Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 18;13(1):24–31. doi: 10.5114/jcb.2021.103583

Table 2.

Dosimetric comparison of Vienna-type plan using only parallel needles versus Venezia plan using both parallel and oblique needles

EQD2 (Gy) Patient no. 1
HR-CTV = 61 cc
IR-CTV = 116 cc
Patient no. 2
HR-CTV = 96 cc
IR-CTV = 171 cc
Patient no. 3
HR-CTV = 57 cc
IR-CTV = 110 cc
Patient no. 4
HR-CTV = 64 cc
IR-CTV = 135 cc
Patient no. 5
HR-CTV = 92 cc
IR-CTV = 158 cc
P-value
Parallel needles Parallel and oblique needles Parallel needles Parallel and oblique needles Parallel needles Parallel and oblique needles Parallel needles Parallel and oblique needles Parallel needles Parallel and oblique needles
D90 HR-CTV
(EQD210, Gy)
84.0 90.3 81.5 83.2 77.4 85.9 83.5 90.0 78.1 85.3 0.006
D90 IR-CTV
(EQD210, Gy)
68.4 72.3 67.0 68.7 69.1 70.6 64.3 67.1 64.4 66.3 0.006
D2cc rectum
(EQD23, Gy)
68.1 74.7 72.0 72.5 66.0 67.6 74.5 73.9 67.6 68.7 NS
D2cc bladder
(EQD23, Gy)
90.1 87.5 84.1 87.9 76.1
Dose rate limit 0.6 Gy/h
77.7
Dose rate limit 0.6 Gy/h
76.4 77.4 83.7
Dose rate limit 0.6 Gy/h
80.8
Dose rate limit 0.6 Gy/h
NS
D2cc sigmoid
(EQD23, Gy)
51.4 53.1 52.4 52.3 56.9 57.2 61.7 61.7 75.1 74.3 NS
D2cc bowel
(EQD23, Gy)
72.7 73.6 74.8 75.1 57.6 57.7 75.0 74.7 55.6 55.6 NS
Vaginal TRAK/total TRAK ratio 54% 44% 32% 28% 34% 28% 13% 11% 45% 34% 0.01
TRAK
(cGy/m2)
2.51 2.64 2.88 2.94 1.55 1.74 2.55 2.56 2.88 2.83 NS
Conformation number 0.50 0.51 0.59 0.58 0.52 0.61 0.54 0.61 0.50 0.54 0.09

Italic characters represent dosimetric factor that reached pre-established constraint first during optimization process, NS – not significant