% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Nischwitz:127224,
      author       = {S. P. Nischwitz and J. Bauer and T. Welzel and H. Rief and
                      O. Jäkel$^*$ and T. Haberer and K. Frey and J. Debus$^*$
                      and K. Parodi and S. E. Combs and S. Rieken},
      title        = {{C}linical implementation and range evaluation of in vivo
                      {PET} dosimetry for particle irradiation in patients with
                      primary glioma.},
      journal      = {Radiotherapy and oncology},
      volume       = {115},
      number       = {2},
      issn         = {0167-8140},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2017-03249},
      pages        = {179 - 185},
      year         = {2015},
      abstract     = {The physical and biological properties of ion-beams offer
                      various advantages in comparison to conventional
                      radiotherapy, though uncertainties concerning quality
                      assurance are still left. Due to the inverted depth dose
                      profile, range accuracy is of paramount importance. We
                      investigated the range deviations between planning
                      simulation and post-fractional PET/CT measurement from
                      particle therapy in primary glioblastoma.20 patients with
                      glioblastoma undergoing particle therapy at our institution
                      were selected. 10 received a proton-boost, 10 a
                      carbon-ion-boost in addition to standard treatment. After
                      two fractions, we performed a PET/CT-scan of the brain. We
                      compared the resulting range deviation based on the
                      Most-likely-shift method between the two measurements, and
                      the measurements with corresponding expectations, calculated
                      with the Monte-Carlo code FLUKA.A patient's two measurements
                      deviated by 0.7mm (±0.7mm). Overall comparison between
                      measurements and simulation resulted in a mean range
                      deviation of 3.3mm (±2.2mm) with significant lower
                      deviations in the (12)C-arm.The used planning concepts
                      display the actual dose distributions adequately. The carbon
                      ion group's results are below the used PTV safety margins
                      (3mm). Further adjustments to the simulation are required
                      for proton irradiations. Some anatomical situations require
                      particular attention to ensure highest accuracy and safety.},
      cin          = {E040 / E050},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E050-20160331},
      pnm          = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:25842968},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.radonc.2015.03.022},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/127224},
}