Page 39 - Read Online

Dumane et al. J Cancer Metastasis Treat 2019;5:42 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2394-4722.2019.08 Page 5 of 10

Table 2. Comparison of dosimetric parameters for target coverage between the original clinical plan and the corresponding
knowledge based plan, i.e., Rapidplan. Wilcoxon sign-rank test shows that the dosimetric results with respect to target
coverage show no statistically significant difference between the two planning techniques
Structure Parameter Clinical plan KBP P value
PTV D max (%) = HI 118% ± 3.4% 120% ± 2.6% 0.05
D min (%) 97% ± 2.8% 97% ± 3.3% 0.86
V 100 (%) 100% ± 0.8% 100% ± 1.1% 1.00
CI 1.5 ± 0.2 1.5 ± 0.2 1.00
GI 4 ± 0.6 4.3 ± 0.7 < 0.01

CI: conformity index; GI: gradient index; HI: homogeneity index; KBP: knowledge based plan; PTV: planning target volume

Table 3. Comparison of dosimetric parameters for critical organs between the original clinical plan and the corresponding
knowledge based plan, i.e., Rapidplan. Wilcoxon sign-rank test shows that the dosimetric results with respect to target
coverage show no statistically significant difference between the two planning techniques
Structure Parameter Clinical plan KBP P value
Brainstem D max (Gy) 2.2 ± 3.7 2.2 ± 3.5 1.00
Brain D max (Gy) 20.8 ± 1 21.2 ± 1 0.02
V 7Gy (%) 0.7% ± 0.8% 0.7% ± 0.8% 1.00
3
V 12Gy (cm ) 3.5 ± 2.8 4 ± 3.4 0.13
3
V 10Gy (cm ) 5.2 ± 3.9 5.9 ± 4.9 0.16
Mean (Gy) 0.6 ± 0.3 0.7 ± 0.4 0.06
Chiasm D max (Gy) 0.5 ± 0.5 0.5 ± 0.5 0.63
Eye D max (Gy) 0.3 ± 0.5 0.4 ± 0.5 0.30
Optic nerve D max (Gy) 0.3 ± 0.4 0.3 ± 0.4 0.38
Lens D max (Gy) 0.2 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.2 0.13
CI: conformity index; GI: gradient index; KBP: knowledge based plan

Table 4. Table showing the diameter and volume of each lesion treated in a single radiotherapy session for each of the
validation cases. For multiple lesion case i.e., 2,3 and 4 lesions, the total volume of all lesions treated as well as the maximum
diameter is indicated
3
Case No. of lesions Diameter (cm) Volume (cm )
Case 1 1 1 3.9
Case 2 1 0.5 0.4
Case 3 1 0.4 0.2
Case 4 1 0.4 0.3
Case 5 1 0.9 2.7
Case 6 1 0.9 3.2
Case 7 2 0.5 0.5
Case 8 2 0.4 0.3
Case 9 3 0.7 1.7
Case 10 4 0.6 0.7

Table 5. Table showing the distribution of lesions to the various risk levels
Case No. of lesions Prescription (Gy) Dose level assignment
Case 1 1 20 Gy High dose level
Case 2 1 18 Gy High dose level
Case 3 1 18 Gy High dose level
Case 4 1 18 Gy High dose level
Case 5 1 18 Gy High dose level
Case 6 1 18 Gy High dose level
Case 7 2 All 18 Gy High dose level
Case 8 2 All 18 Gy High dose level
Case 9 3 All 18 Gy High dose level
Case 10 4 All 18 Gy High dose level

intervention. A comparison of the dose distributions between the clinical plan and the KBP plan for a single
lesion, 2 lesion and a 4 lesion case are shown in Figures 1-3 respectively. A comparison of the DVHs for the