Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 144
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 144
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 212
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1002
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3142
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Whole-pelvis pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy is utilized in both the intact and post-operative settings in patients with prostate cancer. As whole pelvis prostate radiotherapy has traditionally been delivered with standard photon beams, limited evidence and technical descriptions have been reported regarding the use of proton therapy. Here we present two robust three-field treatment planning approaches utilized to maximize target coverage in the presence of anatomic and delivery uncertainties. Both techniques, conventional optimization (CO) and robust optimization (RO), create treatment plans with acceptable target coverage and sparing of organs at risk (OAR). While the RO method is less time intensive and may theoretically allow for superior OAR sparing and improved robustness, the CO method can be implemented by institutions who do not have RO capabilities.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2020.04.001 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!