ArticleCureus2026
A Comprehensive Evaluation of Setup Uncertainties and Margin Optimization Using Deep Inspiration Breath-Hold Versus Free-Breathing Techniques in Breast Carcinoma.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo systematically evaluate and compare geometric setup errors and calculate optimal planning target volume (PTV) margins for patients with left-sided breast carcinoma treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) using free-breathing (FB) versus deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 103 postoperative breast carcinoma patients (n = 47 in the FB group; n = 56 in the DIBH group). Daily setup verification was performed using paired kilovoltage (kV) orthogonal images, yielding 348 analysed fractions. Setup deviations were measured in anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), and right-left (RL) directions. PTV margins were derived using the Van Herk formula.
resultsIn the FB group, systematic errors were 0.16 cm (AP), 0.17 cm (SI), and 0.17 cm (RL), with random errors of 0.28 cm, 0.37 cm, and 0.29 cm, respectively. In the DIBH group, systematic errors were 0.14 cm (AP), 0.16 cm (SI), and 0.16 cm (RL), with random errors of 0.25 cm, 0.29 cm, and 0.27 cm, respectively. DIBH significantly reduced setup errors in the SI direction (p = 1.1 x 10
conclusionDIBH significantly mitigates random setup errors in the longitudinal direction by stabilizing diaphragmatic motion, allowing for reduced PTV margins and improved sparing of organs at risk.
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.