[quote]Target Volume Ptv70
Prescribed dose % 100%
Fractions F1
Prescribed dose 7000.0 cGy (200.0Cgy/fractions)
Dose at primary ref point 70000cGy (200.0cGy/fractions)
Number of fractions. 35
[/quote]

Of course you and I are just pretending we have a clue what any of this really means.

One can point out associations and draw logical conclusions. I'd bet they are better than random guesses.

First thing I notice is you typed Dose at 70,000 cGY. I think you would be dead long ago or have an electric grid connected to you to provide power to NYC. 7,000 perhaps?

What seems is there is one set dose (200cGy) for each fraction. Initially I assumed same dosage for each fraction but hear something that indicated that fractions might change during the course of treatment. The details here indicate constant dosage for all fractions.

I'll assume the "primary ref point" is the spot placed by the RO, likely the center of the primary tumor. All figures indicate dosing does not exceed 200 per session or 7000 in total.

I'll be in the pile of other figures is secondary locations to get rads as well as the contouring profiles and the general painting of the remaining targeted area(s).

Not to forget how we got here, sorry for taking this thread hopelessly OT, but coming back to dental care and the fact saliva does a lot to keep teeth healthy.

Parotid and saliva glands are rarely primary tumors. Some here longer may have come across an instance by in my year here I have no recollection of any primary in the parotid.

Clearly, the technology is advanced enough to not directly place any radiation on these structures. The question is this done and there is sufficient overspray from the radiation sent to other areas as directed by the plan or are all areas dosed at some lower level just to ensure total coverage and cancer annihilation.

The discussion with my RO clearly indicated my treatment plan was going to paint some dose on everything in the broader target zone. One of his replies to me was a question something like, "Don't you want to do all you can to get as much as you can?" I interpreted his statement that it was safer to dose areas not directly identified as cancer bearing but could be where microscopic cancers could be hiding. Blast them now rather than risk some lose one might grow and bite later. I totally agreed.

The ENT, MO and surgeon were all pro treating aggressively in my case. I'm sure age and heath and other factors were inputs to their recommendation but that is how I would want it anyway.

links to pet/ct pet/ct2 video of my files.

The second is revealing in that it becomes obvious where the term "lighting up" on the PET comes from!