## 3 Results
### Target Coverage
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **PTV-d** \\ **(40 Gy)** \\ \end{tabular} & **UH-DWA** & \begin{tabular}{c} **CyberKnife** \\ **95\%** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **CyberKnife** \\ **85\%** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Overall (\(p\)-Value** \\ **from Friedman** \\ **Test) \({}^{\star}\)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **UH-DWA vs.** \\ **CK95\%** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **UH-DWA vs.** \\ **CK85\%** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **CK95\%** \\ **CK85\%** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline D 0.03 cm\({}^{3}\) & 104.00\% & 105.25\% & 116.65\% & \textless{}0.00001 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline D98\% & 97.00\% & 98.20\% & 100.57\% & 0.00007 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline D95\% & 97.80\% & 98.77\% & 101.45\% & 0.00012 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline D2\% & 103.40\% & 104.82\% & 115.77\% & \textless{}0.00001 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} \begin{tabular}{c} D50\% \\ (Median) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \end{tabular} & 100.80\% & 101.62\% & 106.57\% & \textless{}0.00001 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline V100\% & 68.50\% & 78.70\% & 98.50\% & 0.00003 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline V110\% & 0.00\% & 0.00\% & 26.10\% & 0.00001 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline CI & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 0.8052 & ns & ns & ** \\ \hline HI & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.15 & 0.00001 & ns & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} PTV-p \\ (36.25 Gy) \\ \end{tabular} & UH-DWA & \begin{tabular}{c} CyberKnife \\ 95\% \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} CyberKnife \\ 85\% \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Overall (\(p\)-value \\ from Friedman \\ Test) \({}^{\star}\) \\ \end{tabular} & UH-DWA vs. & UH-DWA vs. & CK95\% vs. \\ \hline D 0.03 cm\({}^{3}\) & 110.70\% & 111.39\% & 114.86\% & 0.00005 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline D98\% & 94.10\% & 93.93\% & 95.36\% & 0.00019 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline D95\% & 96.55\% & 96.16\% & 96.99\% & 0.00516 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & ns \\ \hline D2\% & 100.10\% & 102.12\% & 103.53\% & 0.00061 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{c} D50\% \\ (Median) \\ \end{tabular} & 107.00\% & 108.08\% & 110.59\% & 0.00003 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline V100\% & 58.00\% & 74.60\% & 81.60\% & 0.00041 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline V110\% & 0.30\% & 0.20\% & 3.40\% & 0.00232 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline CI & 0.98 & 0.98 & 0.99 & 0.00129 & ns & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline HI & 0.13 & 0.14 & 0.14 & 0.03122 & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & ns \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* * Significant \(p\)-value if \(<\)0.016 (Bonferroni correction). ** comparison was not possible because of tied values. List of abbreviations: CK = CyberKnife; UH-DWA = ultra-hypoffractionated dynamic wave arc; ns = not significant.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of median values of dose-volume histogram parameters for PTV of the prostate (PTV-p) and PTV of the DIL (PTV-d). Figure 3: Dose distribution in a 78-year-old man with a dominant lesion in the left peripheral-apex side of the prostate for the three different techniques. Light Blue: 50% of PTV-p prescription dose [PD]; green: 95% of PTV-p PD; orange: 100% of PTV-p PD; red: 100% of PTV-d PD; and purple: 108% of PTV-d PD); R: right; L: left.