1
|
Sterpin E, Widesott L, Poels K, Hoogeman M, Korevaar EW, Lowe M, Molinelli S, Fracchiolla F. Robustness evaluation of pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatment planning: A systematic review. Radiother Oncol 2024; 197:110365. [PMID: 38830538 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110365] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Revised: 04/30/2024] [Accepted: 05/29/2024] [Indexed: 06/05/2024]
Abstract
Compared to conventional radiotherapy using X-rays, proton therapy, in principle, allows better conformity of the dose distribution to target volumes, at the cost of greater sensitivity to physical, anatomical, and positioning uncertainties. Robust planning, both in terms of plan optimization and evaluation, has gained high visibility in publications on the subject and is part of clinical practice in many centers. However, there is currently no consensus on the methods and parameters to be used for robust optimization or robustness evaluation. We propose to overcome this deficiency by following the modified Delphi consensus method. This method first requires a systematic review of the literature. We performed this review using the PubMed and Web Of Science databases, via two different experts. Potential conflicts were resolved by a third expert. We then explored the different methods before focusing on clinical studies that evaluate robustness on a significant number of patients. Many robustness assessment methods are proposed in the literature. Some are more successful than others and their implementation varies between centers. Moreover, they are not all statistically or mathematically equivalent. The most sophisticated and rigorous methods have seen more limited application due to the difficulty of their implementation and their lack of widespread availability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Sterpin
- KU Leuven - Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium; UCLouvain - Institution de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Center of Molecular Imaging Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium; Particle Therapy Interuniversity Center Leuven - PARTICLE, Leuven, Belgium.
| | - L Widesott
- Proton Therapy Center - UO Fisica Sanitaria, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy
| | - K Poels
- Particle Therapy Interuniversity Center Leuven - PARTICLE, Leuven, Belgium; UZ Leuven, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M Hoogeman
- Erasmus Medical Center, Cancer Institute, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; HollandPTC, Delft, the Netherlands
| | - E W Korevaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - M Lowe
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - S Molinelli
- Fondazione CNAO - Medical Physics Unit, Pavia, Italy
| | - F Fracchiolla
- Proton Therapy Center - UO Fisica Sanitaria, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Olovsson N, Wikström K, Flejmer A, Ahnesjö A, Dasu A. Impact of setup and geometric uncertainties on the robustness of free-breathing photon radiotherapy of small lung tumors. Phys Med 2024; 123:103396. [PMID: 38943799 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103396] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2023] [Revised: 02/19/2024] [Accepted: 06/01/2024] [Indexed: 07/01/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Respiratory motion and patient setup error both contribute to the dosimetric uncertainty in radiotherapy of lung tumors. Managing these uncertainties for free-breathing treatments is usually done by margin-based approaches or robust optimization. However, breathing motion can be irregular and concerns have been raised for the robustness of the treatment plans. We have previously reported the dosimetric effects of the respiratory motion, without setup uncertainties, in lung tumor photon radiotherapy using free-breathing images. In this study, we include setup uncertainty. METHODS Tumor positions from cine-CT images acquired in free-breathing were combined with per-fraction patient shifts to simulate treatment scenarios. A total of 14 patients with 300 tumor positions were used to evaluate treatment plans based on 4DCT. Four planning methods aiming at delivering 54 Gy as median tumor dose in three fractions were compared. The planning methods were denoted robust 4D (RB4), isodose to the PTV with a central higher dose (ISD), the ISD method normalized to the intended median tumor dose (IRN) and homogeneous fluence to the PTV (FLU). RESULTS For all planning methods 95% of the intended dose was achieved with at least 90% probability with RB4 and FLU having equal CTV D50% values at this probability. FLU gave the most consistent results in terms of CTV D50% spread and dose homogeneity. CONCLUSIONS Despite the simulated patient shifts and tumor motions being larger than observed in the 4DCTs the dosimetric impact was suggested to be small. RB4 or FLU are recommended for the planning of free-breathing treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nils Olovsson
- Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden.
