Table 2.

The MKM rectum constraints for 16-fraction CIRT and the converted LEM constraints for 16-, 12-, 8-, and 4-fraction CIRT from two strategies

dDMKM16fx	eDLEM16fx	aDLEM 12fx			bDLEM 8fx			cDLEM 4fx
		fMKM LQ	gLEM LQ	hDiff	MKM LQ	LEM LQ	Diff	MKM LQ	LEM LQ	Diff
D20% ≤ 28.80	43.14	37.60	39.55	5.18%	30.40	34.60	13.82%	20.80	26.83	28.98%
D10% ≤ 46.40	58.48	49.74	53.08	6.72%	39.25	45.86	16.83%	25.66	34.96	36.24%
iD5% ≤ 56.00	65.11	55.27	58.91	6.58%	43.41	50.69	16.76%	28.33	38.42	35.59%
jD0% ≤ 60.80	68.33	58.01	61.73	6.04%	45.46	53.03	14.27%	29.64	40.10	26.08%

^aThe LEM rectum constraints for 12-fraction CIRT [Gy (RBE)]

^bThe LEM rectum constraints for 8-fraction CIRT [Gy (RBE)]

^cThe LEM rectum constraints for 4-fraction CIRT [Gy (RBE)]

^dThe MKM rectum constraints for 16-fraction CIRT [Gy (RBE)]

^eThe LEM rectum constraints for 16-fraction CIRT from our previous study [Gy (RBE)]

^fThe LEM rectum constraints converted from MKM LQ strategy

^gThe LEM rectum constraints converted from LEM LQ strategy

^hDifference = (LEM LQ-MKM LQ)/MKM LQ*100%

ⁱBased on the publication [17], NIRS used D5% ≤ 56.00 Gy (RBE) as their constraints

^jBased on the publication [17], NIRS used D0% ≤ 60.80 Gy (RBE) as their constraints