Table 2.
The mean, standard deviations, and P‐values for plan quality evaluation parameters.
| Metric |
Manual plan (Mean ± SD) |
EZF plan (Mean ± SD) |
P‐value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protocol plans vs. EZF | V105% (cc) | 128.0 (±175) | 73.0 (±77) | 0.111 |
| V105/V95 (%) | 77.4 (±8.35) | 15.8 (±3.59) | 0.0897 | |
| D95 (%) | 87.8 (±18.7) | 91.8 (±11.9) | 0.0707 | |
| D90 (%) | 96.6 (±5.4)) | 98.4 (±2.32) | 0.133 | |
| MU | 495 (±102) | 457 (±33.8) | 0.175 | |
| CI95% | 1.48 (±0.58) | 1.18 (±0.13) | 0.0945 | |
|
Non‐protocol plans vs. EZF |
V105% (cc) | 81.2 (±71.1) | 68.7 (±67.5) | 0.102 |
| V105/V95 (%) | 7.27 (±5.44) | 6.05 (±4.84) | 0.0695 | |
| D95 (%) | 95.7 (±3.8) | 96.5 (±2.6) | 0.146 | |
| D90 (%) | 97.5 (±3.3) | 98.2 (±1.7) | 0.192 | |
| MU | 501 (±84) | 447.7 (±83) | 1.75E‐11 | |
| Total data vs. EZF | V105% (cc) | 94.4 (±118) | 66.5 (±69.3) | 0.0257 |
| V105/V95 (%) | 7.2 (±6.5) | 5.2 (±4.2) | 0.00870 | |
| D95 (%) | 93.2 (±7.5) | 95 (±11.9) | 0.0219 | |
| D90 (%) | 97.3 (±4.2) | 98.3 (±1.94) | 0.0483 | |
| MU | 500 (±92) | 453 (±71) | 8.26E‐06 |
The top shows the RTOG 1005 protocol data compared to EZF, the middle is the non‐protocol data, and on the bottom is the combined data from both data sets. For D95 and D90 calculations, manually contoured PTV_Eval was used for the protocol plans, and PTV_Eval_EZ for the remaining plans where physician‐contoured PTV_Eval was not available. V105 and V95 were calculated based on the whole body contour.