Table 5.
P‐values for differences in the heart and humeral head doses. Pairwise comparisons from plan to actual CBCT‐based dose in the modified patient geometry, and pairwise comparisons between the different matching techniques. Statistically significant values are in bold
| Heart | Humeral head | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V20 Gy | V10 Gy | V5 Gy | D2 cc | Mean | V15 Gy | D2 cc | |
| FinF | |||||||
| Plan vs. 3D + rot | 0.828 | 0.088 | 0.366 | 0.003 | 0.557 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Plan vs. 2D + rot | 1.000 | 0.672 | 0.601 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.023 | 0.225 |
| Plan vs. 2D | 1.000 | 0.820 | 1.000 | 0.176 | 1.000 | 0.023 | 0.238 |
| VMAT | |||||||
| Plan vs. 3D + rot | 1.000 | 0.007 | 0.030 | 0.004 | 0.056 | 0.180 | 0.001 |
| Plan vs. 2D + rot | 0.450 | 0.022 | 0.394 | 0.075 | 1.000 | 0.194 | 1.000 |
| Plan vs. 2D | 0.305 | 0.015 | 0.213 | 0.057 | 0.859 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| FinF | |||||||
| 3D + rot vs. 2D + rot | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.238 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 3D + rot vs. 2D | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 2D + rot vs. 2D | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.537 |
| VMAT | |||||||
| 3D + rot vs. 2D + rot | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.708 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 3D + rot vs. 2D | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 2D + rot vs. 2D | 0.457 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.006 | 1.000 | 1.000 |