Skip to main content
. 2013 Jun 24;8:149. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-149

Table 2.

Comparison of stage III VMAT and hybrid-VMAT plans

Study Method N Dprescibed [Gy] VPTV [cm3] MLD [Gy] V20Gy [%] V5Gy [%] V5Gy-cont [%]
De Bree-Balk et al. [14]1
VMAT
20
66
8385
20.0
36.6
NA
69.6
Verbakel et al. [15]2
VMAT
14
66
779
NA
30.3 ± 5.7
NA
44.6 ± 9.0
 
H-VMAT
14
66
779
NA
30.1 ± 5.8
NA
36.2 ± 15.0
Chan et al. [16]3
VMAT
24
60
508
14.4 ± 2.9
25.4 ± 6.0
64.0 ± 15.4
NA
 
H-VMAT
24
60
508
14.0 ± 2.9
23.3 ± 5.3
59.5 ± 16.7
NA
This study4
VMAT
73
66
344
12.4 ± 3.5
19.3 ± 6.8
46.6 ± 10.6
35.6 ± 7.1
This study4VPTV > 500 cm3 VMAT 13 66 678 14.5 ± 2.1 22.1 ± 6.4 52.1 ± 10.3 38.7 ± 10.0

Average values and standard deviations are given.

1[14] Use the volume of both lungs minus CTV for MLD and V20Gy; PTV V95% > 99% and PTV V107% < 1%.

2[15] Use the volume of both lungs minus PTV for V20Gy; PTV V95% > 97% and PTV V107% < 5%.

3[16] Use the volume of both lungs minus PTV for MLD, V20Gy and V5Gy; D98% > 57.0 Gy and D2% < 64.2 Gy.

4 This study uses the volume of both lungs minus ITV for MLD, and volume of both lungs minus PTV for V20Gy and V5Gy.

PTV V90% > 99% and PTV V110% ≤ 1%.

5 Median instead of average value is given.