- Open Access
Development of a semi-customized tongue displacement device using a 3D printer for head and neck IMRT
- Chae-Seon Hong†1, 2,
- Dongryul Oh†1,
- Sang Gyu Ju1Email author,
- Yong Chan Ahn1, 3,
- Cho Hee Na1, 3,
- Dong Yeol Kwon1 and
- Cheol Chong Kim1
© The Author(s). 2019
- Received: 3 December 2018
- Accepted: 6 May 2019
- Published: 14 May 2019
To reduce radiation doses to the tongue, a patient-specific semi-customized tongue displacement device (SCTDD) was developed using a 3D printer (3DP) for head and neck (H&N) radiation therapy (RT). Dosimetric characteristics of the SCTDD were compared with those of a standard mouthpiece (SMP).
Materials and methods
The SCTDD consists of three parts: a mouthpiece, connector with an immobilization mask, and tongue displacer, which can displace the tongue to the contralateral side of the planning target volume. Semi-customization was enabled by changing the thickness and length of the SCTDD. The instrument was printed using a 3DP with a biocompatible material. With the SCTDD and SMP, two sets of planning computed tomography (CT) and tomotherapy plans were obtained for seven H&N cancer patients. Dosimetric and geometric characteristics were compared.
Using the SCTDD, the tongue was effectively displaced from the planning target volume without significant tongue volume change compared to the SMP. The median tongue dose was significantly reduced (29.6 Gy vs. 34.3 Gy). The volumes of the tongue receiving a dose of 15 Gy, 30 Gy, 35 Gy, 45 Gy, and 60 Gy were significantly lower than using the SMP.
The SCTDD significantly decreased the radiation dose to the tongue compared to the SMP, which may potentially reduce RT-related tongue toxicity.
- Tongue displacement
- 3D printing
- Head and neck cancer
Radiation therapy (RT) has played an important role as a standard treatment for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) [1–4] with surgery and chemotherapy. However, it is not an easy task to meet the aim of RT, which delivers a curable dose to a target volume while minimizing the dose to organs at risk (OARs) near the target volume because head and neck (H&N) tumors usually overlap or are adjacent to normal organs. There are many OARs of concern in the RT planning for H&N cancer, such as the brain, brainstem, optic apparatus, parotid gland, submandibular glands, pharyngeal muscles, laryngeal structures, and oral cavity (OC), including the tongue. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique has made a significant contribution to reduce dose of these OARs [1, 2, 5–7], but reduction of OC dose to a meaningful level still remain a big challenge because it is close to target volume and immobilization is not an easy task in H&N RT.
The tongue is a subsite of the OC and is not separately described in the OAR delineation guidelines . However, it plays important roles in taste, saliva production, speech, and swallowing [5, 7, 9, 10], so it is important to minimize the radiation dose to the tongue for better quality of life following RT. High mean dose of the tongue is closely related to movement of tongue and taste dysfunction that affect quality of speech and weight loss respectively in H&N RT [9, 10]. Percentage relative taste loss was not observed until radiation doses of 20 Gy had been reached. Between 20 Gy and 40 Gy, taste loss increased rapidly, while over 90% relative taste loss was observed at the 60 Gy dose level [11, 12]. Shi. et al. reported that significant impaired threshold of taste was revealed at 30 Gy .
Some clinical strategies have been used to reduce the tongue dose in H&N RT. First, radiation dose optimization permits protection of the tongue by employing advanced RT techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) [6, 7]. However, when the tongue is adjacent to the target volume, H&N RT can be challenging. Second, Kil et al. reported that the ‘stick-out’ position of the tongue without an intraoral device (IOD) can be useful to reduce the tongue dose, especially for tongue base dose reduction . However, it does not seem likely that good position reproducibility will be provided during IMRT with effective tongue displacement to the contralateral side of the target. Finally, as an active approach, a technique that can intentionally displace the tongue from the target volume can be used by employing a tongue displacement device (TDD) during RT .
