Skip to main content

Table 5 Correlation coefficients (r) with corresponding p-values of Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlation test of dose-volumetric parameters of organ-at-risk volumes to modulation complexity score for volumetric modulated radiation therapy and total monitor units for cervical and thoracic spine stereotactic ablative radiotherapy plans

From: Progressive resolution optimizer (PRO) predominates over photon optimizer (PO) in sparing of spinal cord for spine SABR VMAT plans

 

ΔMU

ΔMCSv

DV parameter

r

p

r

p

Spinal cord

    

ΔD1.2 cc

-0.679

< 0.0001

0.793

< 0.0001

ΔD0.35 cc

-0.504

0.007

0.644

< 0.001

ΔD0.035 cc

-0.349

0.069

0.380

0.047

ΔMaximum dose

-0.394

0.039

0.584

0.001

ΔMean dose

-0.686

< 0.001

0.790

< 0.0001

Spinal cord PRV

    

ΔD1.2 cc

-0.533

0.004

0.605

0.001

ΔD0.35 cc

-0.287

0.138

0.460

0.015

ΔD0.035 cc

-0.652

< 0.001

0.781

< 0.0001

ΔMaximum dose

-0.276

0.155

0.540

0.003

ΔMean dose

-0.635

< 0.001

0.804

< 0.0001

Ring1.5 cm

    

ΔV105% (cm3)

-0.075

0.704

0.216

0.269

ΔV110% (cm3)

-0.004

0.983

0.133

0.499

ΔV115% (cm3)

-0.089

0.652

0.137

0.487

  1. Note: Δ = differences in the values (PO minus PRO) between the two algorithms, MU = monitor unit, MCSv = modulation complexity score for volumetric modulated arc therapy proposed by Masi et al. (2013). DV = dose-volumetric, Dn cc = dose received by at least n cc volume of the planning target volume, PRV = planning organ at risk volume, Vn% = absolute volume of a structure irradiated by at least n% of the prescription dose, Ring1.5 cm = 1.5-cm ring structure surrounding PTV