ArticleCardio-oncology (London, England)2025
Redefining cardiac risk in breast radiotherapy: a substructure-based dosimetric and biomarker correlation study.
Article in Cardio-oncology (London, England), 2025. 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.
- Longitudinal changes in NT-proBNP after breast cancer radiotherapy: clinical determinants of its trajectory and association with cardiac dysfunction (BACCARAT study).Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the mean heart dose (MHD) as a predictor of radiation exposure to cardiac substructures and its association with markers of subclinical cardiotoxicity in breast cancer (BC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT). Although MHD provides an overall estimate of cardiac exposure, it does not capture the heterogeneous dose distribution across critical cardiac substructures. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn an ambispective study design, dosimetric parameters, including MHD and dose-volume metrics for the left anterior descending artery (LAD), left circumflex artery (LCx), and left main coronary artery (LMCA), were analyzed in a cohort of BC patients receiving adjuvant RT. Early cardiotoxicity markers, such as N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), ejection fraction (EF), and the Tei index, were evaluated. The relationship between MHD and radiation doses to specific cardiac substructures, as well as their association with cardiac biomarker levels, was assessed.
resultsAmong 104 patients, the overall MHD was 6.4 ± 5.4 Gy. Left-sided BC patients received a significantly higher MHD of 10.5 ± 4.37 Gy. The LAD mean dose was 16.12 ± 15.19 Gy for the entire cohort, increasing to 30.17 ± 5.74 Gy in left-sided cases. Patients with higher MHDs were more likely to receive elevated doses to the LMCA and LCx; however, a notable discrepancy was observed in LAD dose correlation. Regression analysis showed that MHD explained only 9.4% of the variance in LAD mean dose compared to 65% for LMCA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis identified heart Dmax (43.12 Gy), heart V25 (13%), and LAD mean dose (28.92 Gy) as strong predictors of subclinical cardiotoxicity, whereas MHD was not.
conclusionOur findings confirm that MHD is an inadequate surrogate for predicting the heterogeneous dose distribution among cardiac substructures. Elevated NT-proBNP levels and reduced EF were significantly associated with higher substructure doses, highlighting the need for individualized, substructure-specific dose constraints in RT planning. These findings support the use of advanced cardiac-sparing techniques such as deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and proton therapy.
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.