Table 4.
The final optimization results of Plans 1–3.
|
VPTV (cm3) |
M (cm) | VOptiForR50shell (cm3) | %VOpti | R50%Goal | R50%Achieved | CI | RTOG HI | Dx% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plan 1 (Spherical) | |||||||||
| PTV1 | 0.54 | 0.93 | 12.05 | 20 | 5.43 | 4.75 | 1.05 | 1.409 | 98.9 |
| PTV2 | 1.96 | 1.22 | 31.96 | 20 | 4.20 | 3.48 | 1.03 | 1.341 | 99.1 |
| PTV3 | 0.19 | 0.74 | 5.50 | 20 | 6.69 | 6.24 | 1.02 | 1.221 | 95.2 |
| PTV4 | 0.97 | 1.06 | 18.99 | 20 | 4.83 | 4.22 | 1.05 | 1.373 | 98.8 |
| PTV5 | 8.00 | 1.59 | 88.10 | 20 | 3.17 | 2.80 | 0.95 | 1.338 | 95.0 |
| Total = 11.66 | |||||||||
| Plan 2 (Irregular) | |||||||||
| PTV1 | 1.20 | 1.10 | 23.96 | 18 | 4.63 | 4.46 | 1.09 | 1.367 | 98.1 |
| PTV2 | 0.98 | 1.06 | 21.31 | 18 | 4.82 | 4.55 | 1.00 | 1.240 | 95.4 |
| PTV3 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 17.19 | 17 | 5.11 | 4.70 | 1.03 | 1.395 | 95.0 |
| PTV4 | 1.01 | 1.07 | 20.96 | 18 | 4.79 | 4.61 | 1.05 | 1.304 | 97.9 |
| PTV5 | 1.67 | 1.18 | 31.03 | 18 | 4.33 | 4.10 | 1.01 | 1.230 | 96.5 |
| Total = 5.59 | |||||||||
| Plan 3 (Jack) | |||||||||
| PTV1 | 1.50 | 1.16 | 29.93 | 17 | 4.43 | 4.45 | 1.11 | 1.315 | 98.0 |
| PTV2 | 1.44 | 1.15 | 31.28 | 16 | 4.46 | 4.88 | 1.19 | 1.276 | 98.8 |
| PTV3 | 1.11 | 1.09 | 23.60 | 17 | 4.70 | 4.79 | 1.09 | 1.325 | 95.6 |
| PTV4 | 1.83 | 1.20 | 37.09 | 16 | 4.25 | 4.85 | 1.09 | 1.305 | 96.1 |
| PTV5 | 1.28 | 1.12 | 28.17 | 16 | 4.57 | 5.37 | 1.14 | 1.266 | 95.0 |
| Total = 7.16 | |||||||||
The third column labeled “M” is the PTV expansion margin [Eq. (2)] that created the OptiForR50shell used in the optimization. The fourth column labeled “%VOpti” is an optimization parameter given by [Eq. (3)]. Plan 1 (five spherical shaped PTVs) is depicted in Fig. 3(a). Plan 2 (five irregularly shaped PTVs) is depicted in Fig. 3(b). Plan 3 (five jack‐shaped PTVs) is depicted in Fig. 3(c). Notice that the R50%Achieved values are better than the R50%Goal values for all spherical and irregular PTVs.