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 | |||||||