Table 4.

Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) in two patients with duodenal lymphoma, comparison with current standards (ISRT 30 Gy)

Normal tissue	Dose constraint	Patient 1 Field size and dose, Gy			Patient 2 Field size and dose, Gy			Risk
		EF 30 + boost to 40	IFRT 40	ISRT 30	EF 30 + boost to 40	IFRT 40	ISRT 30
Right kidney	Dmeana <15 Gy, Gy	11.4	12.4	4.4	18.7	18.0	8.8	Clinical dysfunction <5%
Left kidney	Dmeana <15 Gy, Gy	21.3	17.9	5.1	17.7	7.9	4.5	Clinical dysfunction <5%
Liver	Dmeanb 21.4 Gy vs. 17.5 Gy, Gy	15.6	15.0	5.0	21.7	11.6	3.0	RILD yes or no
	V30b 34.6% vs. 26.6%, %	16.6	13.6	0.1	28.4	9.1	0.7	RILD yes or no
Duodenum	V35c <5.4%, %	100.0	100.0	0.0	86.5	100.0	0.0	Grade ≥2 gastroduodenal toxicity 9% vs. 46%
Small bowel	V35c <5.4%, %	71.7	24.5	0.0	25.8	15.8	0.0	Grade ≥2 gastroduodenal toxicity 9% vs. 46%

^aKidney Dmean constraint according to quantitative analyses of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC), Bentzen et al., 2010 26.

^bLiver Dmean, V30 constraints according to NTCP for liver disease, Cheng et al., 2005 27.

^cDuodenum/small bowel V35 constraint according to NTCP for duodenum toxicity, Holyoake et al., 2017 28.

Abbreviations: EF, extended field (abdomen); IFRT, involved field radiation therapy; ISRT, involved site radiation therapy; RILD, radiation‐induced liver disease.