Table 3.
Dosimetric and radiobiologic results for planning target volume (PTV) obtained by three-field (3F), four-field box (4FB), and field-in-field (FIF) treatment planning techniques for treatment of gastro-esophageal (GE) cancer.
| Parameter | 3F | 4FB | FIF | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dmean (Gy) | 51.16±0.57 | 51.30±0.53 | 50.59±0.33 | *<0.01 (4FB vs. FIF) |
| *<0.01 (FIF vs. 3F) | ||||
| 0.56 (3F vs. 4FB) | ||||
| Dmax (Gy) | 54.53±1.17 | 54.03±1.06 | 52.50±0.38 | *<0.01 (4FB vs. FIF) |
| *<0.01 (FIF vs. 3F) | ||||
| *<0.01 (3F vs. 4FB) | ||||
| Dmin (Gy) | 45.56±2.85 | 46.21±2.03 | 45.81±1.87 | *<0.01 (4FB vs. FIF) |
| 0.36 (FIF vs. 3F) | ||||
| *0.04 (3F vs. 4FB) | ||||
| CI | 1.95±0.24 | 1.89±0.21 | 1.82±0.23 | 0.25 (4FB vs. FIF) |
| *0.03 (FIF vs. 3F) | ||||
| 0.31 (3F vs. 4FB) | ||||
| HI | 0.11±0.02 | 0.10±0.02 | 0.07±0.01 | *<0.01 (4FB vs. FIF) |
| *<0.01 (FIF vs. 3F) | ||||
| *<0.01 (3F vs. 4FB) | ||||
| EUD (Gy) | 50.89±1.44 | 50.82±1.26 | 50.38±1.34 | *0.03 (4FB vs. FIF) |
| *0.03 (FIF vs. 3F) | ||||
| 1 (3F vs. 4FB) | ||||
| TCP (%) | 57.83±6.05 | 57.99±5.86 | 55.58±6.01 | *0.02 (4FB vs. FIF) |
| *0.04 (FIF vs. 3F) | ||||
| 1 (3F vs. 4FB) | ||||
| MU | 307.76±21.88 | 273.51±27.94 | 249.98±18.21 | *<0.01 (4FB vs. FIF) |
| *<0.01 (FIF vs. 3F) | ||||
| *<0.01 (3F vs. 4FB) |
3F: Three-field; 4FB: Four-field box; FIF: Field-in-field; CI: Conformity index; HI: Homogeneity index; EUD: Equivalent uniform dose; TCP: Tumor control probability; MU: Monitor unit
*
: The P-value is less than 0.05 and this indicates a significant difference between the two techniques.