In order to displace and immobilize the tongue in ipsilateral H&N RT for well-lateralized HNSCC, we developed a unique TDD that can be semi-customized for various patient conditions using 3D printing technology. The manufacturing process of the semi-customized TDD (SCTDD) was introduced, and dosimetric characteristics were compared with those of an SMP.
Development of a patient-specific semi-customized tongue displacement device
We designed a unique SCTDD combining the merits obtained from the many papers mentioned in the introduction and our clinical experience. The major concerns of the SCTDD design were displacement and sticking out, simple position verification, and robust immobilization of the tongue with patient-specific semi-customization for patient comfort. For these, the SCTDD consists of three parts: a mouthpiece, connector, and tongue displacer (Fig. 1). The mouthpiece has tooth stoppers on the upper and lower sides of the mouthpiece, an airway, and a position guide bar with a position verification window for the tongue. A tooth stopper, which is the contact point of the patient’s teeth, was designed to improve reproducibility of the biting position and prevent teeth from slipping. When the patient bites the tooth stopper using central incisors and then sticks out the tongue until the tip reaches the guide bar, the tongue moves along the guide groove of the displacer (red dotted arrows in Fig. 1). As a result of this, the tongue is naturally displaced to the contralateral side of the target. In order to improve the interfractional reproducibility of the tongue position, a verification window was designed to verify the position of the tip of the tongue during patient setup. To ensure natural breathing of the patient during treatment, we added an airway on the front of the mouthpiece, starting from the opposite side of the SCTDD displacer. Finally, we designed two connectors that can be attached to the immobilization mask on the front panel of the mouthpiece.
For patient-specific semi-customization of the TDD, different sizes of the SCTDD were designed by combining different thicknesses from 5 mm to 20 mm in 5 mm increments and lengths from 40 mm to 70 mm in 10 mm increments to cover different jaw openings and lengths of the OC (Fig. 1c), respectively. For simplification of the manufacturing process, the SCTDD was designed using a computer-aided design (CAD) program and converted into a stereolithography file format, which can be identified by a three-dimensional printer (3DP). The designed SCTDD was printed using a fused deposition modeling 3DP (3DISON Multi, Rokit, Korea) with a biocompatible 3DP material (Kitchen & Deco, Rokit, Korea).
We measured the average 3D printing times, excluding the modeling, to evaluate the efficiency of the SCTDD manufacturing procedure for clinical implementation.
Patient selection and simulation
Aim of RT
An SCTDD was fitted to the patient by an internal guideline as described in the following procedures. Before the planning computed tomography (CT), a SCTDD was selected based on the physical length of the jaw opening (upper to lower incisor) and depth of the OC in the diagnostic CT, which correspond to the thickness and length of the SCTDD, respectively.
For correct use and elimination of the sense of rejection by the SCTDD, the patient was trained using their own SCTDD for 10 min according to the design purposes described in the previous session. After the patient was familiarized with the SCTDD, the tongue was stuck out as much as possible until the tip reached the tongue position guide bar. After confirming this through the tongue position verification window, the patient was immobilized using a thermoplastic mask in conjunction with the connector of the SCTDD to improve the interfractional reproducibility.
For the SMP, most procedures were the same as for the SCTDD, but a single sized standard model was used. In addition, the SMP was designed to depress the tongue and immobilize it without position verification (Fig. 1d). Two sets of planning CT images were obtained under the same scan conditions with an SCTDD and an SMP for each patient and were transferred into TPS (Pinnacle3®, version 9.2; Philips Medical System, USA) for contouring.
For tonsil cancer patient-aimed definitive RT, the gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) were delineated on both CT image sets, while only CTV was delineated for OC cancer patient-aimed adjuvant RT. The planning target volumes (PTV, P_GTV and P_CTV) were generated with an isotropic expansion of 3 mm from GTV and CTV, respectively, which were modified so that the expanded PTVs did not exceed the actual anatomic boundaries, such as the spinal cord and skin surface. OAR, including the spinal cord, brainstem, parotid gland, and tongue, were delineated on both CT image sets according to internal guidelines based on a reference . The planning volume for the spinal cord (P-cord) was generated by adding a 3-mm margin to the actual spinal cord. All contours were delineated by a radiation oncologist based on the same rules for consistency.
