ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2024
Selection criteria and method for deep inspiration breath-hold in patients with left breast cancer undergoing PMRT/IMRT.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical evaluation using first-day assessment of patient suitability for successful performance of deep inspiration breath-hold for breast cancer radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Dosimetric advantages and clinical feasibility of a novel lateral decubitus position for left breast cancer patients undergoing PORT.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study explored whether a free-breathing mean heart dose (FB-MHD) of 4 Gy is a reliable dose threshold for selecting left breast cancer patients after modified radical mastectomy suitable for deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) and developed anatomical indicators to predict FB-MHD for rapid selection. Materials and methods: Twenty-three patients with left breast cancer treated with DIBH were included to compare FB and DIBH plans. The patients were divided into the high-risk (FB-MHD ≥ 4 Gy) and low-risk (FB-MHD < 4 Gy) groups to compare dose difference, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and the DIBH benefits. Another 30 patients with FB only were included to analyze the capacity of distinguishing high-risk heart doses patients according to anatomical metrics, such as cardiac-to-chest Euclidean distance (CCED), cardiac-to-chest gap (CCG), and cardiac-to-chest combination (CCC). Results: All heart doses were significantly lower in patients with DIBH plans than in those with FB plans. Based on FB-MHD of 4 Gy cutoff, the heart dose, NTCP for cardiac death, and benefits from DIBH were significantly higher in the high-risk group than in the low-risk group. The CCED was a valid anatomical indicator with the largest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83 and maintained 95 % sensitivity and 70 % specificity at the optimal cutoff value of 2.5 mm. Conclusions: An FB-MHD of 4 Gy could be used as an efficient dose threshold for selecting patients suitable for DIBH. The CCED may allow a reliable prediction of FB-MHD in left breast cancer patients at CT simulation.
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.