Skip to main content
. 2010 Jul 1;6(3):e29. doi: 10.2349/biij.6.3.e29

Table 1.

Comparison of the average dose parameters of 15 patients for the PTV among the three planning techniques.

PTV 3F-CRT 4F-CRT IMRT P-Value
3F-CRT vs IMRT 4F-CRT vs IMRT 3F-CRT vs 4F-CRT
Dmean (%) 101.80 ± 1.31 101.85 ± 1.02 100.44 ± 0.45 <0.001 <0.001 0.914
Dmax (%) 108.96 ± 1.45 108.81 ± 1.03 106.09 ± 1.28 <0.001 <0.001 0.751
D1% (%) 107.00 ± 1.48 106.85 ± 1.11 103.89 ± 0.77 <0.001 <0.001 0.699
TV95% (%) 98.79 ± 1.31 98.95 ± 1.07 97.94 ± 1.29 0.08 0.026 0.697
SD (%) 2.43 ± 0.50 2.37 ± 0.54 1.91 ± 0.37 0.003 0.011 0.753
UI 1.08 ± 0.02 1.08 ± 0.02 1.06 ± 0.01 <0.001 0.005 0.388
CI 0.62 ± 0.04 0.61 ± 0.04 0.81 ± 0.07 0.039 <0.001 0.839
HI 0.12 ± 0.02 0.11 ± 0.02 0.10 ± 0.02 <0.001 0.108 0.692

Dmean, mean dose; Dmax, maximum dose; D1%, dose to 1% of target volume; TV95%, dose to 95% of target volume; UI, uniformity index; CI, conformity index; HI, homogeneity index; SD, standard deviation of dose in the PTV.