For dose planning, all contour data with the planning CT was transferred to TPS for tomotherapy (Tomotherapy, Accuray, USA). For dosimetric comparison, helical tomotherapy plans were generated for both the SCTDD and SMP with a 6 MV photon beam. The same dose constraints and prescriptions were used in both plans based on internal guidelines as follows: total doses of 66 Gy and 60 Gy were prescribed to P_GTV and P_CTV, respectively, in 33 fractions using the simultaneously integrated boost technique for tonsil cancer, while a total dose of 59.4 Gy was prescribed to P_CTV in 27 fractions for OC cancer.
Two constraints were set at the highest priority level: 95% of PTVs should receive at least 100% of the prescription dose, and the maximum dose to P-cord should not exceed 45 Gy (Dmax < 45 Gy). In order to achieve the most homogenous dose distribution as possible within and around the PTV, 99% of the PTV volume should receive at least 95% of the prescription dose, and the volume receiving ≥110% of the prescribed dose should not be greater than 1 cm3 in total volume. The constraints at the second priority level were to limit the mean dose (Dmean) under 26 Gy and 30 Gy for the parotid and tongue, respectively. The lowest level constraint was to limit the dose to the brainstem: Dmax should not exceed 54 Gy.
For each plan, the same number of iterations was used during the dose optimization process. During inverse planning, once PTV constraints were reached, the optimization was continued to reduce the doses to OAR until the iteration limit was reached while maintaining the PTV dose. In both plans, a field width of 2.5 cm, modulation factor of 2.0, and pitch of 0.287 were used to avoid the thread effect . Dose calculation was conducted using the collapsed-cone convolution algorithm [21, 22].
Evaluation of the geometric and dosimetric effects of the SCTDD
We evaluated the geometric and dosimetric effects of the SCTDD compared with those of the SMP. For comparative evaluation of the geometrical change on the tongue, tongue volume and percent of tongue volume outside the PTV were measured in both the SCTDD and SMP plans.
In order to evaluate the effect of the SCTDD on plan quality, the minimum dose received by 95% (D95), 50% (D50), and 2% (D2) of the PTVs in the SCTDD plan were compared with those of the SMP plan data. The homogeneity index (HI = (D2-D98)/D50) was also compared. In addition, several relevant dosimetric parameters on these OAR were used for comparison: Dmean of the parotid; Dmax of the P-cord and brainstem; and the percentages of tongue volume that received a dose of 15 Gy (V15), 30 Gy (V30), 35 Gy (V35), 45 Gy (V45), 60 Gy (V60), or more; and Dmax and Dmean of the tongue.
Statistical analysis of the dosimetric comparison between the SMP and SCTDD was done using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A probability level with a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Geometrical effect of the semi-customized tongue displacement device
We designed (Fig. 1a and b) and printed (Fig. 1c) 16 SCTDD models with different depths and lengths to cover various patient conditions. 3D printing of the SCTDD took a minimum of 60 min and a maximum of 120 min depending on the SCTDD size. Additionally, approximately 30 min of post processing were required.