| | - Kenneth Wikström
- Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Medical Physics, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anna Flejmer
- Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Oncology, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anders Ahnesjö
- Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Alexandru Dasu
- Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Loebner HA, Bertholet J, Mackeprang PH, Volken W, Elicin O, Mueller S, Guyer G, Aebersold DM, Stampanoni MF, Fix MK, Manser P. Robustness analysis of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for head and neck cancer. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 30:100586. [PMID: 38808098 PMCID: PMC11130727 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100586] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2024] [Revised: 04/30/2024] [Accepted: 05/03/2024] [Indexed: 05/30/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) has been shown to improve healthy tissue sparing compared to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). This study aimed to assess and compare the robustness of DTRT and VMAT treatment-plans for head and neck (H&N) cancer to patient-setup (PS) and machine-positioning uncertainties. Materials and methods The robustness of DTRT and VMAT plans previously created for 46 H&N cases, prescribed 50-70 Gy to 95 % of the planning-target-volume, was assessed. For this purpose, dose distributions were recalculated using Monte Carlo, including uncertainties in PS (translation and rotation) and machine-positioning (gantry-, table-, collimator-rotation and multi-leaf collimator (MLC)). Plan robustness was evaluated by the uncertainties' impact on normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for xerostomia and dysphagia and on dose-volume endpoints. Differences between DTRT and VMAT plan robustness were compared using Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test (α = 5 %). Results Average NTCP for moderate-to-severe xerostomia and grade ≥ II dysphagia was lower for DTRT than VMAT in the nominal scenario (0.5 %, p = 0.01; 2.1 %, p < 0.01) and for all investigated uncertainties, except MLC positioning, where the difference was not significant. Average differences compared to the nominal scenario were ≤ 3.5 Gy for rotational PS (≤ 3°) and machine-positioning (≤ 2°) uncertainties, <7 Gy for translational PS uncertainties (≤ 5 mm) and < 20 Gy for MLC-positioning uncertainties (≤ 5 mm). Conclusions DTRT and VMAT plan robustness to the investigated uncertainties depended on uncertainty direction and location of the structure-of-interest to the target. NTCP remained on average lower for DTRT than VMAT even when considering uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannes A. Loebner
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Jenny Bertholet
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Paul-Henry Mackeprang
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Werner Volken
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Olgun Elicin
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Silvan Mueller
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Gian Guyer
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Daniel M. Aebersold
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Michael K. Fix
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Peter Manser
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Knäusl B, Belotti G, Bertholet J, Daartz J, Flampouri S, Hoogeman M, Knopf AC, Lin H, Moerman A, Paganelli C, Rucinski A, Schulte R, Shimizu S, Stützer K, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Czerska K. A review of the clinical introduction of 4D particle therapy research concepts. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 29:100535. [PMID: 38298885 PMCID: PMC10828898 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100535] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2023] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 02/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Many 4D particle therapy research concepts have been recently translated into clinics, however, remaining substantial differences depend on the indication and institute-related aspects. This work aims to summarise current state-of-the-art 4D particle therapy technology and outline a roadmap for future research and developments. Material and methods This review focused on the clinical implementation of 4D approaches for imaging, treatment planning, delivery and evaluation based on the 2021 and 2022 4D Treatment Workshops for Particle Therapy as well as a review of the most recent surveys, guidelines and scientific papers dedicated to this topic. Results Available technological capabilities for motion surveillance and compensation determined the course of each 4D particle treatment. 4D motion management, delivery techniques and strategies including imaging were diverse and depended on many factors. These included aspects of motion amplitude, tumour location, as well as accelerator technology driving the necessity of centre-specific dosimetric validation. Novel methodologies for X-ray based image processing and MRI for real-time tumour tracking and motion management were shown to have a large potential for online and offline adaptation schemes compensating for potential anatomical changes over the treatment course. The latest research developments were dominated by particle imaging, artificial intelligence methods and FLASH adding another level of complexity but also opportunities in the context of 4D treatments. Conclusion This review showed that the rapid technological advances in radiation oncology together with the available intrafractional motion management and adaptive strategies paved the way towards clinical implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara Knäusl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Gabriele Belotti
- Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
| | - Jenny Bertholet
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Juliane Daartz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Mischa Hoogeman
- Department of Medical Physics & Informatics, HollandPTC, Delft, The Netherlands
- Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Antje C Knopf
- Institut für Medizintechnik und Medizininformatik Hochschule für Life Sciences FHNW, Muttenz, Switzerland
| | - Haibo Lin
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Astrid Moerman
- Department of Medical Physics & Informatics, HollandPTC, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Chiara Paganelli
- Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, PL-31342 Krakow, Poland
| | - Reinhard Schulte
- Division of Biomedical Engineering Sciences, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University
| | - Shing Shimizu
- Department of Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Kristin Stützer
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden – Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology – OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Xiaodong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
| | - Katarzyna Czerska
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Nenoff L, Amstutz F, Murr M, Archibald-Heeren B, Fusella M, Hussein M, Lechner W, Zhang Y, Sharp G, Vasquez Osorio E. Review and recommendations on deformable image registration uncertainties for radiotherapy applications. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:24TR01. [PMID: 37972540 PMCID: PMC10725576 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad0d8a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2023] [Revised: 10/30/2023] [Accepted: 11/15/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023]
Abstract
Deformable image registration (DIR) is a versatile tool used in many applications in radiotherapy (RT). DIR algorithms have been implemented in many commercial treatment planning systems providing accessible and easy-to-use solutions. However, the geometric uncertainty of DIR can be large and difficult to quantify, resulting in barriers to clinical practice. Currently, there is no agreement in the RT community on how to quantify these uncertainties and determine thresholds that distinguish a good DIR result from a poor one. This review summarises the current literature on sources of DIR uncertainties and their impact on RT applications. Recommendations are provided on how to handle these uncertainties for patient-specific use, commissioning, and research. Recommendations are also provided for developers and vendors to help users to understand DIR uncertainties and make the application of DIR in RT safer and more reliable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Nenoff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America
- OncoRay—National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden—Rossendorf, Dresden Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden—Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology—OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Florian Amstutz
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Martina Murr
- Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Germany
| | | | - Marco Fusella
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Abano Terme Hospital, Italy
| | - Mohammad Hussein
- Metrology for Medical Physics, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, United Kingdom
| | - Wolfgang Lechner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
| | - Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
| | - Greg Sharp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America
| | - Eliana Vasquez Osorio
- Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Smolders A, Lomax A, Weber DC, Albertini F. Deep learning based uncertainty prediction of deformable image registration for contour propagation and dose accumulation in online adaptive radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:245027. [PMID: 37820691 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad0282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2023] [Accepted: 10/11/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023]
Abstract
