TABLE 3.

Summary of results presented as average percent differences to the 80% IDL optimization.

		Average % difference to 80% IDL, SD
	Metric	70% IDL	75% IDL	85% IDL	90% IDL
2 metastases (N = 8)	MU	17.0 ± 3.2	7.7 ± 2.4	−6.8 ± 5.2	−13.6 ± 5.6
	CI	1.0 ± 5.7	0.3 ± 6.9	0.0 ± 8.9	2.0 ± 10.8
	V10	−7.7 ± 5.6	−4.9 ± 5.1	11.6 ± 6.2	36.6 ± 13.4
	V12	−8.4 ± 5.7	−4.9 ± 5.1	12.8 ± 6.5	39.5 ± 15.5
	V15	−8.9 ± 5.5	−5.0 ± 5.0	14.5 ± 6.7	43.8 ± 18.2
4‐6 metastases (N = 4)	MU	15.4 ± 6.1	10.1 ± 3.4	−7.2 ± 11.9	−7.3 ± 8.6
	CI	2.1 ± 1.5	0.8 ± 2.2	0.1 ± 3.6	6.8 ± 1.2
	V10	−5.4 ± 5.5	−5.6 ± 2.5	9.9 ± 7.4	32.8 ± 3.7
	V12	−4.6 ± 5.2	−4.7 ± 2.9	12.5 ± 7.9	36.9 ± 5.2
	V15	−5.0 ± 6.2	−4.9 ± 4.0	14.0 ± 7.9	39.8 ± 6.2
7‐10 metastases (N = 5)	MU	12.2 ± 13.6	3.0 ± 11.7	−6.7 ± 4.3	−7.2 ± 4.4
	CI	5.6 ± 9.4	3.5 ± 6.2	3.2 ± 3.7	8.6 ± 5.6
	V10	−2.3 ± 2.7	−2.0 ± 5.5	14.1 ± 3.0	30.2 ± 13.2
	V12	−2.5 ± 3.4	−1.1 ± 5.3	15.1 ± 2.7	33.9 ± 11.0
	V15	−3.0 ± 3.8	−0.9 ± 5.8	17.1 ± 2.9	38.5 ± 7.9

Abbreviations: CI, conformity index; IDL, prescription isodose line; MU, monitor units; SD, standard deviation.