Skip to main content
. 2013 Apr 30;40(5):051720. doi: 10.1118/1.4802750

Table 5.

Dosimetric comparison for patient #2 between ERVO, ERSO, and REAS methods with time budget set to 10–30 min/fx. The average delivery times were computed on all delivery time budgets using a range with 1 min/fx spacing.

Time budget Achieved Bladder Sigmoid Rectum Delivery Azimuthal emission
(min/fx) D90 (Gy) D2cc (Gy) D2cc (Gy) D2cc (Gy) time (min/fx) angle Δφ (deg)
10 ERVO 78.15 83.19 66.24 55.60 10.00 180.00
  ERSO 75.81 83.08 62.43 52.26 10.00 168.75
  REAS 78.15 83.19 66.24 55.60 10.00 180.00
15 ERVO 92.44 89.99 75.00 56.45 14.40 157.50
  ERSO 87.26 90.00 72.75 53.98 14.72 146.25
  REAS 88.90 90.00 74.86 57.25 14.12 157.50
20 ERVO 92.44 89.99 75.00 56.45 14.40 157.50
  ERSO 87.26 90.00 72.75 53.98 14.72 146.25
  REAS 88.90 90.00 74.86 57.25 14.12 157.50
25 ERVO 93.40 84.32 71.32 52.35 25.00 90.00
  ERSO 90.78 90.00 69.15 51.74 24.38 90.00
  REAS 93.40 84.32 71.32 52.35 25.00 90.00
30 ERVO 99.14 89.91 75.00 53.40 27.02 90.00
  ERSO 95.57 90.00 66.63 51.93 28.98 78.75
  REAS 99.14 89.91 75.00 53.40 27.02 90.00
Average achieved D90 ERVO: 92.2 Gy, ERSO: 87.6 Gy, REAS: 90.8 Gy