 521-530. |
| Role of Inhomogeneity Corrections in Three-Dimensional Photon Treatment Planning, Wong J. et al., 1991, pp. 59-69. |
| Second scatter contribution to dose in a cobalt-60 beam, Wong J. et al., 1981, pp. 775-782. |
| Treatment Verifications and Patient Dose Estimations Using Portal Dose Imaging, Wong J. et al., 1988, pp. 213-225. |
| The Use of Active Breathing Control (ABC) to Reduce Margin for Breathing Motion, Wong J. et al., 1999, pp. 911-919. |
| Implementing multiple static field delivery for intensity modulated beams, Wu Y. et al., Nov. 2001, pp. 2188-2197. |
| The Use of Adaptive Radiation Therapy to Reduce Setup Error: A Prospective Clinical Study, Yan D. et al., 1998, pp. 715-720. |
| Adaptive Radiation Therapy, Yan D. et al., 1997, pp. 123-132. |
| The Influence of Interpatient and Intrapatient Rectum Variation on External Beam Treatment of Prostate Cancer, Yan D. et al., 2001, pp. 1111-1119. |
| A Model to Accumulate Fractionated Dose in a Deforming Organ, Yan D. et al., 1999, pp. 665-675. |
| A New Model for “Accept or Reject” Strategies in Off-Line and On-Line Megavoltage Treatment Evaluation, Yan D. et al., 1995, pp. 943-952. |
| Portal Dose Images II: Patient Dose Estimation, Ying X. et al., 1990, pp. 1465-1475. |
| A method for implementing dynamic photon beam intensity modulation using independent jaws and a multileaf collimator, Yu C. et al., 1995, pp. 769-787. |
| Intensity-Modulated Arc Therapy Simplified, E Wong, J. Chen, J. Greenland, 2002, pp. 222-235. |
| Intensity-Modulated Arc Therapy for Treatment of High-Risk Endometrial Malignancies, E. Wong, D. D'Souza, J. Chen, M. Lock, G. Rodrigues, T. Coad, K. Trenka, M. Mulligan, G. Bauman, 2005, pp. 830-841. |
| The Application of Dynamic Field Shaping and Dynamic Dose Rate Control in Conformal Rotational Treatment of the Prostate, M. Tobler, G. Watson, D. Leavitt, 2002, pp. 251-254. |
| Optimized Intensity-modulated Arc Therapy for Prostate Cancer Treatment, L. Ma, C. Yu, M. Earl, T. Holmes, M. Sarfaraz, X. Li, D. Shepard, P. Amin, S. DiBiase, M. Suntharalingam, C. Mansfield, 2001, pp. 379-384. |
| Synchronized moving aperture radiation therapy (SMART): average tumour trajectory for lung patients, T. Neicu, H. Shirato, Y. Seppenwoolde, S. Jiang, 2003, pp. 587-598. |
| Aperture modulated arc therapy, S. Crooks, X.Wu, C. Takita, M. Watzich, L. Xing, 2003, pp. 1333-1344. |
| Automated selection of beam orientations and segmented intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for treatment of oesophagus tumors, E. Woudstra, B. Heijmen, P. Storchi, 2005, pp. 254-261. |
| Clinical Implementation of Intensity-Modulated Arc Therapy, C. Yu, X. Li, L. Ma, D. Chen, S. Naqvi, D. Shepard, M. Sarfaraz, T. Holmes, M. Suntharalingam, C. Mansfield, 2002, pp. 453-463. |
| Inverse Bestrahlungsplanung fuer intensitaetsmodulierte Strahlenfelder mit Linearer Programmierung als Optimierungsmethode, Matthias Hilbig, Feb. 20, 2003, 156 pages. |
| Entwicklung eines inversen Bestrahlungsplans mit linearer Optimierung, Matthias Hilbig; Robert Hanne; Peter Kneschaurek; Frank Zimmermann, Achim Schweikard, 2002, v.12, pp. 89-96. |
| Fluenzmodulierte Strahlentherapie mit in die Optimierung integrierter Segmentierung, Werner Baer; Markus Alber; Fridtjof Nuesslin, 2003, v. 13, pp. 12-15. |
| Methods of mathematical simulation and planning of fractionated irradiationof malignant tumors, Klepper L.Ya., Sotnikov V.M., Zamyatin O.A., Nechesnyuk A.V., 2000, v. 2, pp. 73-79. |
| Accuracy improvement of irradiation position and new trend, Nakagawa T., et al., 2001, pp. 102-105. |
| X-ray detector in IT era—FPD : Flat Panel Detector, Nishiki M., 2001, pp. 1-2. |
| Development of corn beam X-ray CT system, Watanabe Y., Oct. 2002, pp. 778-783. |
