ArticleScientific reports2024
Dosimetric analysis of six whole-breast irradiation techniques in supine and prone positions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Prone-Position Whole Breast Irradiation Paradox: Where Do We Stand? A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Research progress of cardiotoxicity caused by radiotherapy in breast cancer.Precision radiation oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In breast cancer radiation therapy, minimizing radiation-related risks and toxicity is vital for improving life expectancy. Tailoring radiotherapy techniques and treatment positions can reduce radiation doses to normal organs and mitigate treatment-related toxicity. This study entailed a dosimetric comparison of six different external beam whole-breast irradiation techniques in both supine and prone positions. We selected fourteen breast cancer patients, generating six treatment plans in both positions per patient. We assessed target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) doses to evaluate the impact of treatment techniques and positions. Excess absolute risk was calculated to estimate potential secondary cancer risk in the contralateral breast, ipsilateral lung, and contralateral lung. Additionally, we analyzed the distance between the target volume and OARs (heart and ipsilateral lung) while considering the treatment position. The results indicate that prone positioning lowers lung exposure in X-ray radiotherapy. However, particle beam therapies (PBTs) significantly reduce the dose to the heart and ipsilateral lung regardless of the patient's position. Notably, negligible differences were observed between arc-delivery and static-delivery PBTs in terms of target conformity and OAR sparing. This study provides critical dosimetric evidence to facilitate informed decision-making regarding treatment techniques and positions.
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.