Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan 19;19(2):83–92. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12247

Table 4.

The differences of DVH parameters (i.e., D2cc and D0.1cc) only for PM boost cases between a DVH parameter addition with the assumption of no contributions from PM boost and a revised DVH parameter addition in which D2cc and D0.1cc parameters were obtained from each patient's EBRT plan (i.e., the revised DVH parameter addition — the current DVH parameter addition). The rectum, bladder, and sigmoid D2ccEQD2 and D0.1ccEQD2 values of the current DVH parameter addition were statistically significantly underestimated when compared to the revised DVH parameter addition (p < 0.0008) regardless of HDR planning techniques; for both conformal volume‐optimization and Point A plans

∆ D2ccEQD2 [% (GyEQD2)] P‐value ∆ D0.1ccEQD2 [% (GyEQD2)] P‐value
Mean* Std Dev Mean* Std Dev
Conformal HDR Plan
Rectum −7.9 (−5.4) 4.2 (2.7) 0.0003 −8.5 (−6.8) 3.1 (2.2) <0.0001
Bladder −9.3 (−8.0) 3.0 (2.7) <0.0001 −7.8 (−8.3) 3.0 (2.8) <0.0001
Sigmoid −9.9 (−6.9) 3.4 (2.5) <0.0001 −9.4 (−7.4) 2.6 (2.2) <0.0001
Point A HDR Plan
Rectum −5.2 (−3.9) 6.8 (4.4) 0.007 −5.7 (−5.0) 6.7 (5.1) 0.004
Bladder −7.1 (−6.5) 7.1 (6.0) 0.002 −6.3 (−6.8) 6.3 (6.1) 0.002
Sigmoid −6.7 (−5.4) 8.7 (5.7) 0.005 −6.5 (6.0) 7.3 (5.6) 0.002

* Negative sign refers the values of current DVH parameter addition underestimate when compared to the revised DVH parameter addition.