[
1. Schoknecht G. Description of radiation fields by separation of primary and scatter radiation. I. The tissue–air ratio in 60Co fields. Strahlentherapie. 1967:132:516-528.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
2. Batho HF. Lung corrections in Cobalt 60 Beam Therapy. J Can Assoc Radiol. 1964;15:79-83.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
3. Oelkfe U, Scholz C. Dose Calculation Algorithms. In: Schlegel W., Bortfeld T., Grosu AL. (eds) New Technologies in Radiation Oncology. Medical Radiology (Radiation Oncology). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-29999-8_1510.1007/3-540-29999-8_15
]Search in Google Scholar
[
4. Siebers JV, Keall PJ, Nahum AE, Mohan R. Converting absorbed dose to medium to absorbed dose to water for Monte Carlo based photon beam dose calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45(4):983-95. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/4/31310.1088/0031-9155/45/4/313
]Search in Google Scholar
[
5. Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, et al. AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys. 1999;26(9):1847-1870. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.59869110.1118/1.598691
]Search in Google Scholar
[
6. Uzan J, Nahum AE. Radiobiologically guided optimisation of the prescription dose and fractionation scheme in radiotherapy using BioSuite. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1017):1279-1286. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/2047656710.1259/bjr/20476567
]Search in Google Scholar
[
7. Lyman JT. Complication probability as assessed from dose-volume histograms. Radiat Res Suppl. 1985;8:S13-S19. https://doi.org/10.2307/358350610.2307/3583506
]Search in Google Scholar
[
8. Gulliford SL, Partridge M, Sydes MR, et al. Parameters for the Lyman Kutcher Burman (LKB) model of Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) for specific rectal complications observed in clinical practise. Radiother Oncol. 2012;102(3):347-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2011.10.02210.1016/j.radonc.2011.10.022
]Search in Google Scholar
[
9. Burman C, Kutcher GJ, Emami B, Goiten M. Fitting of normal tissue tolerance data to an analytic function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21:123-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(91)90172-Z10.1016/0360-3016(91)90172-Z
]Search in Google Scholar
[
10. Lutkenhaus LJ, Vestergaard A, Bel A, et al. A biological modeling based comparison of two strategies for adaptive radiotherapy of urinary bladder cancer. Acta Oncologica. 2016;55(8):1009-1015. :8, 1009-1015. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2016.115154810.3109/0284186X.2016.115154827100215
]Search in Google Scholar
[
11. Chetty IJ, Curran B, Cygler JEet al. Report of the AAPM Task Group No.105: Issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo-based photon and electron external beam treatment planning. Med Phys. 2007;34:4818-53. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.279584210.1118/1.279584218196810
]Search in Google Scholar
[
12. Dogan N, Siebers JV, Keall PJ. Clinical Comparison of Head and Neck and Prostate IMRT Plans Using Absorbed Dose to Medium and Absorbed Dose to Water. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(19):4967-4980. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/19/01510.1088/0031-9155/51/19/01516985281
]Search in Google Scholar
[
13. Siebers JV, Keall PJ, Nahum AE, Mohan R. Converting Absorbed Dose to Medium to Absorbed Dose to Water for Monte Carlo Based Photon Beam Dose Calculation. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45(4):983-995. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/4/31310.1088/0031-9155/45/4/31310795986
]Search in Google Scholar
[
14. Chen L, Huang B, Huang X, et al. Clinical evaluation for the difference of absorbed doses calculated to medium and calculated to water by Monte Carlo method. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1081-310.1186/s13014-018-1081-3606414430055661
]Search in Google Scholar
[
15. Gopal SK, Dash PC. Dose-to-medium vs. dose-to-water: Dosimetric evaluation of head and neck VMAT cases using Monaco treatment planning system. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2016;4(4):4416. https://doi.org/10.14319/ijcto.44.16
]Search in Google Scholar
[
16. Usmani M, Masai N, Oh R, et al. Comparison of Absorbed Dose to Medium and Absorbed Dose to Water for Spine IMRT Plans Using a Commercial Monte Carlo Treatment Planning System. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology. 2014;3(1):60-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2014.3101010.4236/ijmpcero.2014.31010
]Search in Google Scholar
[
17. Walters BRB, Kramer R, Kawrakow I. Dose to medium versus dose to water as an estimator of dose to sensitive skeletal tissue. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:4535. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/16/S0810.1088/0031-9155/55/16/S0820668336
]Search in Google Scholar
[
18. Fippel M, Nüsslin F. Comments on ‘Converting Absorbed Dose to Medium to Absorbed Dose to Water for Monte Carlo Based Photon Beam Dose Calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2007;45(8):L17-L19. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/8/10110.1088/0031-9155/45/8/10110958207
]Search in Google Scholar
[
19. Ma CM, Mok E, Kapur A, et al. Clinical Implementation of a Monte Carlo Treatment Planning System. Med Phys. 1999;26(10):2133-2143. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.59872910.1118/1.59872910535630
]Search in Google Scholar
[
20. Keall P. Dm Rather than Dw Should Be Used in Monte Carlo Treatment Planning. Against the Proposition. Med Phys. 2002;29(5):923-924. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.147313710.1118/1.147313712033589
]Search in Google Scholar