[1. Wyman DR, Ostapiak OZ, Gamble LM. Analysis of mechanical sources of patient alignment errors in radiation therapy. Med Phys 2002;29(11). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.151704710.1118/1.151704712462738]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Ezzell G, Chera B, Dicker A et al. Common error pathways seen in the RO-ILS data that demonstrate opportunities for improving treatment safety. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018;8(2):123-13210.1016/j.prro.2017.10.00729329998]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Goff PH, Harrison LB, Furhang E et al. 2D kV orthogonal imaging with fiducial markers is more precise for daily image guided alignments than soft-tissue cone beam computed tomography for prostate radiation therapy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2017;2(3):420-42810.1016/j.adro.2017.05.001560531529114611]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Goyal S, Kataria T, Image Guidance in Radiation Therapy: Techniques and Applications. Radiol Res Prac 2014;Article ID 705604, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/70560410.1155/2014/705604428140325587445]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Li G, Yang TJ, Furtado H et al. Clinical Assessment of 2D/3D Registration Accuracy in 4 Major Anatomic Sites Using On-Board 2D Kilovoltage Images for 6D Patient Setup. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2015;14(3):305-32410.1177/1533034614547454454486825223323]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Lecchi M, Fossati P, Elisei F et al. Current concepts on imaging in radiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35(4):821-83710.1007/s00259-007-0631-y17972074]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Lindfors N, Lund H, Johansson H et al. Influence of patient position and other inherent factors on image quality in two different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices. Eur J Radiol Open 2017:132-13710.1016/j.ejro.2017.10.001567589329159206]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Keall PJ, Hsu A, Xing L. Image-Guided Adaptive Radiotherapy, Leibel and Phillips Textbook of Radiation Oncology, wyd. Third Edition 2010.10.1016/B978-1-4160-5897-7.00012-3]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Li X. A., Adaptive Radiation Therapy in: Hendee W., Imaging in medical diagnosis and therapy, CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Sonke JJ, Aznar M, Rasch C. Adaptive Radiotherapy for Anatomical Changes. Semin Radiat Oncol 2019;29(3):245-25710.1016/j.semradonc.2019.02.00731027642]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Feldkamp L, Davis L, Kress J. Practical cone-beam algorithm. J Opt Soc Am A 1984;1(6):612-61910.1364/JOSAA.1.000612]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Srinivasan K, Mohammadi M, Shepherd J. Applications of linac-mounted kilovoltage Cone-beam Computed Tomography on modern radiation therapy: A Review. Pol J Radiol 2014:79:181-9310.12659/PJR.890745408511725006356]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Mao W, Liu C, Gardner SJ et al. Evaluation and Clinical Application of a Commercially Available Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm for CBCT-Based IGRT. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2019:18: 153303381882305410.1177/1533033818823054637399430803367]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Stock M, Pasler M, Birkfellner W et al. Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices: A comparative study. Radiother Oncol 2009;93(1)10.1016/j.radonc.2009.07.012286703219695725]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Moteabbed M, Sharp G, Wang Y et al. Validation of a deformable image registration technique for cone beam CT-based dose verification. Med Phys 2015;42(1):195-205]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Zoellner C, Rit S, Kurz C et al. Decomposing a prior-CT-based cone-beam CT projection correction algorithm into scatter and beam hardening components. Phys Imag Radiat Oncol 2017;3:49-5210.1016/j.phro.2017.09.002]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011;40(5):265-27310.1259/dmfr/30642039352026221697151]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Kalender WA, Kyriakou Y. Flat-detector Computed Tomography (FD-CT). Eur Radiol 2007;17(11):2767-277910.1007/s00330-007-0651-917587058]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Marchant T, Joshi K, Moore C. Accuracy of radiotherapy dose calculations based on cone-beam CT: comparison of deformable registration and image correction based methods. Phys Med Biol 2018;63(6)10.1088/1361-6560/aab0f029461255]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Yuan Z, Rong Y, Benedict SH et al. “Dose of the day” based on cone beam computed tomography and deformable image registration for lung cancer radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2020;21(1):88-9410.1002/acm2.12793696475031816170]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Veiga C, McClelland J, Moinuddin S et al. Toward adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck patients: Feasibility study on using CT-to-CBCT deformable registration for “dose of the day” calculations. Med Phys 2014;41(3)10.1118/1.486424024593707]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Oh S, Kim S. Deformable image registration in radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol J 2017;35(2):101-11110.3857/roj.2017.00325551845328712282]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Rigaud B, Simon A, Castelli J et al. Deformable image registration for radiation therapy: principle, methods, applications and evaluation. Acta Oncol 2019;58(9):1225-123710.1080/0284186X.2019.1620331]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Weistrand O, Svensson S. The ANACONDA algorithm for deformable image registration in radiotherapy. Med Phys 2015;42(1):40-5310.1118/1.4894702]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Brock KK, Mutic S, McNutt TR et al. Use of image registration and fusion algorithms and techniques in radiotherapy: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 132. Med Phys 2017;44(7)10.1002/mp.12256]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Brock K. K., Hawkins M. A., Eccles C. L. et al., Improving image-guided target localization through deformable registration. Acta Oncol 2008;47(7):1279-128510.1080/02841860802256491]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Thirion J. Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell’s demons. Medical Image Analysis 1998;2(3):243-26010.1016/S1361-8415(98)80022-4]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Wang H, Dong L, O’Daniel J et al. Validation of an accelerated ‘demons’ algorithm for deformable image registration in radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol;50(12):2887-290510.1088/0031-9155/50/12/01115930609]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Lawson JD, Schreibmann E, Jani AB et al. Quantitative evaluation of a cone-beam computed tomography–planning computed tomography deformable image registration method for adaptive radiation therapy. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 2007;8(4):96-11310.1120/jacmp.v8i4.2432572262118449149]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Velocity 4.0 Instructions for use. Varian Medical Systems 2018]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Niu T, Sun M, Star-Lack J et al. Shading correction for on-board cone-beam CT in radiation therapy using planning MDCT images. Med Phys 2010;37(10):5395-540610.1118/1.348326021089775]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Kurz C, Dedes G, Resch A et al. Comparing cone-beam CT intensity correction methods for dose recalculation in adaptive intensity-modulated photon and proton therapy for head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol 2015;54(9):1651-165710.3109/0284186X.2015.106120626198654]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Laundry G, Dedes G, Zoellner C et al. Phantom Based Evaluation of CT to CBCT Image Registration for Proton Therapy Dose Recalculation. Phys Med Biol 2014;60(2):595-61310.1088/0031-9155/60/2/59525548912]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Kurz C, Kamp F, Park Y-K et al. Investigating deformable image registration and scatter correction for CBCT-based dose calculation in adaptive IMPT. Med Phys 2016;43(10):5635-564610.1118/1.496293327782706]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Thing RS, Bernchou U, Mainegra-Hing E et al. Hounsfield unit recovery in clinical cone beam CT images of the thorax acquired for image guided radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 2016;61(15):5781-580210.1088/0031-9155/61/15/578127405692]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Thummerer A, Zaffino P, Meijers A et al. Comparison of CBCT based synthetic CT methods suitable for proton dose calculations in adaptive proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2020;65(9)10.1088/1361-6560/ab7d5432143207]Search in Google Scholar