% 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{Gillmann:144835,
      author       = {C. Gillmann$^*$ and O. Jäkel$^*$ and C. Karger$^*$},
      title        = {{RBE}-weighted doses in target volumes of chordoma and
                      chondrosarcoma patients treated with carbon ion
                      radiotherapy: {C}omparison of local effect models {I} and
                      {IV}.},
      journal      = {Radiotherapy and oncology},
      volume       = {141},
      issn         = {0167-8140},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2019-02260},
      pages        = {234-238},
      year         = {2019},
      note         = {2019 Dec;141:234-238},
      abstract     = {To compare the relative biological effectiveness
                      (RBE)-weighted dose distributions in the target volume of
                      chordoma and chondrosarcoma patients when using two
                      different versions of the local effect model (LEM I vs. IV)
                      under identical conditions.The patient collective included
                      59 patients treated with 20 fractions of carbon ion
                      radiotherapy for chordoma and low-grade chondrosarcoma of
                      the skull base at the Helmholtzzentrum für
                      Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in 2002 and 2003. Prescribed
                      doses to the planning target volume (PTV) were 60
                      (n = 49), 66 (n = 2) and 70 (n = 8) Gy (RBE).
                      The original treatment plans that were initially
                      biologically optimized with LEM I, were now recalculated
                      using LEM IV based on the absorbed dose distributions. The
                      resulting RBE-weighted dose distributions were
                      quantitatively compared to assess the clinical impact of LEM
                      IV relative to LEM I in the target volume.LEM IV predicts
                      20-30 Gy (RBE) increased maximum doses as compared to LEM
                      I, while minimum doses are decreased by 2-5 Gy (RBE).
                      Population-based mean and median doses deviated by less than
                      2 Gy (RBE) between both models.LEM I and LEM IV-based
                      RBE-weighted doses in the target volume may be significantly
                      different. Replacing the applied model in patient treatments
                      may therefore lead to local over- or underdosages in the
                      tumor. If LEM IV is to be tested clinically, comparisons of
                      the RBE-weighted dose distributions of both models are
                      required for the individual patients to assess whether the
                      LEM IV-plan would also be acceptable and prescribed dose as
                      well as clinical outcome data have to be carefully
                      reassessed.},
      cin          = {E040},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331},
      pnm          = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:31522880},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.radonc.2019.08.006},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/144835},
}