Skip to main content

Table 2 3D-Γ analysis for investigated patient cases evaluating FRoG with RS-MC as reference, presenting mean (µ) and standard deviation (σ) in passing rate within the cohort

From: How can we consider variable RBE and LETd prediction during clinical practice? A pediatric case report at the Normandy Proton Therapy Centre using an independent dose engine

3D-Γ passing rates – FRoG vs. RS-MC

Test

Type

Dose threshold (DT)

2%/2mm

3%/1.5mm

5%/1mm

μ

±σ

μ

±σ

μ

±σ

3D-Γ

Local

DT10

97.3

1.7

96.1

2.2

94.7

2.4

DT50

97.8

1.9

96.8

2.5

96.0

2.4

DT90

96.7

3.4

97.1

3.0

98.6

1.6

Global

DT10

98.3

1.2

97.5

1.6

97.5

1.5

DT50

98.0

1.9

97.2

2.3

97.1

2.0

DT90

96.7

3.4

97.2

3.1

98.6

1.6

Percent derivation (%Δ) in DVH metric – FRoG vs. RS-MC

Test

Structure

%ΔD98

%ΔD50

%ΔD2

μ

±σ

μ

±σ

μ

±σ

DVH

CTV

0.49

0.29

0.26

0.22

0.43

0.38

Brainstem

0.37

0.24

1.63

2.06

Chiasma

0.70

0.90

1.00

1.32

Optic nerve (R)

0.38

0.36

0.52

0.33

Optic nerve (L)

2.68

3.23

0.54

0.89

  1. Percent mean DRBE deviation in dose metrics (µ ± σ) applying fixed RBE = 1.1 between FRoG and RS-MC within the patient cohort