Table 3.

Survival and toxicity outcomes

Study name	Citations	Functional imaging agent	Intervention aim							Treatment
			Improve standard RTtarget delineation	Facilitate doseescalation	Facilitate organ at risk sparing	Map recurrence & RT treated volumes	Map functional volumes& RT planning volumes	Map treated functionalvolumes & survival	Map radiomic features& RT volumes	Standard targetvolumes changed	Dose escalation	Functional OAR sparing
Piroth	[34–37]	F18-FET PET		$✓$		$✓$		$✓$		$✓$	$✓$
Laouiti	[38]	F18-FET PET	$✓$								$✓$
Miwa	[39]	F18-FET PET	$✓$								$✓$
Munck Af Rosenschold	[40, 41]	F18-FET PET	$✓$				$✓$	$✓$		$✓$
Lundemann	[42–44]	F18-FET PET	$✓$			$✓$	$✓$		$✓$	$✓$
Poulsen	[45, 46]	F18-FET PET	$✓$					$✓$		$✓$
Vigil	[52, 53]	C11-MET PET		$✓$		$✓$	$✓$	$✓$		$✓$	$✓$
Brinkmann	[59, 61, 61]	F18-FDOPA PET	$✓$	$✓$			$✓$	$✓$		$✓$	$✓$
Kim	[66, 68, 86]	DW MRI & DCE MRI		$✓$				$✓$			$✓$
Wang	[70]	DTI MRI & BOLD MRI			$✓$							$✓$
Zhang	[71]	DTT MRI	$✓$							$✓$
Altabella	[72]	DTI MRI					$✓$					$✓$
Morin	[74]	DW MRI	$✓$			$✓$	$✓$			$✓$
Opposits	[76]	BOLD MRI			$✓$					$✓$
Laprie	[77–80]	MRSI		$✓$							$✓$
Mellon	[82]	MRSI		$✓$							$✓$

Study name	Max dose			Dose fractionation (Gy / fractions)	Toxicity/OAR dose metric	Survival
	BED${}_2$ (Gy)	BED${}_{10}$ (Gy)	EQD${}_2$ (Gy)			Median OS Mths	Median PFS Mths	12 Mths OS %	12 Mths PFS %
Piroth	158.4	89.3	74.4	72/30	No grade 3 or 4 toxicity	14.8	7.8	63.6	25.4
Laouiti	158.4	89.3	74.4	72/30	Maximum grade CTCAE acute toxicity was 1 (median), range 0-2			38.4	28.6
Miwa	357	125.8	104.8	68/8		20	13	71.2	52.6
Munck Af Rosenschold	120	72	60	60/30	Plan OAR (brain, brain stem...) receive less dose in PET-image guided-VMAT plans	15	6
Lundemann	120	72	60	60/30		20.7	11.7
Poulsen	120	72	60	60/30		16.5	6.5
Vigil	Not reported but escalated					20	6.7
Brinkmann	172.3	95.3	79.4	76/30	Grade 3 CNS necrosis was noted in 3 patients (4.4%), 1 patient (1.5%) with pre-existing vision dysfunction had Grade 4 optic nerve dysfunction	16	8.7
Kim	168.8	93.8	78.1	75/30	Side effects were similar in incidence to standard therapy	20		90
Wang	120	72	60	60/30	Plan OAR (white matter tracks) received less dose in functionally optimised plan
Zhang	120	72	60	60/30	Thecognition dysfunction was mild and the radiation-induced brain oedema was mild to moderate	17.6		76	66
Altabella	120	72	60	60/30	Plan OAR (white matter structures) received less dose in DTI-optimised plans
Morin	120	72	60	60/30	Plan OAR (hippocampus) received less dose in DW-optimised plans
Opposits	120	72	60	60/30	Reduced dose in the functionally active areas of the brain
Laprie	158.4	89.3	74.4	72/30	SIB plan OAR (brainstem and brain) received lower doses than CRT plans
Mellon	168.8	93.8	78.1	75/30	No observed serious adverse events

BED${}_2$ Biological effective dose (alpha/beta = 2), BED${}_{10}$ Biological effective dose (alpha/beta = 10), EQD${}_2$ Equivalent dose in 2 Gy (alpha/beta = 10), OS Overall survival, PFS Progression free survival, Mths Months, CTCAE Common terminology criteria for adverse events, OAR Organ at risk, SIB Simultaneous -integrated boost, CRT Conformal radiation therapy