Evaluation of a hybrid automatic planning solution for rectal cancer

Radiation Oncology

Table 4 Comparison of PQM scores between hybrid plans and script-based plans for three goal settings

ROI	Index	Moderate HP vs. SP	p-value	Easy HP vs. SP	p-value	Hard HP vs. SP	p-value
PTV	D2	9.90 vs. 9.80	0.14	2.02 vs. 2.44	< 0.001*	9.46 vs. 5.67	< 0.001*
	HI	6.03 vs. 6.39	< 0.001*	3.24 vs. 3.48	< 0.001*	5.99 vs. 2.70	< 0.001*
	CI	4.26 vs. 3.80	< 0.001*	6.65 vs. 6.36	0.006*	1.59 vs. 0.21	< 0.001*
Bladder	D15	4.98 vs. 3.21	< 0.001*	4.95 vs. 3.29	< 0.001*	5.09 vs. 7.06	< 0.001*
Bladder	D50	8.38 vs. 4.13	< 0.001*	8.49 vs. 4.78	< 0.001*	8.13 vs. 9.19	< 0.001*
Left femur head	D25	6.00 vs. 5.38	0.06	6.03 vs. 2.91	< 0.001*	5.65 vs. 9.84	< 0.001*
Left femur head	D40	6.62 vs. 5.76	< 0.001*	6.49 vs. 2.55	< 0.001*	6.48 vs. 9.82	< 0.001*
Right femur head	D25	7.24 vs. 6.02	< 0.001*	7.20 vs. 2.36	< 0.001*	7.07 vs. 9.55	< 0.001*
Right femur head	D40	6.86 vs. 5.34	< 0.001*	6.87 vs. 1.56	< 0.001*	6.89 vs. 9.67	< 0.001*
Summary		65.24 vs. 53.04	< 0.001*	56.89 vs. 33.03	< 0.001*	61.44 vs. 70.78#	< 0.001*

Note: HP represents hybrid planning, and SP represents scripted-based planning
^*Statistically significant
^# The score should not be interpreted as better plan quality: there were 11/51 plans whose D2 exceeded the maximum acceptable value (5500 cGy)

ISSN: 1748-717X