Skip to main content

Table 1 The targets coverage multi-comparison analysis for all studied techniques (mean ± SD). Mean values with ǂ symbol demonstrate that the corresponding technique did not pass the normality test. Friedman test of significance (p < 0.05) was used in these cases; otherwise, repeated measures ANOVA significance test was used

From: Comparison of breast simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) radiotherapy techniques

N = 12   T-2F T-NC T-VMAT f-VMAT
PTV boost V 107 (%) 0* a 0* a 0* a 0* a
  V 95 (%) 95.9 ± 2.4c 98.0 ± 0.9ǂ bc 99.3 ± 0.6a 98.6 ± 1.7ab
  mean (Gy) 64.1 ± 0.1b 64.2 ± 0.0b 64.3 ± 0.0a 64.1 ± 0.1b
  CI 0.50 ± 0.00a 0.50 ± 0.00a 0.50 ± 0.00a 0.50 ± 0.00a
  HI 1.03 ± 0.01† a 1.03 ± 0.01† a 1.03 ± 0.01† a 1.02 ± 0.01† b
PTV breast V 107 (%) 18.1 ± 3.9a 18.7 ± 7.1ǂ a 18.7 ± 4.2a 10.4 ± 1.3b
  V 95 (%) 94.5 ± 1.8b 94.6 ± 1.9ab 95.5 ± 2.3ab 96.6 ± 1.6a
  mean (Gy) 52.2 ± 0.3a 52.2 ± 0.5ǂ a 52.3 ± 0.5a 51.5 ± 0.2b
  Q 0.91 ± 0.02b 0.91 ± 0.02b 0.92 ± 0.03ab 0.94 ± 0.02a
  hI 1.36 ± 0.03† a 1.37 ± 0.04† a 1.34 ± 0.05† a 1.30 ± 0.03† b
  1. a,b,c Values having the same superscript in the same horizontal line are not significantly different.
  2. *All the 12 patients have a 0 value.
  3. Note that although these values look similar and have a comparatively small SD (between patients), the differences are significant due to individual patient’s variability (i.e. when looking at the paired data)
  4. V107 and V95 are volumes receiving 107 % and 95 % of prescribed dose respectively; CI, conformity index as defined by equation (1); HI, homogeneity index as defined by equation (2); Q is the quality of coverage as defined by equation (3); hI, heterogeneity index as defined by equation (4)