Table 2.

Results for each of the 6 patients

Patient Nr.	Magnitude of IMRT advantage in LAD sparing for both intermediate and large target volume scenarios	Would a decision for IMRT have been the preferred option also with regard to heart and left ventricle sparing?
1	IMRT outperformed the other techniques to just below the 25% isodose	Yes, IMRT was optimal
2	IMRT outperformed the other techniques to just below the 25% isodose	Yes, IMRT was optimal
3	IMRT outperformed the other techniques to just below the 25% isodose	Yes, IMRT was optimal
4	IMRT outperformed the other techniques down to the 25% isodose	Yes, IMRT was optimal
5	IMRT outperformed the other techniques down to the 50% isodose	IMRT and 4-field were very similar regarding total heart, but IMRT was slightly better regarding median and mean left ventricle dose (maximum doses were similar, as were ≤25% isodose levels)
6	IMRT and 4-field very similar, both outperformed AP/PA down to the 50% isodose	No, 4-field was best (lowest median heart dose and volume receiving 2 Gy, no disadvantage regarding maximum dose and the various low- dose parameters)

LAD: left anterior descending coronary artery