The feasibility of a dose painting procedure to treat prostate cancer based on mpMR images and hierarchical clustering

Table 7 Comparison of TCP and NTCP variables in three techniques of DP, IMRT, and 3DCRT

Radiobiologic variable	Structure	DP	IMRT	3DCRT	95% CI of difference/ Mean Rank
Radiobiologic variable	Structure	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	DP versus IMRT	DP versus 3DCRT	IMRT versus 3DCRT
TCP (%)	PTV1	72.39 ± 1.57	70.52 ± 1.47	70.17 ± 1.99	0.5828 to 3.162*	0.9328 to 3.512*	− 0.9397 to 1.640
	PTV2	89.9 ± 1.2	70.52 ± 1.47**	70.17 ± 1.99**	18.24 to 20.52*`	18.59 to 20.87*	− 0.8446 to 1.545
	PTV3	91.86 ± 1.02	70.52 ± 1.47**	70.17 ± 1.99**	19.80 to 22.87*	20.15 to 23.22*	− 0.9044 to 1.604
NTCP (%)	Bladder	5.4 ± 2.1	4.8 ± 2	13.31 ± 4.4	− 1.867 to 3.027	− 10.35 to − 5.460*	− 11.07 to − 5.908*
	Rectum	16.54 ± 2.9	19.2 ± 3.7	43.27 ± 4.4	− 5.575 to 0.1254	− 29.58 to − 23.88*	− 26.86 to − 21.15*
	Right femur head	0.0002 ± 0.0004	0.005 ± 0.01	1.87 ± 0.98	− 2.56	− 23.31*	− 20.75*
	Left femur head	0.0001 ± 0.0003	0.003 ± 0.01	1.7 ± 0.46	− 1.5	− 24.74*	− 23.25*

^*Significant difference
^**PTV2 and PTV3 were not considered for the IMRT and 3DCRT procedures. Hence, PTV1 values were considered as PTV2 and PTV3 values in IMRT and 3DCRT procedures

ISSN: 1748-717X