Objective.Online adaptive radiotherapy aims to fully leverage the advantages of highly conformal therapy by reducing anatomical and set-up uncertainty, thereby alleviating the need for robust treatments. This requires extensive automation, among which is the use of deformable image registration (DIR) for contour propagation and dose accumulation. However, inconsistencies in DIR solutions between different algorithms have caused distrust, hampering its direct clinical use. This work aims to enable the clinical use of DIR by developing deep learning methods to predict DIR uncertainty and propagating it into clinically usable metrics.Approach.Supervised and unsupervised neural networks were trained to predict the Gaussian uncertainty of a given deformable vector field (DVF). Since both methods rely on different assumptions, their predictions differ and were further merged into a combined model. The resulting normally distributed DVFs can be directly sampled to propagate the uncertainty into contour and accumulated dose uncertainty.Main results.The unsupervised and combined models can accurately predict the uncertainty in the manually annotated landmarks on the DIRLAB dataset. Furthermore, for 5 patients with lung cancer, the propagation of the predicted DVF uncertainty into contour uncertainty yielded for both methods anexpected calibration errorof less than 3%. Additionally, theprobabilisticly accumulated dose volume histograms(DVH) encompass well the accumulated proton therapy doses using 5 different DIR algorithms. It was additionally shown that the unsupervised model can be used for different DIR algorithms without the need for retraining.Significance.Our work presents first-of-a-kind deep learning methods to predict the uncertainty of the DIR process. The methods are fast, yield high-quality uncertainty estimates and are useable for different algorithms and applications. This allows clinics to use DIR uncertainty in their workflows without the need to change their DIR implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Smolders
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - A Lomax
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - D C Weber
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - F Albertini
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Engwall E, Marthin O, Wase V, Sundström J, Mikhalev V, de Jong BA, Langendijk JA, Melbéus H, Andersson B, Korevaar EW, Both S, Bokrantz R, Glimelius L, Fredriksson A. Partitioning of discrete proton arcs into interlaced subplans can bring proton arc advances to existing proton facilities. Med Phys 2023; 50:5723-5733. [PMID: 37482909 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16617] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 06/19/2023] [Indexed: 07/25/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton arcs have shown potential to reduce the dose to organs at risks (OARs) by delivering the protons from many different directions. While most previous studies have been focused on dynamic arcs (delivery during rotation), an alternative approach is discrete arcs, where step-and-shoot delivery is used over a large number of beam directions. The major advantage of discrete arcs is that they can be delivered at existing proton facilities. However, this advantage comes at the expense of longer treatment times. PURPOSE To exploit the dosimetric advantages of proton arcs, while achieving reasonable delivery times, we propose a partitioning approach where discrete arc plans are split into subplans to be delivered over different fractions in the treatment course. METHODS For three oropharyngeal cancer patients, four different arc plans have been created and compared to the corresponding clinical IMPT plan. The treatment plans are all planned to be delivered in 35 fractions, but with different delivery approaches over the fractions. The first arc plan (1×30) has 30 directions to be delivered every fraction, while the others are partitioned into subplans with 10 and 6 beam directions, each to be delivered every third (3×10), fifth fraction (5×6), or seventh fraction (7×10). All plans are assessed with respect to delivery time, target robustness over the treatment course, doses to OARs and NTCP for dysphagia and xerostomia. RESULTS The delivery time (including an additional delay of 30 s between the discrete directions to simulate manual interaction with the treatment control system) is reduced from on average 25.2 min for the 1×30 plan to 9.2 min for the 3×10 and 7×10 plans and 5.7 min for the 5×6 plans. The delivery time for the IMPT plan is 7.9 min. When accounting for the combination of delivery time, target robustness, OAR sparing, and NTCP reduction, the plans with 10 directions in each fraction are the preferred choice. Both the 3×10 and 7×10 plans show improved target robustness compared to the 1×30 plans, while keeping OAR doses and NTCP values at almost as low levels as for the 1×30 plans. For all patients the NTCP values for dysphagia are lower for the partitioned plans with 10 directions compared to the IMPT plans. NTCP reduction for xerostomia compared to IMPT is seen in two of the three patients. The best results are seen for the first patient, where the NTCP reductions for the 7×10 plan are 1.6 p.p. (grade 2 xerostomia) and 1.5 p.p. (grade 2 dysphagia). The corresponding NTCP reductions for the 1×30 plan are 2.7 p.p. (xerostomia, grade 2) and 2.0 p.p. (dysphagia, grade 2). CONCLUSIONS Discrete proton arcs can be implemented at any proton facility with reasonable treatment times using a partitioning approach. The technique also makes the proton arc treatments more robust to changes in the patient anatomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Bas A de Jong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Erik W Korevaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|