| The Stanford medical linear accelerator. II. Installation and physical measurements, Weissbluth, M., C. J. Karzmark et al., 1959, pp. 242-253. |
| A diagnostic X ray field verification device for a 10 MV linear accelerator, Biggs PJ,Goitein M,Russell MD, Mar. 1985, pp. 635-643. |
| New Patient Set Up in Linac-CT Radiotherapy System—First Mention of a Hybrid CT-Linac System, Akanuma, A., et al., 1984, pp. 465-467. |
| A dual computed tomography linear accelerator unit for stereotactic radiation therapy: a new approach without cranially fixated stereotactic frames, Uematsu M, Fukui T, Shioda A, Tokumitsu H, Takai K, Kojima T, Asai, Jun. 1, 1996, pp. 587-592. |
| Tomotherapy: a new concept for the delivery of dynamic conformal radiotherapy, Mackie TR, Holmes T, Swerdloff S, Reckwerdt P, Deasy JO, Yang J, Paliwal, 1993, pp. 1709-1719. |
| A room-based diagnostic imaging system for measurement of patient setup, Schewe JE, Lam KL, Balter JM, Ten Haken RK, Dec. 1998, pp. 2385-2387. |
| Initial Performance Evaluation of an Indirect-Detection, Active Matrix Flat-Panel Imager (AMFPI) Prototype for Megavoltage Imaging, Antonuk L, et al., 1998, pp. 661-672. |
| Megavoltage Imaging with a Large-Area, Flat-Panel, Amorphous Silicon Imager, Antonuk L, et al., 1996, pp. 437-452. |
| A Real-Time, Flat-Panel, Amorphous Silicon, Digital X-ray Imager, Antonuk L, et al., Jul. 1995, pp. 993-1000. |
| Strategies to improve the signal and noise performance of active matrix, flat-panel imagers for diagnostic x-ray applications, Antonuk L. et al., Feb. 2000, pp. 289-306. |
| An Interactive Computer System for Studying Human Mucociliary Clearance, Bassett P., 1979, pp. 97-105. |
| Optimal radiographic magnification for portal imaging, Bissonnette J. et al., Sep. 1994, pp. 1435-1445. |
| Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy: Current Status and Issues of Interest, Boyer A et al., 2001, pp. 880-914. |
| A review of electronic portal imaging devices, Boyer A et al., 1992, pp. 1-16. |
| Three-Dimensional Photon Treatment Planning for Hodgkin's Disease, Brown A. et al., May 1992, pp. 205-215. |
| Systematic verification of a three-dimensional electron beam dose calculation algorithm, Cheng A. et al., 1996, pp. 685-693. |
| Elements of X-Ray Diffraction, Cullity B., 1978, pp. 6-12. |
| Ion Beam Sputter-Deposited SiN/TiN Attenuating Phase-Shift Photoblanks, Dieu L. et al., 2001, pp. 810-817. |
| A Multileaf Collimator Field Prescription Preparation System for Conventional Radiotherapy, Du M. et al., 1994, pp. 707-714. |
| A Multileaf Collimator Field Prescription Preparation System for Conventional Radiotherapy, Du M. et al., 1995, pp. 513-520. |
| Relative dosimetry using active matrix flat- panel imager (AMFPI) technology, El-Mohri Y. et al., 1999, pp. 1530-1541. |
| Daily Monitoring and Correction of Radiation Field Placement Using a Video-Based Portal Imaging System: A Pilot Study, Ezz A. et al., 1992, pp. 159-165. |
| Dosimetric Evaluation of the Conformation of the Multileaf Collimator to Irregularly Shaped Fields, Frazier A. et al., 1995, pp. 1229-1238. |
| Effects of Treatment Setup Variation on Beam's Eye View Dosimetry for Radiation Therapy Using the Multileaf Collimator vs. the Cerrobend Block, Frazier A. et al., 1995, pp. 1247-1256. |
| A Method to Analyze 2-Dimensional Daily Radiotherapy Portal Images from an On-Line Fiber-Optic Imaging System, Graham M. et al., 1991, pp. 613-619. |
| Study of Treatment Variation in the Radiotherapy of Head and Neck Tumors Using a Fiber-Optic On-Line Radiotherapy Imaging System, Halverson K. et al., 1991, pp. 1327-1336. |
| A software tool for the quatitative evaluation of 3D dose calculation algorithms, Harms W. et al., 1998, pp. 1830-1836. |
