Figure 6

Summary of the most relevant Parameters for Size and Shape. A Short diameter of the treatment zone. Note: For Protocol 1 and 2, there was a trend for a smaller short diameter for Technique A, respectively. For Protocol 3, short diameter was significantly smaller for Technique A compared with Technique B (p < 0.05). Short diameter for Technique A and Technique B was significantly different between Protocol 1, 2 and 3 (p < 0.01 and p < 0.005, respectively). B Sphericity of the treatment zone. Note: For Protocol 1, 2 and 3, sphericity was significantly larger for Technique A compared with Technique B, respectively (p < 0.01, p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). Sphericity for Technique A and B was not significantly different between Protocol 1, 2 and 3. C Diameter of the largest inscribed sphere within the treatment zone. Note: For Protocol 2, there was a trend for a smaller diameter of the largest inscribed sphere within the treatment zone for Technique A. For Protocol 3, the diameter of the largest inscribed sphere within the treatment zone was significantly smaller for Technique A compared with Technique B (p < 0.01). The diameter of the largest inscribed sphere within the treatment zone for Technique A and B was significantly different between Protocol 1, 2 and 3 (p < 0.005 and p < 0.005, respectively). D Diameter of the largest possible treatable tumor sphere. Note: For Protocol 3, the diameter of the largest possible treatable tumor sphere was significantly smaller for Technique A compared with Technique B (p < 0.01). The diameter of the largest inscribed sphere within the treatment zone for Technique A and Technique B was significantly different between Protocol 1, 2 and 3 (p < 0.005 and p < 0.005, respectively).