ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Deep Inspiratory Breath-Hold Technique for Patients with Left-Sided Breast Cancer: Dosimetric Analysis, Clinical Evaluation, and Prediction.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. 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.
- Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and Deep Learning Methods for Respiratory Signal Extraction From Clinical 3D CBCT Projections.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionBreast radiotherapy is associated with a higher risk of cardiac diseases. Although deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) reduces the heart dose, it is underutilized. The selection of proper candidates for DIBH remains an unresolved issue. This study compared dosimetric parameters between free breathing (FB) and DIBH, monitored myocardial enzymes, and aimed to identify factors that can predict cardiac injury thus developing a method to identify proper patients for DIBH.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study, enrolling 58 patients with left-sided breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery. All patients underwent computed tomography scans in both FB and DIBH states. A comparative analysis of dosimetric features between DIBH and FB was conducted. Myocardial enzyme was monitored until six months post-radiation therapy. T-tests were used to assess differences between the DIBH and the FB. Pearson correlation and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the subclinical acute cardiac injury.ResultsThe mean heart dose (MHD) of the DIBH group significantly dropped as compared to the FB group (3.81 Gy vs 1.65 Gy p = 0.001). Cardiac V40, V30, V25, V10, and V5 volumes also significantly reduced. 9(15.51%) patients exhibited increased myocardial enzyme, with cTnI being the most sensitive indicator. The heart dose was a predictor for the cardiac enzyme's elevation. The ROC curve analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.6. With an MHD threshold of 2 Gy, both sensitivity and specificity exceeded 0.7.ConclusionDIBH significantly diminishes radiation exposure to the heart and LAD compared with FB. Cardiac enzyme analysis facilitates the early detection of cardiac injury following radiation therapy. An MHD threshold of less than 2 Gy is associated with a reduced risk of subclinical cardiac injury, potentially obviating the need for DIBH, which optimizes clinical efficiency and economic viability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.