| Clinical use of electronic portal imaging: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 58, Herman M. et al., 2001, pp. 712-737. |
| Activity distribution of a cobalt-60 teletherapy source, Jaffray D. et al., 1991, pp. 288-291. |
| Conebeam Tomographic Guidance of Radiation Field Placement for Radiotherapy of the Prostate, Jaffray D. et al., 1998, pp. 1-32. |
| Dual-Beam Imaging for Online Verification of Radiotherapy Field Placement, Jaffray D. et al., 1995, pp. 1273-1280. |
| Exploring “Target of the Day” Strategies for a Medical Linear Accelerator With Conebeam-CT Scanning Capability, Jaffray D. and Wong J., 1997, pp. 172-174. |
| Managing Geometric Uncertainty in Conformal Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, Jaffray D. and Wong J., Jan. 1999, pp. 4-19. |
| X-ray scatter in megavoltage transmission radiography: Physical characteristics and influence on image quality, Jaffray D., Jan. 1994, pp. 45-60. |
| X-ray sources of medical linear accelerators: Focal and extra-focal radiation, Jaffray D. and Battista J., 1993, pp. 1417-1427. |
| Rostkowska, J. et al., “Physical and Dosimetric Aspects of Quality Assurance in Sterotactic Radiotherapy”, 2001, p. 53-54. |
| Malik, R. et al., “Simulator Based CT: 4 Years of Experience at the Royal North Shore Hospital”, Sydney, Australia, 1993, p. 177-185. |
| Sidhu, K. et al., “Optimization of Conformal Thoracic Radiotherapy Plance While Using Cone-Beam CT Imaging for Treatment Verification”, 2001, p. 175-176. |
| Johnsen, S. et al., “Improved Clinac Electron Beam Quality”, 1983, p. 737. |
| Wong, J. et al., “Initial clinical experience with a gantry mounted dual beam imaging system for setup error localization”, 1998, p. 138. |
| Simo Muinonen, “Sadehoiden valmistelun optimointi fysiikan keinoin”, 1995, p. 1-166. |
| Pekka Kolmonen, “The direct control of the Multi-Leaf Collimator in the inverse problem of radiotherapy treatment planning”, Mar. 19, 2004, p. 1-81. |
| Jyrki Alakuijala, “Algorithms for modeling anatomic and target volumes in image-guided neurosurgery and radiotherapy”, 2001, p. 1-121. |
| Heikki Joensuu, “Intensiteettimuokattu sadehoito—uusi tekniikka parantanee hoitotuloksia”, 2001, p. 389-394. |
| Tina Seppala, “FiR 1 epithermal neutron beam model and dose calculation for treatment planning in neutron capture therapy”, 2002, p. 1-46. |
| Maria Korteila, “Varianin avulla Ade tappaa kasvaimen tarkasti”, 2000, p. 1-8. |
| Arnfield et al., “The use of film dosimetry of the penumbra region to improve the accuracy of intensity modulated radiotherapy”, 2005, p. 12-18. |
| Bergman et al., “The use modified single pencil beam dose kernels to improve IMRT dose calculation accuracy”, 2004, p. 3279-3287. |
| Budgell, “Temporal resolution requirements for intensity modulated radiation therapy delivered by multileaf collimators”, 1999, p. 1581-1596. |
| Xing et al., “Dosimetric verification of a commercial inverse treatment planning system”, 1999, p. 463-478. |
| Preciado-Walters, “A coupled column generation, mixed integer approach to optimal planning of intensity modulated radiation therapy for cancer”, 2004, p. 319-338. |
| Johan Lof, “Development of a general framework for optimization of radiation therapy”, 2000, p. 1-140. |
| Xing et al., “Iterative methods for inverse treatment planning”, 1996, p. 2107-2123. |
| Podgorsak et al., “Dynamic Stereotactic Radiosurgery”, 1988, p. 115-126. |
| Webb et al., “Inverse planning with constraints to generate smoothed intensity-modulated beams”, 1998, p. 2785-2794. |
| Crooks et al., “Linear algebraic methods applied to intensity modulated radiation therapy”, 2001, p. 2587-2606. |
| Varian Medical Systems, Radiation Therapy Acuity, 2005, 1 page. |
