Table 1.
Summary of the highest values achieved for each patient model and metric together with the RF applicator design, optimization algorithm used, and number of excitations to yield the calculated RF exposure patterns by time-interleaved application. The overall maxima are highlighted in green italic. For the full table of HTP results, please refer to the Supplementary Materials.
| Patient Model | Metric | Highest Value | Design | Algorithm | Number of Excitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pat Model 1 (V = 500 mL) |
SAR10g,max (W/kg) | 134.2 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 |
| SAF | 3.8 | 16.I.E.WB | VOP power optimization | 1 | |
| TCSAR>Lim (%) | 83.5 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| THQ | 1.5 | 16.2R.E = 32.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2/3 | |
| PTV/VTV (W/L) | 66.8 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| Pat Model 2 (V = 127 mL) |
SAR10g,max (W/kg) | 117.5 | 32.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 |
| SAF | 4.3 | 16.I.E.WB | VOP power optimization | 1 | |
| TCSAR>Lim (%) | 84 | 32.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| THQ | 1.4 | 32.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| PTV/VTV (W/L) | 40 | 32.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| Pat Model 3 (V = 172 mL) |
SAR10g,max (W/kg) | 114.4 | 32.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 |
| SAF | 3.5 | 16.I.E.WB | VOP power optimization | 1 | |
| TCSAR>Lim (%) | 96.9 | 32.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| THQ | 1.5 | 32.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| PTV/VTV (W/L) | 53.1 | 32.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| Pat Model 4 (V = 120 mL) |
SAR10g,max (W/kg) | 66.9 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 |
| SAF | 3.2 | 16.I.E.WB | VOP power optimization | 1 | |
| TCSAR>Lim (%) | 50.8 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| THQ | 1.1 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| PTV/VTV (W/L) | 37.4 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| Pat Model 5 (V = 117 + 38 mL) |
SAR10g,max (W/kg) | 86.1 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 3 |
| SAF | 5.2 | 16.I.E.WB | VOP power optimization | 1 | |
| TCSAR>Lim (%) | 76.5 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 3 | |
| THQ | 1.3 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 3 | |
| PTV/VTV (W/L) | 47.7 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 3 | |
| Pat Model 6 (V = 179 mL) |
SAR10g,max (W/kg) | 143.9 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 |
| SAF | 5.8 | 16.2R.R | VOP power optimization | 1 | |
| TCSAR>Lim (%) | 83.1 | 16.I.E | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| THQ | 1.6 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| PTV/VTV (W/L) | 56.8 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| Pat Model 7 (V = 151 mL) |
SAR10g,max (W/kg) | 114.3 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 |
| SAF | 4.9 | 16.2R.E | VOP power optimization | 1 | |
| TCSAR>Lim (%) | 95.8 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| THQ | 1.6 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| PTV/VTV (W/L) | 52.8 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| Pat Model 8 (V = 400 mL) |
SAR10g,max (W/kg) | 115.8 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 |
| SAF | 2.9 | 16.I.R | VOP power optimization | 2 | |
| TCSAR>Lim (%) | 63.1 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| THQ | 1.2 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| PTV/VTV (W/L) | 41 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 2 | |
| Pat Model 9 (V = 288 mL) |
SAR10g,max (W/kg) | 99.7 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 3 |
| SAF | 2.7 | 16.2R.E | VOP power optimization | 3 | |
| TCSAR>Lim (%) | 69.3 | 16.2R.R | MVFS optimization | 3 | |
| THQ | 1.3 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 3 | |
| PTV/VTV (W/L) | 49.1 | 16.2R.E | MVFS optimization | 3 |