Table 4.

Percent increase in PTV metrics vs. standard technique: improvement for the PTV across all plans in the database comparing the iterative optimization technique and the use of noncoplanar beams versus the standard method. Both the conformity index (CI) and the uniformity (${\mathrm{U}}_{\text{PTV}}$) are shown with the values tabulated from Average standard error and range are the % increase only, while the p‐values consider if the improvements are significant over all cases in the database.

	CI				$U_{PTV}$
	% of Cases Showing Improvement	$\mathit{Average}\hspace{0.17em}\pm \hspace{0.17em}\mathit{Standard}\hspace{0.17em}\mathit{Error}$	Range	p‐value	% of Cases Showing Improvement	$\mathit{Average}\hspace{0.17em}\pm \hspace{0.17em}\mathit{Standard}\hspace{0.17em}\mathit{Error}$	Range	p‐value
Iterative Reoptimization	80.0%	$13.4\%\pm 2.3\%$	$[1.0\%‐25.0\%]$	0.02	80.0%	$24.0\%\pm 4.7\%$	$[2.5\%‐49.6\%]$	$<0.01$
Noncoplanar Beams	66.7%	$6.9\%\pm 1.7\%$	$[2.6\%‐19.6\%]$	0.27	33.3%	$11.3\%\pm 7.4\%$	$[1.7\%‐40.6\%]$	0.36