Table 1 Comparison of PTV dosimetric matrices between FB and DIBH for all planning techniques: paired t-test, P-value < 0.05; SD = standard deviation; HI = homogeneity index; CI = conformity index.
Technique | PTV dosimetric parameters | Method (Mean ± SD) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DIBH | FB | |||
h-VMAT 80/20 | PTV-SCF (95%) | 97.33 ± 2.40 | 97.34 ± 3.15 | 0.994 |
PTV-CW (95%) | 95.54 ± 1.89 | 96.24 ± 1.73 | 0.36 | |
TotalPTV95 (%) | 95.61 ± 1.53 | 95.52 ± 1.82 | 0.863 | |
HI | 0.13 ± 0.04 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.751 | |
CI | 0.72 ± 0.08 | 0.75 ± 0.07 | 0.032 | |
h-VMAT 70/30 | PTV-SCF (95%) | 97.42 ± 2.23 | 98.14 ± 1.71 | 0.274 |
PTV-CW (95%) | 95.98 ± 1.96 | 96.70 ± 1.47 | 0.23 | |
TotalPTV95 (%) | 95.79 ± 1.74 | 96.13 ± 1.40 | 0.491 | |
HI | 0.13 ± 0.05 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.754 | |
CI | 0.73 ± 0.08 | 0.74 ± 0.06 | 0.571 | |
h-VMAT 60/40 | PTV-SCF (95%) | 98.5 ± 1.32 | 98.18 ± 2.18 | 0.596 |
PTV-CW (95%) | 95.23 ± 1.76 | 96.72 ± 1.77 | 0.027 | |
TotalPTV95 (%) | 95.64 ± 1.87 | 96.13 ± 1.90 | 0.439 | |
HI | 0.14 ± 0.04 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.492 | |
CI | 0.71 ± 0.09 | 0.73 ± 0.07 | 0.347 | |
3DCRT | PTV-SCF (95%) | 74.24 ± 7.63 | 77.93 ± 9.44 | 0.275 |
PTV-CW (95%) | 91.19 ± 4.77 | 90.18 ± 5.77 | 0.36 | |
TotalPTV95 (%) | 89.43 ± 4.78 | 87.88 ± 5.38 | 0.126 | |
HI | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 0.332 | |
CI | 0.58 ± 0.15 | 0.56 ± 0.14 | 0.221 | |
VMAT | PTV-SCF (95%) | 98.51 ± 1.36 | 98.50 ± 1.24 | 0.996 |
PTV-CW (95%) | 96.85 ± 1.60 | 96.43 ± 1.56 | 0.537 | |
TotalPTV95 (%) | 97.05 ± 1.51 | 95.66 ± 1.41 | 0.017 | |
HI | 0.11 ± 0.04 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.016 | |
CI | 0.75 ± 0.09 | 0.75 ± 0.07 | 0.83 | |
