Observational studyMedicine2019
A seven-year experience of using moderate deep inspiration breath-hold for patients with early-stage breast cancer and dosimetric comparison.
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical benefits of deep inspiration breath-hold in postoperative radiotherapy for right-sided breast cancer: a meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Eliciting the views of left breast cancer patients' receiving deep inspiration breath hold radiation therapy to inform the design of multimedia education and improve patient-centred care for prospective patients.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Dosimetric analysis of half-field-based VMAT with the deep inspiration breath-hold technique for left breast cancer patients following breast-conserving surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Institutional experience of using active breathing control for paediatric and teenage patients receiving thoraco-abdominal radiotherapy.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Retrospective Analysis for Dose Reduction to Organs at Risk with New Personalized Breast Holder (PERSBRA) in Left Breast IMRT.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- A Dosimetric Study Comparing Different Radiotherapy Planning Techniques With and Without Deep Inspiratory Breath Hold for Breast Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2022Article
- Risk Management for Radiation-Induced Cardiovascular Disease (RICVD): The 2022 Consensus Statement of the Taiwan Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (TASTRO) and Taiwan Society of Cardiology (TSOC).Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2022Review
- Comparison of Deep Inspiration Breath Hold Versus Free Breathing in Radiotherapy for Left Sided Breast Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Concerns for Active Breathing Control (ABC) With Breast Cancer in the Era of COVID-19: Maximizing Infection Control While Minimizing Heart Dose.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
- Effects of Radiation Dose on Liver After Free-breathing Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Breast Cancer.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present our seven-year experience of using moderate deep inspiration breath-hold (mDIBH) with an active breathing control (ABC) device for patients with early-stage breast cancer and dosimetric comparison to evaluate the benefit of mDIBH on the heart, lung, and liver.We retrospectively reviewed all patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer and having clinical stage Tis, I, or II disease treated between November 2010 and October 2017. Among the 369 patients included in this study, 107 patients were treated with mDIBH and 262 patients were treated with free breathing (FB). Dosimetric analysis was performed to compare dose distribution in the heart, lung, and liver between the two treatment groups. The chi-square test was used to compare the distribution of stage and tumor site between the two groups. The independent samples t-test was used to compare the remaining parameters between the two groups.For all 369 patients, there was a significantly lower ipsilateral lung V5 (relative volume receiving ≧5 Gy), ipsilateral lung V10, ipsilateral lung V20, mean ipsilateral lung dose, whole lung V5, whole lung V10, whole lung V20, mean whole lung dose, heart V10, heart V30, heart V40, and mean heart dose in the mDIBH group. For 184 patients with a left-sided breast tumor, significantly lower ipsilateral lung V5, ipsilateral lung V10, ipsilateral lung V20, mean ipsilateral lung dose, whole lung V10, whole lung V20, mean whole lung dose, heart V10, heart V30, heart V40, and mean heart dose were observed in the mDIBH group. For 185 patients with a right-sided breast tumor, significantly lower ipsilateral lung V5, ipsilateral lung V10, ipsilateral lung V20, mean ipsilateral lung dose, whole lung V5, whole lung V10, whole lung V20, mean whole lung dose, heart V10, heart V30, heart V40, mean heart dose, liver V30, and mean liver dose were observed in the mDIBH group.For early-stage breast cancer patients, mDIBH reduces not only the heart dose but also the lung and liver doses. The routine integration of mDIBH using an ABC device may decrease radiation-induced toxicity in the heart, lung, and liver.
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.