ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Evaluation of sparing organs at risk (OARs) in left-breast irradiation in the supine and prone positions and with deep inspiration breath-hold.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alternative Treatment Positions over Supine in Adjuvant Whole Breast RT: Prone, Lateral or What Else? A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- The Prone-Position Whole Breast Irradiation Paradox: Where Do We Stand? A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Dynamic cardiac changes in low cardiovascular risk patients with triple negative breast cancer treated with chemo-immunotherapy.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Current Cardioprotective Strategies for the Prevention of Radiation-Induced Cardiotoxicity in Left-Sided Breast Cancer Patients.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Four irradiation and three positioning techniques for whole-breast radiotherapy: Is sophisticated always better?Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Retrospective Analysis for Dose Reduction to Organs at Risk with New Personalized Breast Holder (PERSBRA) in Left Breast IMRT.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparison of Deep Inspiration Breath Hold Versus Free Breathing in Radiotherapy for Left Sided Breast Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the heart and lung dosimetric parameters in deep inspiration breath hold using 3D Slicer.Radiation oncology journal · 2020Article
- External-beam partial breast irradiation in a supine versus prone position after breast-conserving surgery for Chinese breast cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare doses to organs at risk (OARs) for left-sided whole-breast radiation therapy with comparable planning target volume (PTV) coverage using three techniques: free breathing in a supine position (SFB), deep inspirational breath-hold in a supine position (SDIBH), and free breathing in prone position (PFB). MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-three patients with left-sided early-stage breast cancer underwent CT simulation following SFB, SDIBH, and PFB protocols for whole-breast radiation therapy. One radiation oncologist contoured the breast PTV, heart, left ventricle (LV), and left anterior descending artery (LAD). Treatment plans were optimized using field-in-field technique with the AAA algorithm. Each plan was optimized to provide identical coverage to the PTV such that a reasonable comparison for OAR dosimetry could be evaluated. All plans were prescribed 42.56 Gy in 16 fractions to the left-breast PTV.
resultsThe mean dose in SFB for the heart, LV, and LAD was 1.92, 3.19, and 21.73 Gy, respectively, which were significantly higher than the mean dose in SDIBH for the heart (1.08 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), LV (1.50 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), and LAD (6.3 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001) and in PFB for the heart (0.98 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), LV (1.34 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), and LAD (6.57 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001). Similar findings were noted for the cardiac components in SFB for V2.5, V5, V10, V20, and V30 compared with values in SDIBH and PFB. The mean dose for the left lung in PFB was 0.61 Gy that was significantly lower than in SFB (5.63 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001) and SDIBH (5.54 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001). Mean dose and dosimetric values for each OAR increased in SFB and SDIBH for patients with a large breast volume compared with values for patients with a small breast volume.
conclusionsSFB results in higher heart, LAD, and LV doses than the other techniques. Both PFB and SDIBH are more advantageous for these OARs irrespective of breast volume. PFB results in significantly lower lung doses than SFB and SDIBH. PFB always provided better results than SFB for the heart, LV, LAD, and lung. This conclusion contrasts with some published studies concluding that the prone position has no benefit for heart sparing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.