Skip to main content

Table 4 Normal tissue avoidance for the IMRT and CRT plans in 12 patients, Ratio relative to a 4FB technique

From: Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated, conformal, and four-field pelvic radiotherapy boost plans for gynecologic cancer: a retrospective planning study

Technique OAR Median VL (Range) Median VI (Range) Median VH (Range) Median VHDT (Range) Median VH+VHDT (Range)
IMRT – 6 field Rectum 2.6 (1.1–168) 1.2 (0.4–16.4) 0.7 (0.4–1.5) 2.1 (0–134) 0.781,2 (0.48–0.98)
  Bladder 10.7 (1.6–314) 1.0 (0.4–5.1) 0.7 (0.5–0.9) 2.9 (1.0–569) 0.811,2 (0.65–0.98)
IMRT – 8 field Rectum 1.8 (0.1–166) 1.1 (0.6–9.5) 0.9 (0.6–1.5) 0.9 (0.1–208) 0.901,2 (0.61–1.06)
  Bladder 7.1 (1.7–490) 1.0 (0.6–8.5) 0.8 (0.6–0.9) 0.8 (0–17) 0.781,2 (0.67–0.88)
CRT Rectum 1.1 (0–71) 1.0 (0.4–12) 1.0 (0.3–1.3) 1.0 (0–1.8) 1.02 (0.61–1.3)
  Bladder 7.8 (1.9–336) 0.55 (0.3–0.9) 0.87 (0.4–1.4) 1.1 (0–403) 0.96 (0.85–1.4)
  1. (1) IMRT vs. 4FB, p ≤ 0.001 by t-test
  2. (2) IMRT vs. CRT, p ≤ 0.05
  3. (CRT) Conformal radiotherapy
  4. (IMRT) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy
  5. (4FB) Four field box technique
  6. (VL)Volume of tissue receiving ≤ 33% of the prescription dose
  7. (VI)Volume of tissue receiving 34–66% of the prescription dose
  8. (VH)Volume of tissue receiving 67–100% of the prescription dose
  9. (VHDT)Volume of tissue receiving >100% of the prescription dose (V100%)
  10. (VH+VHDT)Volume of tissue receiving >66% of the prescribed dose (V66%)