Table 2. Pair-wise comparisons of planning strategies.
| autoIMRT | autoVMAT | manVMAT | CLINICAL | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-value | #Plans | p-value | #Plans | p-value | #Plans | ||||||||
| a | NS | (26 | 18) | <0.001 | (44 | 00) | <0.001 | (42 | 02) | |||||||
| b | <0.001 | (37 | 07) | NS | (22 | 22) | <0.001 | (31 | 12) | |||||||
| c | <0.001 | (40 | 04) | NS | (26 | 18) | <0.001 | (41 | 03) | |||||||
| autoIMRT | d | <0.001 | (42 | 02) | 0.001 | (33 | 11) | <0.001 | (44 | 00) | ||||||
| e | <0.001 | (41 | 03) | 0.026 | (29 | 15) | <0.001 | (37 | 07) | |||||||
| f | <0.001 | (29 | 02) | <0.001 | (26 | 05) | 0.002 | (24 | 07) | |||||||
| g | 0.018 | (28 | 16) | <0.001 | (44 | 00) | <0.001 | (39 | 05) | |||||||
| a | 0.3±1.5 (2.7%) | <0.001 | (41 | 03) | <0.001 | (43 | 01) | ||||||||
| b | 4.5±4.7 (9.0%) | 0.011 | (14 | 30) | NS | (26 | 18) | ||||||||
| c | 1.0±0.7 (4.9%) | NS | (16 | 28) | <0.001 | (35 | 09) | ||||||||
| autoVMAT | d | 0.8±0.5 (1.8%) | NS | (21 | 23) | <0.001 | (39 | 05) | |||||||
| e | 0.9±0.6 (2.1%) | 0.041 | (15 | 29) | NS | (26 | 18) | ||||||||
| f | 0.8±0.6 (2.0%) | NS | (18 | 13) | NS | (19 | 12) | ||||||||
| g | 0.01±0.02 (0.6%) | <0.001 | (44 | 00) | <0.001 | (39 | 05) | ||||||||
| a | 3.8±2.7 (32.7%) | 3.5±3.0 (30.3%) | NS | (26 | 18) | |||||||||
| b | 1.5±11.6 (6.4%) | -2.9±10.4 (-2.3%) | 0.037 | (34 | 10) | |||||||||
| c | 0.8±2.3 (5.0%) | -0.3±2.1 (-0.2%) | 0.003 | (34 | 10) | |||||||||
| manVMAT | d | 0.8±1.4 (1.8%) | 0.0±1.3 (0.0%) | <0.001 | (36 | 08) | ||||||||
| e | 0.5±1.2 (1.2%) | -0.4±1.3 (-0.9%) | 0.006 | (32 | 12) | |||||||||
| f | 1.1±0.9 (3.0%) | 0.3±1.0 (1.0%) | NS | (14 | 17) | |||||||||
| g | 0.11±0.05 (8.9%) | 0.10±0.05 (8.4%) | NS | (25 | 17) | |||||||||
| a | 4.7±4.2 (37.2%) | 4.4±4.1 (34.6%) | 0.9±3.7 (6.0%) | ||||||||||
| b | 7.3±11.5 (12.9%) | 2.8±12.1 (3.9%) | 5.8±15.9 (6.3%) | ||||||||||
| c | 2.4±1.7 (10.2%) | 1.4±1.8 (5.3%) | 1.7±3.0 (5.1%) | ||||||||||
| CLINICAL | d | 1.7±1.0 (4.0%) | 1.0±1.0 (2.2%) | 1.0±1.4 (2.2%) | |||||||||
| e | 1.0±1.2 (2.3%) | 0.1±1.3 (0.2%) | 0.5±1.3 (1.1%) | ||||||||||
| f | 0.8±1.3 (1.5%) | 0.0±1.4 (0.5%) | -0.3±1.9 (-1.5%) | ||||||||||
| g | 0.13±0.11 (10.2%) | 0.12±0.10 (9.7%) | 0.02±0.10 (1.3%) | ||||||||||
| Δmean±1SD (PD) | Δmean±1SD (PD) | Δmean±1SD (PD) | |||||||||||
Abbreviations: NS = no statistically significant difference i.e. p > 0.05, SD = standard deviation, PD = percentage difference.
In each comparison (table cell), going from top to bottom, data refer to (a) SB V45Gy, (b) SB V15Gy, (c) SB Dmean, (d) Bladder Dmean, (e) Rectum Dmean (f) Sigmoid Dmean, and (g) CI95%. Below the table diagonal, mean point differences with 1 SD, and mean relative percentage differences (between brackets) are shown, while p values and the numbers of plans with lowest OAR dose for one or the other strategy are presented above the diagonal; (n|m): for n plans, the strategy indicated at the vertical axis has lowest OAR dose, while for m plans the strategy mentioned at the horizontal axis is superior. Positive Δmean indicates that the strategy along the horizontal axis is superior (reduced OAR dose delivery).