Trial reportBMC cancer2026
Evaluation of organs at risk (OARs) in whole-breast irradiation: a comparison of prone, supine position and with deep inspiration breath-hold techniques-subgroup analysis from a prospective study.
Trial report in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05609058 (The Influence of Treatment Position), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
The Influence of Treatment Position (Prone vs. Supine) on Whole Breast Irradiation for Chinese Breast Cancer Patients :Comparative Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the dosimetric characteristics of three radiotherapy techniques-supine free-breathing (FB), supine deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH), and prone positioning-in terms of normal tissue sparing during whole-breast irradiation following breast-conserving surgery.
methodsA total of 75 breast cancer patients (34 right-sided and 41 left-sided) were included in this dosimetric planning study. The study was approved by the local ethics board and registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov on 2023-1-31 (NCT05609058). They all underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan in standard supine position in free-breathing (FB), supine position with deep inspiratory breath hold (DIBH), and prone position (prone). Three-dimensional treatment plans were made for all 3 CTs. The primary endpoint of the study was the comparative evaluation of OAR dose reduction. Data were analyzed with ANOVA or Friedman test with appropriate post-hoc comparisons. Values of p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.
resultsThe Dmean to the ipsilateral lung was significantly lower in the prone position than in the supine position (3.31 Gy vs. 7.73 Gy, 7.25 Gy, P = 0.000). Despite a 62% increase in lung volume with DIBH (range: 15-132%), no pulmonary dose reduction was achieved versus FB. In light of the anatomical characteristics of the heart and the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and right coronary artery (RA), we conducted an analysis of these three indicators, which were divided into two categories: right breast cancer and left breast cancer. For left-sided breast cancer, DIBH significantly reduced the Dmean and Vx doses to the heart and LAD. For right-sided breast cancer, the prone position significantly increased the Dmean and Vx to the heart and RA. DIBH has not shown to significantly decrease the radiation dose to the heart.
conclusionFor left-sided breast cancer, DIBH is optimal for heart protection, while prone positioning benefits lung sparing. For right-sided cancer, free-breathing suffices is adequate.
trial registrationThe study was approved by the local ethics board and registered on www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT05609058).
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.