| Anderson, R., “Software system for automatic parameter logging on Philips SL20 linear accelerator”, 1995, p. 220-222. |
| Jaffray, et al., “Cone-beam computed tomography on a medical linear accelerator using a flat-panel imager”, 2000, p. 558-560. |
| Karzmark, C. J., “A Primer on Theory and Operation of Linear Accelerators in Radiation Therapy”, 1981, p. 1-61. |
| Wong, J. et al., “Behandlung des Lungenkarzinoms mittels stereotaktischer Strahlentherapie unter Verwednung des weltweit ersten PRIMATOM Systems—eine Fallstudie”, 2001, p. 133-136. |
| Kolda et al., “Optimization by Direct Search: New Perspectives on Some Classical and Modern Methods”, 2003, p. 385-482. |
| Studholme et al., “Automated three-dimensional registration of magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography brain images by multiresolution optimization of voxel similarity measures”, 1997, p. 25-35. |
| Lu et al., “Fast free-form deformable registration via calculus of variations”, 2004, p. 3067-3087. |
| C.T. Kelly, “Iterative Methods for Optimization”, North Carolina State University, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1999, p. 1-188. |
| Dadone et al., “Progressive Optimization”, Computers & Fluids, 29 (2000), p. 1-32. |
| R. Fletcher, “Practical Methods of Optimization”, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Dundee, Scotland, UK, Wiley-Interscience Publication,1987, p. 1-436. |
| Singiresu S. Rao, “Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice”, 1996, p. 1-840. |
| Rangarajan K. Sundaram, “A First Course in Optimization Theory”, New York University, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 1-376. |
| Christos H. Papadimitriou, “Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity”, Dover Books on Mathematics, 1982, p. 1-496. |
| Jan Blachut et al., “Emerging Methods for Multidisciplinary Optimization”, CISM Courses and Lectures No. 425, International Centre for Mechanical Science, 2001, p. 1-337. |
| Powell, M.J.D., “Direct search algorithms for optimization calculations”, Cambridge University Press, Acta Numerica (1998), p. 287-336. |
| “Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Supplement 11 Radiotherapy Objects”, 1997, p. 1-103. |
| Munro, P., “On Line Portal Imaging”, 1997, p. 114. |
| Smith, R. et al., “Development of cone beam CT for radiotherapy treatment planning”, 2001, p. 115. |
| Munro, P. et al, “Megavoltage Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Using a High Quantum Efficiency Image Receptor”, 2002, p. 1340. |
| Inter Parties Review Petition—U.S. Pat. No. 8,696,538, Apr. 5, 2016. |
| Inter Parties Review Petition—U.S. Pat. No. 7,880,154, Apr. 5, 2016. |
| Inter Parties Review Petition—U.S. Pat. No. 7,906,770, Apr. 5, 2016. |
| Inter Parties Review Petition—U.S. Pat. No. 7,906,770, Apr. 4, 2016. |
| Inter Parties Review Petition—U.S. Pat. No. 7,906,770, Sep. 28, 2016. |
| Inter Parties Review Petition—U.S. Pat. No. 8,696,538, Sep. 28, 2016. |
| Inter Parties Review Petition—U.S. Pat. No. 7,880,154, Sep. 28, 2016. |
| Rapid portal imaging with a high-efficiency, large field-of-view detector, Mosleh-Shirazi et al., 1998, pp. 2333-2346. |
| Graham Carey, Computational Grids Generational, Adaptation and Solution Strategies, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1997. |
| D. Verellen et al., A (short) history image-guided radiotherapy, Radiotherapy & Oncology, vol. 86, 2008, p. 4-13. |
| M. Van Herk et al., Automatic three-dimensional correlation of CT-CT, CT-MRI, and CT-SPECT using chamfer matching, Medical Physics, 1994, p. 1163-1178. |
| R.P. Woods et al., MRI-PET Registration with Automated Algorithm, Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 1993, p. 536-546. |
