Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 6 Summary of plan metrics

From: Impact of beam configuration on VMAT plan quality for Pinnacle3Auto-Planning for head and neck cases

  Comparison of techniques ΔMU/Gy in % ΔT in % ΔCI in %
1 V2C15 vs. V1C15 −9,0 ± 2,3 −24,4 ± 12,4 −4,2 ± 3,9
2 V2C15 vs. 2V1C15 −4,9 ± 2,8 4,4 ± 13,0 −3,0 ± 2,7
3 V2C15 vs. V2C15_Part −3,4 ± 2,3 −15,9 ± 16,2 −2,4 ± 3,7
4 V2C15 vs. V2C40 −1,8 ± 4,2 7,4 ± 23,8 −0,5 ± 1,3
5 V2C15 vs. V2C60 −0,3 ± 3,4 61,5 ± 63,8 −1,7 ± 2,1
6 V2C15 vs. 2V1C15_60 −1,5 ± 3,2 5,0 ± 35,5 −0,4 ± 2,1
7 V2C15 vs. 2V1C15_345 −1,5 ± 2,9 29,2 ± 12,0 −1,5 ± 2,5
  1. Techniques with different beam configurations were compared with regard to plan metrics. The deviation of monitor units (MU), delivery time (T) and Paddick Conformity Index (CI) were calculated between each plan version and the reference plan (V2C15). For all patients, the mean and standard deviation are shown for comparisons #1–7