Response to "in regard to "Tran A, Zhang J, Woods K, Yu V, Nguyen D, Gustafson G, Rosen L, Sheng K. Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases

In regard to our recently published paper entitled "Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases", a question was raised whether "4π" was used appropriately to describe the non-coplanar planning and delivery space. In this letter, the term us...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inRadiation oncology (London, England) Vol. 13; no. 1; p. 66
Main Author Sheng, Ke
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England BioMed Central 13.04.2018
BMC
Subjects
Letter to the Editor
Non-coplanar radiotherapy
Optimization
Treatment planning
Non-coplanar radiotherapy
4π
Treatment planning
Optimization
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In regard to our recently published paper entitled "Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases", a question was raised whether "4π" was used appropriately to describe the non-coplanar planning and delivery space. In this letter, the term use is explained from both theoretical and practical perspectives. It is concluded that the self-explanatory term provides a flexible description of non-coplanar radiotherapy with beam orientation optimization. Confusions with this term can be avoided by understanding the evolving and machine/patient specific nature of 4π planning.
Bibliography:SourceType-Other Sources-1
content type line 63
ObjectType-Correspondence-1
ObjectType-Commentary-2
ISSN:1748-717X
1748-717X
DOI:10.1186/s13014-018-1010-5