Margriet Kwint

Safety and efficacy of reduced dose and margins 47 2 Table S3A-C. The dose to the organs at risk specified to 4 different radiotherapy conditions (A-D) of the involved lymph nodes in 10 patients to gain more insight in the toxicity profile of the reduction of the mediastinal dose and the margins, separately. A and D are the conditions of the reference-cohort and the reduction-cohort, respectively. The difference of the mean (Δ Mean) between A and the three other conditions are specified as well as the standard deviation (SD). Comparing margin reduction (B) and dose reduction (C) indicates that the contribution of these strategies for the mean lung dose and mean heart dose to the overall exposure reduction is comparable, while for the V 50 of the esophagus the contribution of C dominates over the contribution of B. A=Dose of 70 Gy (EQD 2 ) and margins using a bone anatomy based correction strategy. B= Dose of 70 Gy (EQD 2 ) and margins using a carina based correction strategy. C= Dose of 60 Gy (EQD 2 ) and margins using a bone anatomy based correction strategy. D= Dose of 60 Gy (EQD 2 ) and margins using a carina based correction strategy. Table S3A. Mean Lung Dose (Gy) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Δ Mean SD A 15.8 19.2 12.3 12.2 16.8 12.2 11.6 10.5 14.3 18.7 B 15.5 19.0 11.7 12.3 16.1 11.5 11.2 10.4 13.5 16.4 0.6 0.63 C 14.7 17 11.5 12.1 15.2 11.4 10.8 9.6 13.6 17.5 1.0 0.54 D 13.9 15.5 10.7 11.8 14.9 11.2 10.6 9.2 12.9 14.2 1.9 1.21 Table S3B. Mean Heart Dose (Gy) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Δ Mean SD A 10.2 9.3 4.0 1.5 11.7 14.8 5.7 2.5 3.8 10.4 B 8.1 8.8 3.6 1.5 11.3 13.6 5.5 2.6 3.9 9.7 0.5 0.65 C 9.2 9.1 3.3 1.8 11.1 12.4 5.0 2.4 4.0 9.6 0.6 0.73 D 8.7 8.3 3.6 1.9 11.2 12.2 5.2 2.5 4.2 8.4 0.8 0.95 Table S3C. The volume of the oesophagus receiving ≥50 Gy (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Δ Mean SD A 18.9 30.8 8 0 29.6 32.3 22.3 10.4 40.3 18.4 B 17.6 30.5 8.4 0 25.7 32.2 21.3 10.3 37.7 16.6 1.1 1.3 C 15.7 26.1 5.2 0.9 13.3 31.0 18.9 5.2 36.8 14.9 4.3 4.3 D 13.9 23.0 1.0 1.2 10.0 31.3 17.5 2.2 36.1 11.2 6.4 5.3