Table 5 Rates of failure and impact of PET-CT planning vs. non-PET-CT planning on failure
Overall Cohort (n = 96) | Definitive SBRT Subgroup (n = 89) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | PET-CT | Non-PET-CT | p (X2)* | Total | PET-CT | Non-PET-CT | p (X2)* | ||
Number of patients: | 96 | 45 | 51 | 89 | 45 | 44 | |||
Failure vs. No Failure: | |||||||||
% No Failure (n) | 51% (49) | 62% (28) | 41% (21) | 0.044 | 49% (44) | 62% (28) | 36% (16) | 0.020 | |
% Overall (Any) Failure (n) | 49% (47) | 38% (17) | 59% (30) | 0.044 | 51% (45) | 38% (17) | 64% (28) | 0.020 | |
Type of Failure: | |||||||||
% In-field (n) | 7% (7) | 11% (5) | 4% (2) | 0.247 | 8% (7) | 11% (5) | 5% (2) | 0.434 | |
% Overlap (n) | 15% (14) | 11% (5) | 18% (9) | 0.401 | 16% (14) | 11% (5) | 20% (9) | 0.258 | |
% Marginal (n) | 22% (21) | 13% (6) | 29% (15) | 0.083 | 22% (20) | 13% (6) | 32% (14) | 0.045 | |
% Regional/Distant (n) | 16% (15) | 13% (6) | 18% (9) | 0.588 | 16% (14) | 13% (6) | 18% (8) | 0.573 | |
Combined Failure Categories: | |||||||||
% In-field/Overlap/Marginal (n) | 43% (41) | 33% (15) | 51% (26) | 0.100 | 45% (40) | 33% (15) | 57% (25) | 0.034 | |
% Overlap/Marginal (n) | 36% (35) | 24% (11) | 47% (24) | 0.033 | 38% (34) | 24% (11) | 52% (23) | 0.009 | |