Table 3.

Summary of dosimetric results in terms of dose falloff in CyberKnife InCise MLC‐based and cone/Iris‐based plans.

	Number of Plans	${\mathrm{R}}_{50\%}$		${\mathrm{R}}_{10\%}$		Wilcoxon signed‐rank p		Ratio (MLC/cone or Iris)
		Cone/Iris	MLC	Cone/Iris	MLC	${\mathrm{R}}_{50\%}$	${\mathrm{R}}_{10\%}$	${\mathrm{R}}_{50\%}$	${\mathrm{R}}_{10\%}$
All cases	25	$3.8\pm 1.1$	$3.6\pm 1.0$	$48.7\pm 25.7$	$48.3\pm 30.3$	0.5 35	0.7 58	$0.94\pm 0.13$	$0.98\pm 0.21$
		(3.7) a	(3.4) a	(42.7) a	(38.8) a			(0.94) a	(0.96) a
single target	16	$3.6\pm 1.0$	$3.3\pm 0.9$	$37.5\pm 13.4$	$36.2\pm 14.0$	0.435	0.804	$0.93\pm 0.15$	$0.97\pm 0.20$
		(3.4)	(3.2)	(37.6)	(34.9)			(0.90)	(0.89)
multiple targets	9	$4.2\pm 1.1$	$4.1\pm 1.0$	$65.1\pm 31.6$	$67.2\pm 38.7$	0.8 98	0.8 47	$0.97\pm 0.12$	$1.02\pm 0.21$
		(4.2)	(4.7)	(73.4)	(64.0)			(0.96)	(0.99)
circular shape	18	$3.9\pm 1.2$	$3.5\pm 1.1$	$51.0\pm 25.2$	$47.3\pm 26.50$	0.3 51	0.5 84	$0.90\pm 0.12$	$0.92\pm 0.18$
		(3.7)	(3.2)	(46.6)	(40.5)			(0.90)	(0.89)
irregular shape of target or abutting with OARs	7	$3.6\pm 0.6$	$3.8\pm 0.7$	$42.5\pm 27.7$	$50.8\pm 41.00$	0.805	0.805	$1.05\pm 0.11$	$1.12\pm 0.21$
		(3.7)	(3.8)	(30.0)	(33.2)			(1.06)	(1.17)
target volume $\le 1\text{cc}$	7	$4.7\pm 0.9$	$4.5\pm 0.7$	$62.2\pm 14.3$	$60.8\pm 21.2$	0.902	0.805	$0.97\pm 0.11$	$0.97\pm 0.23$
		(4.6)	(4.8)	(63.4)	(51.7)			(0.97)	(0.81)
$1\text{cc}<\text{target volume}\le 5\text{cc}$	9	$3.7\pm 1.1$	$3.5\pm 0.9$	$59.2\pm 31.5$	$61.9\pm 37.9$	1.000	0.796	$0.97\pm 0.14$	$1.04\pm 0.25$
		(3.5)	(3.2)	(45.7)	(51.8)			(0.95)	(0.99)
$\text{target volume}>5\text{cc}$	9	$3.2\pm 0.6$	$2.9\pm 0.9$	$27.6\pm 6.70$	$25.0\pm 5.7$ (24.2)	0.1 85	0.4 89	$0.90\pm 0.15$	$0.92\pm 0.14$
		(3.0)	(2.5)	(27.5)	(42.2)			(0.87)	(0.90)

^aData represent mean ± SD (median).

$\text{OAR}=\text{organ at risk}$.