Table 3.
Comparison of the VESPA audit results with other recent audits. The GPRs are compared at 2%/2 mm criteria
| Ref | Variable | Compare group γ GPR % (no) |
VESPA study γ GPR % (no) |
IR (95% CI) | Range | Significance/stability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1- [14] | Linac type | Median | ||||
| Varian | 96.7 (25) | 96.8 (26) | 1.0 (0.8–1.2) | 0.4 | Insignificant/stable | |
| TB | 96.2 (12) | – | ||||
| TPS type | Median | |||||
| Eclipse | 97.3 (22) | 96.3 (26) | 1.0 (0.8–1.2) | 0.4 | Insignificant/stable | |
| Monaco | 98.8 (4) | 98.5 (2) | 1.0 (0.9–1.1) | 0.2 | Insignificant/stable | |
| Pinnacle | 88.7 (6) | 96.1 (10) | 1.1 (1.0–1.2) | 0.2 | Significant/stable | |
| 2-[15] | Delivery type | Mean | ||||
| IMRT | 90.0 (23) | 96.3 (230) | 1.1 (0.9–1.3) | 0.4 | Significant/stable | |
| VMAT | 93.0 (31) | 95.5 (38) | 1.0 (0.8–1.2) | 0.4 | Insignificant/stable | |
| TPS type | Mean | |||||
| Eclipse | 95.0 (21) | 98.0 (113) | 1.0 (0.8–1.2) | 0.4 | Insignificant/stable | |
| Monaco | 84.0 (5) | 96.4 (68) | 1.1 (0.9–1.4) | 0.5 | Significant/unstable | |
| Pinnacle | 91.7 (19) | 93.7 (87) | 1.0 (0.8–1.2) | 0.4 | Insignificant/stable | |
| Treatment site | Mean | |||||
| H&N | 90.0 (25) | 95.2 (135) | 1.1 (0.8–1.3) | 0.5 | Significant/unstable | |
| Pelvic | 93.0 (10) | 97.2 (133) | 1.0 (0.8–1.3) | 0.5 | Insignificant/unstable | |
| 5-[21] | Delivery type | Mean | ||||
| IMRT | 92.0 (155) | 96.3 (230) | 1.0 (0.8–1.3) | 0.5 | Insignificant/unstable | |
| 6-[22] | IMRT/VMAT | Mean | ||||
| 90.0 (1265) | 96.2 (268) | 1.1 (0.9–1.3) | 0.4 | Significant/stable | ||
| 7-[23] | VMAT | Mean | ||||
| 88.0 (118) | 95.5 (38) | 1.1 (0.9–1.3) | 0.4 | Significant/stable | ||