- Email: [email protected]
Corrigendum to “a comparison of conventional ‘forward planning’ with inverse planning for 3D conformal radiotherapy of the prostate”
R ADIOTHERAPY 130Nc010G~ ELSEVIER
Radiotherapy and Oncology 37 (1995) 171-172
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to “A comparison of conventional ‘forward planning’ with inverse planning for 3D conformal radiotherapy of the prostate” [Radiotherapy and Oncology 35 (1995) 248-2621’ Mark Oldham, Anthony Neal, Steve Webb Joint Department of Physics, Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Mars&n Sutton, Surrey, SM2 SPT, UK
Hospital, Downs Road,
Received 6 October 1994; revision received 20 March 1995;accepted 27 March 1995
There was a figure labelling error in the above manuscript. In the figures Sb,c,dj,k, and 1, all dashed lines should be solid and vice versa. The ‘x’ and ‘0’ markers should then attach to the new central dashed and solid lines respectively. Fortunately the correction of this error has only a small impact on the text. The following sentencesin italics are corrections to sentencesin the original paper.
Page 256, column 1, line 48 should read; The optimisation does,however,produce about l-2% more rectal vohanein the >80% bin for the 4.6, and 8 fieldplans, and l-2% lessfor the 3 field plans. Page 256, column 2, line 1 should read; In the 4,6 and8fieldplans, the optimisation producesa higher volumein the 20-50% bin and a substantially lower vohune in the SO-80% bin. Page 256, column 2, line 17 should read; From Fig. 5 we expect that the optimisation hasslightly worsenedthe rectal dosefor the 4.6, and8fieldplans, and slightly improved it for the 3 field plans. Thefemoral head dose appears to be a signtficant improvementfor all plan types.
‘SSDI of original article: 0167-8140(94)01556-v
0167-814&95/SO9.500 1995Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved SSDZ 0167-8140(95)01652-W
Corrigendum /Radiotherapy
172
and Oncology 37 (1995) 171-I 72
The corrected Fig. Sb,c,d,j,k,l are reproduced here. (b) Rectum, 3 Field
01 <20%
(c) LFH, 3 Field
20-50%
50-60%
>80%
(d) RFH, 3 Field
60
<20%
20-50%
50-80%
<20%
>00%
20-50%
50-80%
~80%
(j) Rectum, 6 Field
04 20%
(k) LFH, 6 Field -.-* .
100
905
20-50%
50-80%
>80%
(I) RFH, 6 Field 80 70 a60 E 3s 5 >m ,830 20 10 0 /
1
20%
20-50%
50-80%
>80%
20%
20-500/o
50-80x
~-80%
Radiotherapy and Oncology 37 (1995) 171-172
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to “A comparison of conventional ‘forward planning’ with inverse planning for 3D conformal radiotherapy of the prostate” [Radiotherapy and Oncology 35 (1995) 248-2621’ Mark Oldham, Anthony Neal, Steve Webb Joint Department of Physics, Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Mars&n Sutton, Surrey, SM2 SPT, UK
Hospital, Downs Road,
Received 6 October 1994; revision received 20 March 1995;accepted 27 March 1995
There was a figure labelling error in the above manuscript. In the figures Sb,c,dj,k, and 1, all dashed lines should be solid and vice versa. The ‘x’ and ‘0’ markers should then attach to the new central dashed and solid lines respectively. Fortunately the correction of this error has only a small impact on the text. The following sentencesin italics are corrections to sentencesin the original paper.
Page 256, column 1, line 48 should read; The optimisation does,however,produce about l-2% more rectal vohanein the >80% bin for the 4.6, and 8 fieldplans, and l-2% lessfor the 3 field plans. Page 256, column 2, line 1 should read; In the 4,6 and8fieldplans, the optimisation producesa higher volumein the 20-50% bin and a substantially lower vohune in the SO-80% bin. Page 256, column 2, line 17 should read; From Fig. 5 we expect that the optimisation hasslightly worsenedthe rectal dosefor the 4.6, and8fieldplans, and slightly improved it for the 3 field plans. Thefemoral head dose appears to be a signtficant improvementfor all plan types.
‘SSDI of original article: 0167-8140(94)01556-v
0167-814&95/SO9.500 1995Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved SSDZ 0167-8140(95)01652-W
Corrigendum /Radiotherapy
172
and Oncology 37 (1995) 171-I 72
The corrected Fig. Sb,c,d,j,k,l are reproduced here. (b) Rectum, 3 Field
01 <20%
(c) LFH, 3 Field
20-50%
50-60%
>80%
(d) RFH, 3 Field
60
<20%
20-50%
50-80%
<20%
>00%
20-50%
50-80%
~80%
(j) Rectum, 6 Field
04 20%
(k) LFH, 6 Field -.-* .
100
905
20-50%
50-80%
>80%
(I) RFH, 6 Field 80 70 a60 E 3s 5 >m ,830 20 10 0 /
1
20%
20-50%
50-80%
>80%
20%
20-500/o
50-80x
~-80%