. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Oct 11.

Published in final edited form as: Radiother Oncol. 2018 Jan 19;126(3):386–393. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.12.029

Table 4.

Cosmesis outcomes of BT vs. EBRT

	BED₃=80	BED₃=100	BED₃=120	Slope^┼
Good cosmesis
BT	94% (82-100%)	95% (88-100%)^*	99% (90-100%)^*	2.8% p=0.002
EBRT	79% (60-95%)	79% (60-82%)^*	68% (60-74%)^*	−2.5% p=0.121
Fair cosmesis
BT	4% (0-10%)	3% (0-9%)	2% (0-9%)^*	−1.7% p=0.010
EBRT	12% (0-31%)	18% (8-31%)	22% (18-28%)^*	3.2% p=0.068
Poor cosmesis
BT	5% (0-9%)	5% (0-7%)	4% (0-8%)	−1.3% p=0.005
EBRT	10% (1-18%)	8% (2-12%)	5% (1-7%)	−1.2% p=0.130

Note:

denotes p-value < 0.05 for BT vs. EBRT for particular cosmetic outcome, 95% CI in parentheses,

^┼

denotes percent change vs 10 unit change in BED

Note that this analysis is performed on all patients in the dataset. The selected dose levels (80 Gy, 100 Gy, 120 Gy) represent the gamut of the doses, as shown in Figure 1; further, there are no “good”/”fair”/”poor” cosmesis all.