ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2026
Deep inspiration breath-hold for breast cancer radiotherapy: a modelling study of targeted versus non-targeted strategy for clinical and operational optimisation.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2026. 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
- Cardiac substructure dosimetry in thoracic radiotherapy: moving beyond mean heart dose and toward precision cardiac risk mitigation.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) holds promise in mitigating late cardiac and pulmonary toxicities in breast cancer patients. However, DIBH increases resource demands, potentially compromising operational efficiency and access to radiotherapy (RT). The aim of this study is to compare the operational implications of a targeted RT approach based on cost-effectiveness with those of non-targeted approaches. Methods: A state-transition microsimulation model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of DIBH versus Free Breathing (FB) in Belgian women aged 40-79 years receiving left- or right-sided RT, with or without regional nodal irradiation. Baseline cardiovascular and lung cancer risks were estimated using SCORE2 and PLCO Findings: DIBH was cost-effective in 58.3% of patients, exhibiting more pronounced benefits in individuals with left-sided cancer, node-positive disease, smokers, those with elevated baseline CVD risk, and older age groups. Compared with not using DIBH, adopting DIBH universally led to a 21.7% (95% CI [21.2%-22.2%]) decrease in maximum throughput whereas a targeted approach (i.e., 58.3% DIBH) resulted in a 13.1% (95% CI [12.9%-14.0%]) reduction in maximum throughput. Interpretation: A targeted RT approach prioritises DIBH for those deriving the most benefit, improving RT resource utilisation and supporting value-based healthcare. Funding: This research was funded by the Strategic Research Programme (zwaartepunt, SRP 53, 2019-2024) 'Societal Benefit of Markerless Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: a Statistical Support based on Quantitative Imaging' (SMARTQI of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel) and the 'Value-Based Breast Radiotherapy' research grant from Kom op tegen Kanker (KOTK_VUB/2024/13906).
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.