Comparison of geometric and dosimetric characteristics for tongue: SMP versus SCTDD
82.6 cm3 (73.1, 95.4)
80.5 cm3 (77.7, 100.5)
Percent of tongue volume outside the PTV
86.4% (84.9, 90.8)
91.3% (87.3, 91.9)
89.7% (83.3, 94.3)
79.9% (71.7, 81.9)
48.3% (46.1, 53.3)
37.8% (34.1, 40.9)
41.4% (37.9, 47.1)
30.6% (27.2, 34.5)
29.4% (27.4, 36.6)
22.7% (17.2, 24.2)
13.7% (8.0, 16.1)
7.4% (6.6, 12.6)
34.3 Gy (33.0, 35.5)
29.6 Gy (27.3, 30.4)
62.9 Gy (62.3, 69.3)
62.3 Gy (62.1, 69.0)
Dosimetric comparison between the SMP and SCTDD
Comparisons of dosimetric characteristics
68.5 (68.3, 68.6)
68.3 (68.0, 68.4)
65.7 (65.6, 65.7)
65.7 (65.6, 65.7)
67.3 (67.2, 67.3)
67.1 (67.1, 67.2)
0.042 (0.039, 0.043)
0.039 (0.034, 0.042)
68.1 (68.0, 68.1)
67.9 (67.7, 67.9)
59.5 (58.8, 59.8)
58.5 (58.4, 59.2)
63.5 (63.3, 63.8)
63.0 (62.5, 63.6)
0.136 (0.131, 0.144)
0.149 (0.136, 0.152)
Oral Cavity cancer
62.2 (61.8, 62.3)
62.0 (61.7, 62.2)
58.7 (58.6, 58.8)
58.7 (58.7, 58.8)
60.9 (60.6, 61.0)
60.8 (60.6, 61.0)
0.058 (0.050, 0.060)
0.054 (0.048, 0.058)
15.3 (13.4, 15.7)
15.5 (13.1, 16.9)
26.6 (24.7, 30.7)
27.1 (23.4, 30.5)
19.1 (15.0, 22.3)
21.3 (15.5, 23.4)
In connection with geometrical change of the tongue by using an SCTDD, the tongue was effectively displaced from the high dose region near PTV (Fig. 2d), while a partial volume of the tongue received a high dose similar to the prescribed dose in the SMP (Fig. 2c). The median of Dmean for the tongue was significantly reduced by 15.9% in the SCTDD (29.6 Gy, IQR: 27.3, 30.4) compared with the SMP (34.3 Gy, IQR: 33.0, 35.5) (p = 0.016) (Table 2). Moreover, median of V15, V30, V35, V45, and V60 for the tongue were significantly lower in the SCTDD (79.9, 37.8, 30.6, 22.7, and 7.4%, respectively) than the SMP (89.7, 48.3, 41.4, 29.4, and 13.7%, respectively) (all p < 0.05). However, no significant difference in median of Dmax for the tongue was observed between the SCTDD (62.3, IQR: 62.1, 69.0 Gy) and the SMP (62.9, IQR: 62.3, 69.3) (p = 0.078).
The tongue plays a very important role in taste, speech, and swallowing functions. Reducing the radiation dose to the tongue can retain these functions following RT. Several authors have shown evidence of this. Sapir et al. reported significant association between dysgeusia and radiation dose to the tongue . Jacobi et al. showed that changes in speech are related to mean doses to the tongue . Schwartz et al. suggested that V30 < 65% and V35 < 35% for the anterior OC are predictive factors for swallowing dysfunctions . Eisbruch et al. showed that the mean dose to the OC, representing the RT effect on the minor salivary glands, is a significant factor of dry mouth . In the current study, the use of the SCTDD decreased the mean dose to the tongue through V15 to V60 compared to the SMP without sacrifice of plan quality or patient setup stability.
IOD has been playing an important role in reducing the dose of oral cavity and its subsites, as well as improving setup uncertainty [24, 25]. For effective working of the IOD, it should cover various patient conditions such as different jaw opening and complex oral cavity structure based on surgery result. So, we developed unique SCTDD manufacturing process that can be realized in clinic based on semi-customization using a CAD software and 3D printing technology. For semi-customization, we first designed an ideal model of the SCTDD, and then created many different size SCTDD models to fit various patient conditions using copy, resizing, and modification tool provided by commercial CAD software. Furthermore 3D printing technology made it possible to manufacture these models in short time with low cost by clinical staff, that were not possible in conventional manufacturing process such as milling or casting process. Our proposal is useful to handle unexpected patient condition because SCTDD model can be modified and printed within half day if prepared SCTDD does not fit the patient condition.
