A treatment planning study comparing Elekta VMAT and fixed field IMRT using the varian treatment planning system eclipse

Table 3 Comparison between IMRT and VMAT for all 162 evaluated patient plans

	IMRT(n = 162)	1A(n = 162)	1Am(n = 162)	2A(n = 162)	2Am(n = 162)
PTV
D_max (%)	108.9 (103.9 - 120.3)	108.8 (104.4 - 119.9)^b	109.1 (104.8 - 119.7)^c	107.6 (103.6 - 115.2)^ab	107.6 (103.6 - 116.0)^ac
V_95% (%)	94.2 (83.3 - 100.0)	92.4 (75.6 - 99.8)^ab	92.2 (81.8 - 99.6)^ac	94.2 (75.6 - 99.9)^b	94.3 (81.0 - 99.9)^c
HI	1.10 (1.05 - 1.20)	1.11 (1.04 - 1.38)^ab	1.11 (1.05 - 1.23)^ac	1.09 (1.04 - 1.35)^ab	1.09 (1.04 - 1.22)^ac
CN	0.76 (0.22 - 0.91)	0.79 (0.26 - 0.93)^ab	0.79 (0.30 - 0.93)^ac	0.81 (0.29 - 0.94)^ab	0.82 (0.40 - 0.94)^ac
Body
D_mean (Gy)	16.0 (3.7 - 42.8)	15.2 (3.6 - 39.0)^a	15.2 (3.6 - 39.9)^a	15.3 (3.6 - 39.2)^a	15.3 (3.6 - 40.4)^a
V_{5 Gy} (%)	31.7 (6.6 - 70.6)	32.1 (6.8 - 69.8)^ab	32.2 (6.8 - 69.6)^ac	32.4 (7.0 - 70.1)^ab	32.4 (7.0 - 70.4)^ac
MU	621.4 (307–1123)	406.9 (261–833)^ab	424.4 (279–833)^ac	435.1 (156–939)^ab	442.2 (156–939)^ac

Single and double arc plans before (1A, 2A) and after modification (1Am, 2Am) of the optimization penalties; values are expressed as the mean (range).
^ap < 0.01 for Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test vs. IMRT; ^bp < 0.01 1A vs. 2A; ^cp < 0.01 1Am vs. 2Am.

ISSN: 1748-717X