Table 4.
DVH parameters from 40 patients versus the LEM constraints
| Constraints (16fx) | aLEM constraints | bDVH summary | |
|---|---|---|---|
| cMedian | dMaximum | ||
| Our previous study | D20% ≤ 43.14 | 37.91 | e49.96 |
| D10% ≤ 58.48 | 53.53 | f62.12 | |
| D5% ≤ 65.11 | 59.96 | 65.18 | |
| D0% ≤ 68.33 | 62.91 | 66.61 | |
| CNAO’s study | D10cc ≤ 54.00 | 37.58 | 53.52 |
| D5cc ≤ 61.00 | 53.43 | 60.30 | |
| D1cc ≤ 66.00 | 62.54 | 65.86 | |
| Constraints (12fx) | gLEM Constraints | Patient 1 | Patient 2 |
| Constraints from MKM LQ | D20% ≤ 37.60 | 24.27 | 30.53 |
| D10% ≤ 49.74 | 38.65 | 46.75 | |
| D5% ≤ 55.27 | 46.45 | 52.86 | |
| D0% ≤ 58.01 | 54.11 | 55.37 | |
| D10cc ≤ 45.97 | 29.89 | 27.10 | |
| D5cc ≤ 51.70 | 42.17 | 44.55 | |
| D1cc ≤ 55.97 | 53.20 | 54.80 | |
aLEM rectum constraints for 16-fraction CIRT, the percentage volume constraints were from our previous study, the absolute volume constraints were from CNAO [Gy (RBE)]
bThe value of D20%, D10%, D5%, D0%, D10cc, D5cc, and D1cc parameters processed from each patient’ rectum DVH of 38 patients who received 16-fraction CIRT and 2 patients who received 12-fraction CIRT [Gy (RBE)]
cThe median value of DVH parameters among the 16-fraciton group and 12-fraction group [Gy (RBE)]
dThe maximum value of DVH parameters among the 16-fraciton group and 12-fraction group [Gy (RBE)]
eEight patients were over the D20% constraints for 16-fraction CIRT
fFour out of 8 patients were over the D10% constraints for 16-fraction CIRT
gThe LEM rectum constraints converted from MKM LQ strategy for 12-fraction CIRT