Table 2:
Radiation Therapy Plan Central Review
| Level II (4.0 Gy/fx) (n=8) |
Level III (4.5 Gy/fx) (n=7) |
Level IV (5.0 Gy/fx) (n=8) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor volume contouring score | |||
| Per protocol | 7 (87.5%) | 7 (100.0%) | 6 (75.0%) |
| Acceptable variation | 1 (12.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (25.0%) |
| Unacceptable variation | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Organs at risk contouring score | |||
| Per protocol | 8 (100.0%) | 6 (85.7%) | 6 (75.0%) |
| Acceptable variation | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (12.5%) |
| Unacceptable variation | 0 (0.0%) | 1a (14.3%) | 1b (12.5%) |
| Tumor volume dose score | |||
| Per protocol | 8 (100.0%) | 6 (85.7%) | 5 (62.5%) |
| Acceptable variation | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Unacceptable variation | 0 (0.0%) | 1a (14.3%) | 3c,d,e (37.5%) |
| Organs at risk dose score | |||
| Per protocol | 8 (100.0%) | 6 (85.7%) | 8 (100.0%) |
| Acceptable variation | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Unacceptable variation | 0 (0.0%) | 1a (14.3%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Abbreviations: Gy, Gray; fx, fraction
a
No small bowel contour; maximum dose was slightly high; and the liver dose was too high.
b
No small bowel contour.
c,d,e
Liver dose was too high; another patient did not have IV contrast so the gross tumor target volume could not be assessed accurately; one patient had one lesion treated to 35 Gy (not evaluated for protocol) and another to 50 Gy.