| Jaffray et al., A Volumentric Cone-Beam CT System Based on a 41×41 cm2 Flat-Panel Imager, 2001, p. 800-807. |
| Otto, K., Intensity Modulation of Therapeutic Photon Beams Using a Rotating Multileaf Collimator, 2003, p. 167. |
| Lim, J., Optimization in Radiation Treatment Planning, 2002, p. 168. |
| Wang et al., Development of Methods for Beam Angle Optimization for IMRT Using an Accelerated Exhaustive Search Strategy, 2004, p. 1325-1337. |
| Nag, S., et al., Intraoperative Planning and Evaluation of Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Report of the American Brachytherapy Society, 2001, p. 1422-1430. |
| Munro, P., Portal Imaging Technology: Past, Present, and Future, Seminars in Radiation Oncology, 1995, p. 115-133. |
| De Neve, W., et al., Routine clinical on-line portal imaging followed by immediate field adjustment using a tele-controlled patient couch, 1992, p. 45-54. |
| Antonuk, L.E. et al., Thin-Film, Flat-Panel, Composite Imagers for Projection and Tomographic Imaging, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 1994, p. 482-490. |
| Sephton, R., et al., A diagnostic-quality electronic portal imaging system, 1995, p. 204-247. |
| Kirby, M.C. et al., Clinical Applications of Composite and Realtime Megavoltage Imaging, 1995, p. 308-316. |
| Webb, S. et al., Tomographic Reconstruction from Experimentally Obtained Cone-Beam Projections, 1987, p. 67-73. |
| Midgley, S.M. et al., A Feasibility Study for the Use of Megavoltage Photons and a Commercial Electronic Portal Imaging Area Detector for Beam Geometry CT Scanning to Obtain 3D Tomographic Data Sets of Radiotherapy Patients in the Treatment Position, 1996, 2 pages. |
| Antonuk, L.E. et al., Demonstration of megavoltage and diagnostic x-ray imaging with hydrogenated amorphous silicon arrays, 1992, p. 1455-1466. |
| Chabbal, J. et al., Amorphous Silicon X-ray Image Sensor, 1996, p. 499-510. |
| Ning, R. et al., Selenium Flat Panel Detector-Based Volume Tomographic Angiography Imaging: Phantom Studies, 1998, p. 316-324. |
| Redpath, A.T. et al., Chapter 6: Simulator Computed Tomography, The Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology, 1999, pp. 169-189. |
| Boyer et al., Laser “Cross-hair” sidelight, 1978, p. 58-60. |
| Jaffray et al., Image Guided Radiotherapy of the Prostate, 2001, p. 1075-1080. |
| Mackenzie, M. et al., Intensity modulated arc deliveries approximated by a large number of fixed gantry position sliding window dynamic multileaf collimator fields, 2002, p. 2359-2365. |
| Bissonnette, J-P et al., An Alternative X-Ray Detector for Portal Imaging: High Density Glass Scintillator, 1993, p. 36-37. |
| Bissonnette, J-P et al., Physical characterization and optimal magnification of a portal imaging system, 1992, p. 182-188. |
| Colbeth, R. et al., 40×30 cm Flat Panel Imager for Angiography, R&F, and Cone-Beam CT Applications, 2001, p. 94-102. |
| Colbeth, R. et al., Characterization of an Amorphous Silicon Fluoroscopic Imager, 1997, p. 42-51. |
| Colbeth, R. et al., Characterization of a third generation, multi-mode sensor panel, 1999, p. 491-500. |
| Colbeth, R. et al., A Multi-mode X-ray Imager for Medical and Industrial Applications, 1998, p. 629-632. |
| Colbeth, R. et al., Flat panel imaging system for fluoroscopy applications, 1998, p. 376-387. |
| Gilblom, D. et al., Real-time x-ray imaging with flat panels, 1998, p. 213-223. |
| Gilblom, D. et al., A real-time, high-resolution camera with an amorphous silicon large-area sensor, 1998, p. 29-38,. |
| Jaffray, D. et al., Medical linear accelerator x-ray sources: Variation with make, model, and time, 1992, p. 174-181. |
| Klausmeier-Brown, M.E. et al., Real-Time Image Processing in a Flat-Panel, Solid-State, Medical Fluoroscopic Imaging System, 1998, p. 2-7. |