There are some considerations for clinical implementation of the SCTDD. For accurate customization of the TDD, the most important factor is to select the proper thickness and length of the SCTDD for a patient. Until now, we applied an SCTDD to 17 patients; seven in this study and 10 not included to whom only SCTDD were applied so that comparison with SMP could not be performed. In these 17 patents, 12 of 13 patients for definitive setting had SCTDDs with thicknesses of 2~2.5 cm and lengths of 6.5~ 7 cm, while one patient had an SCTDD with a thickness of 1.5 cm and length of 6.5 cm. Of four patients for post-op setting, three had an SCTDD with a thickness of 1 cm and a length of 6.5 cm, while one had an SCTDD with a thickness of 1.5 cm and a length of 7 cm. In patients for post-op setting, it was not possible to apply an SMP because they had difficulty opening the jaw sufficiently, while an SCTDD was very easy to apply. In this context, we can categorize the SCTDD size into two groups: one with a thickness of 2.25 cm and a length of 6.75 cm, which is very close to results of seven present patients, for definitive RT patients and one with a thickness of 1.25 cm and a length of 6.75 cm for post-op patients.
The SCTDD is placed with a patient’s mouth open. As the course of RT progresses, oral discomfort or pain may increase because of oral mucositis and trismus caused by RT. For this reason, the SCTDD should have a rounded edge design with a smooth surface. Additionally, biocompatible and soft material is recommended for 3D printing, with smooth surface treatment as a post processing step. Fortunately, various types of 3D printing material that meet these requirements are commercially available, and this will be broaden by rapid advancement of 3D printing technology.
Position reproducibility of the tongue with the SCTDD is also very important, although it is not included in this study. To obtain robust positional reproducibility, we introduced two key points into the design of the SCTDD: the connector, which connects to a thermoplastic mask, and a tongue position guide bar with a verification window. Both of these features were very effective at maintaining positional reproducibility of the SCTDD and the tongue, as well as reduction of patient setup time. Evaluation of the long-term positional reproducibility can be contributed to improve the SCTDD design based on the setup image.
By employing 3D printing technology with an in-house manufacturing process, a unique SCTDD was developed to displace and immobilize the tongue for ipsilateral H&N RT. It significantly decreased the radiation dose to the tongue compared to an SMP and could potentially reduce RT-related tongue toxicity. Furthermore, with rapid advancement of 3D printing technology, this investigation may also contribute to improve manufacturing processes for patient-specific customized devices for RT.
This idea is patent pending for a Korean patent (No. 10-2016-0104493).
This work was supported by the research program, NRF-2018R1D1A1B07043445 (Republic of Korea).
Availability of data and materials
The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conception, design, and drafting the manuscript were performed by Sang Gyu Ju, Dongryul Oh, and Chae-Seon Hong. Data collection and interpreting were performed by Yong Chan Ahn, Cho Hee Na, Dong Yeol Kwon, and Cheol Chong Kim. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The institutional review board at Samsung Medical Center (file no. SMC201802119, February 28, 2018).
