The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: A concept of equivalent uniform dose
Abstract
Modern treatment planning systems for three‐dimensional treatment planning provide three‐dimensionally accurate dose distributions for each individual patient. These data open up new possibilities for more precise reporting and analysis of doses actually delivered to irradiated organs and volumes of interest. A new method of summarizing and reporting inhomogeneous dose distributions is reported here. The concept of equivalent uniform dose (EUD) assumes that any two dose distributions are equivalent if they cause the same radiobiological effect. In this paper the EUD concept for tumors is presented, for which the probability of local control is assumed to be determined by the expected number of surviving clonogens, according to Poisson statistics. The EUD can be calculated directly from the dose calculation points or, from the corresponding dose‐volume distributions (histograms). The fraction of clonogens surviving a dose of 2 Gy (SF 2) is chosen to be the primary operational parameter characterizing radiosensitivity of clonogens. The application of the EUD concept is demonstrated on a clinical dataset. The causes of flattening of the observed dose‐response curves become apparent since the EUD concept reveals the finer structure of the analyzed group of patients in respect to the irradiated volumes and doses actually received. Extensions of the basic EUD concept to include nonuniform density of clonogens, dose per fraction effects, repopulation of clonogens, and inhomogeneity of patient population are discussed and compared with the basic formula.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Use of Normal Tissue Complication Probability Models in the Clinic
Marks, L. B., Yorke, E. D., Jackson, A., Ten Haken, R. K., Constine, L. S., Eisbruch, A., Bentzen, S. M., Nam, J., & Deasy, J. O. (2010) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754 · Cited by 1,826
van Herk, M., Remeijer, P., Rasch, C., & Lebesque, J. V. (2000) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(00)00518-6 · Cited by 1,531
Bolch, W. E., Eckerman, K. F., Sgouros, G., & Thomas, S. R. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.056036 · Cited by 913
A unified approach for inversion problems in intensity-modulated radiation therapy
Censor, Y., Bortfeld, T., Martin, B., & Trofimov, A. (2006) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/10/001 · Cited by 831
Clinical and epidemiological observations on individual radiation sensitivity and susceptibility
Seibold, P., Auvinen, A., Averbeck, D., Bourguignon, M., Hartikainen, J. M., Hoeschen, C., Laurent, O., Noël, G., Sabatier, L., Salomaa, S., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Radiation Biology · doi:10.1080/09553002.2019.1665209 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Niemierko, A.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 103-110
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- 2473-4209
- OpenAlex
- W1976996553
- Cited by
- 1,227
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: A concept of equivalent uniform dose. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.598063
- The paper
- Niemierko, A. (1997). Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: A concept of equivalent uniform dose. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598063
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.