| Kubo, H., Potential and role of a prototype amorphous silicon array electronic portal imaging device in breathing synchronized radiotherapy, 1999, p. 2410-2414. |
| Munro, P. et al., A Digital Fluoroscopic Imaging Device for Radiotherapy Localization, 1990, p. 641-649. |
| Ning, R. et al., Real Time Flat Panel Detector-Based Volume Tomographic Angiography Imaging: Detector Evaluation, 2000, p. 396-407. |
| Munro P., et al., Therapy imaging• limitations of imaging with high energy x-ray beams, 1987, p. 178-184. |
| Wright, M. et al., Amorphous silicon dual mode medical imaging system, 1998, p. 505-514. |
| Cho, Y., et al., Thermal Modelling of a Kilovoltage X-Ray Source for Portal Imaging, 2000, p. 1856-1860. |
| Zheng, Z, et al., Fast 4D Cone-Beam Reconstruction Using the McKinnon-Bates Algorithm with Truncation Correction and Non Linear Filtering, 2011, p. 1-8. |
| Ebert, M. et al., 3D image guidance in radiotherapy: a feasibility study, 2001, p. 1807-1816. |
| Ford, E.C. et al., Cone-beam CT with megavoltage beams and an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging levice: Potential for verification of radiotherapy of lung cancer, 2002, p. 2913-2924. |
| Hunt, P. et al., Development of an IMRT quality assurance program using an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device, 2000, 1 page. |
| Mueller, K. et al., Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CT) for a Megavoltage Linear Accelerator (LINAC) Using an Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) and the Algebraic Reconstruction Technique (ART), 2000, p. 2875-2878. |
| Varian 2002 Annual Report, 2002, p. 1-28. |
| Ferris, M. et al., “An Optimization Approach for Radiosurgery Treatment Planning”, 2003, p. 921-937. |
| Ferris, M. et al., “Radiosurgery Treatment Planning via Nonlinear Programming”, 2003, p. 247-260. |
| Rowbottom, C. et al., “Simultaneous optimization of beam orientations and beam weights in conformal radiotherapy”, 2001, p. 1696-1702. |
| Scholz, C. et al., “Development and clinical application of a fast superposition algorithm in radiation therapy”, 2003, p. 79-90. |
| Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC, EP Application No. 03 786 979.9-1657, dated Jan. 30, 2014, 8 pages. |
| Varian, Search Report dated Jan. 21, 2011; EP Appln No. 03786979.9. |
| Derivation and analysis of a filtered backprojection algorithm for cone beam projection, Yan et al., 1991, pp. 462-472. |
| Practical realization of a method of digital x-ray diagnostics in a scanning-type device, Berkeshev, O.S. et al, 2001. pp. 36-37. |
| Presentation “Usage of X-ray CT for planning RT for lung cancer,” Conference: “Modern technologies in radiodiagnostics in health care”, Kharuzhyk S. et al, 2004, pp. 1-20. |
| Minoru Uematsu, M.D. et al., Infractional Tumor Position Stability During Computed Tomography (CT)—Guided Frameless Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for Lung or Liver Cancers with a Fusion of CT and Linear Accelerator (FOCAL) Unit, Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 48, No. 2, 2000, pp. 443-448. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20180028113 A1 | Feb 2018 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60701974 | Jul 2005 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 15382469 | Dec 2016 | US |
| Child | 15707931 | US | |
| Parent | 14710485 | May 2015 | US |
| Child | 15382469 | US | |
| Parent | 14202305 | Mar 2014 | US |
| Child | 14710485 | US | |
| Parent | 12986420 | Jan 2011 | US |
| Child | 14202305 | US | |
| Parent | 12132597 | Jun 2008 | US |
| Child | 12986420 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 11996932 | US | |
| Child | 12132597 | US |