Consent for publication
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Kubicek GJ, Machtay M. New advances in high-technology radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2008;22:1165–80 viii.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bhide SA, Nutting CM. Advances in radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol. 2010;46:439–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lee YH, Cho SG, Jung SE, Kim SH, O JH, Park GS, et al. Analysis of treatment outcomes for primary tonsillar lymphoma. Radiat Oncol J. 2016;34:273–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gregoire V, Langendijk JA, Nuyts S. Advances in radiotherapy for head and neck Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3277.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Eisbruch A, Kim HM, Terrell JE, Marsh LH, Dawson LA, Ship JA. Xerostomia and its predictors following parotid-sparing irradiation of head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50:695–704.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chao KS, Majhail N, Huang CJ, Simpson JR, Perez CA, Haughey B, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy reduces late salivary toxicity without compromising tumor control in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma: a comparison with conventional techniques. Radiother Oncol. 2001;61:275–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Little M, Schipper M, Feng FY, Vineberg K, Cornwall C, Murdoch-Kinch CA, et al. Reducing xerostomia after chemo-IMRT for head-and-neck cancer: beyond sparing the parotid glands. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:1007–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brouwer CL, Steenbakkers RJ, Bourhis J, Budach W, Grau C, Gregoire V, et al. CT-based delineation of organs at risk in the head and neck region: DAHANCA, EORTC, GORTEC, HKNPCSG, NCIC CTG, NCRI, NRG oncology and TROG consensus guidelines. Radiother Oncol. 2015;117:83–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sapir E, Tao Y, Feng F, Samuels S, El Naqa I, Murdoch-Kinch CA, et al. Predictors of Dysgeusia in patients with oropharyngeal Cancer treated with chemotherapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96:354–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jacobi I, Navran A, van der Molen L, Heemsbergen WD, Hilgers FJ, van den Brekel MW. Radiation dose to the tongue and velopharynx predicts acoustic-articulatory changes after chemo-IMRT treatment for advanced head and neck cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273:487–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mossman KL. Gustatory tissue injury in man: radiation dose response relationships and mechanisms of taste loss. Br J Cancer Suppl. 1986;7:9–11.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Shi HB, Masuda M, Umezaki T, Kuratomi Y, Kumamoto Y, Yamamoto T, et al. Irradiation impairment of umami taste in patients with head and neck cancer. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2004;31:401–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kil WJ, Kulasekere C, Derrwaldt R, Bugno J, Hatch C. Decreased radiation doses to tongue with “stick-out” tongue position over neutral tongue position in head and neck cancer patients who refused or could not tolerate an intraoral device (bite-block, tongue blade, or mouthpiece) due trismus, gag reflex, or discomfort during intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Oncotarget. 2016;7:53029–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Johnson B, Sales L, Winston A, Liao J, Laramore G, Parvathaneni U. Fabrication of customized tongue-displacing stents: considerations for use in patients receiving head and neck radiotherapy. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144:594–600.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fleming TJ, Rambach SC. A tongue-shielding radiation stent. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49:389–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bodard AG, Racadot S, Salino S, Pommier P, Zrounba P, Montbarbon X. A new, simple maxillary-sparing tongue depressor for external mandibular radiotherapy: a case report. Head Neck. 2009;31:1528–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kaanders JH, Fleming TJ, Ang KK, Maor MH, Peters LJ. Devices valuable in head and neck radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23:639–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Qin WJ, Luo W, Lin SR, Sun Y, Li FM, Liu XQ, et al. Sparing normal oral tissues with individual dental stent in radiotherapy for primary nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Ai Zheng. 2007;26:285–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wang RR, Olmsted LW. A direct method for fabricating tongue-shielding stent. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;74:171–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chen M, Chen Y, Chen Q, Lu W. Theoretical analysis of the thread effect in helical TomoTherapy. Med Phys. 2011;38:5945–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sini C, Broggi S, Fiorino C, Cattaneo GM, Calandrino R. Accuracy of dose calculation algorithms for static and rotational IMRT of lung cancer: a phantom study. Phys Med. 2015;31:382–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhao Y, Qi G, Yin G, Wang X, Wang P, Li J, et al. A clinical study of lung cancer dose calculation accuracy with Monte Carlo simulation. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:287.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schwartz DL, Hutcheson K, Barringer D, Tucker SL, Kies M, Holsinger FC, et al. Candidate dosimetric predictors of long-term swallowing dysfunction after oropharyngeal intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78:1356–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhang L, Garden AS, Lo J, Ang KK, Ahamad A, Morrison WH, et al. Multiple regions-of-interest analysis of setup uncertainties for head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:1559–69.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chung Y, Yoon HI, Ha JS, Kim S, Lee IJ. A feasibility study of a tilted head position in helical Tomotherapy for fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial malignancies. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2015;14:475–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar