ArticleJournal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute2024
A comparative study in left-sided breast cancer treated with moderate deep inspiratory breath hold versus free breathing.
Article in Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of a real-time multi-scenario monitoring method for respiratory motion based on capacitive sensors.Precision radiation oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe moderate deep inspiratory breath hold (mDIBH) is a modality famed for cardiac sparing. Prospective studies based on this are few from the eastern part of the world and India. We intend to compare the dosimetry between mDIBH and free-breathing (FB) plans.
methodsThirty-two locally advanced left breast cancer patients were taken up for the study. All patients received a dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the chest wall/intact breast, followed by a 10-Gy boost to the lumpectomy cavity in the case of breast conservation surgery. All the patients were treated in mDIBH using active breath coordinator (ABC). The data from the two dose volume histograms were compared regarding plan quality and the doses received by the organs at risk. Paired t-test was used for data analysis.
resultsThe dose received by the heart in terms of V5, V10, and V30 (4.55% vs 8.39%) and mean dose (4.73 Gy vs 6.74 Gy) were statistically significant in the ABC group than that in the FB group (all p-values < 0.001). Also, the dose received by the LADA in terms of V30 (19.32% vs 24.87%) and mean dose (32.99 Gy vs 46.65 Gy) were significantly less in the ABC group. The mean treatment time for the ABC group was 20 min, while that for the free-breathing group was 10 min.
conclusionsIncorporating ABC-mDIBH for left-sided breast cancer radiotherapy significantly reduces the doses received by the heart, LADA, and left and right lung, with no compromise in plan quality but with an increase in treatment time.
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.