Evidence Hub

Dosimetric Parameters of the Heart and Its Substructures in Predicting Cardiac Events or Survival in Patients With Lung Cancer After Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Li X, Wu Y, Zhang Y, Ge M, Zou S, Zhang R, Zhou S, Wang J

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2026

21,645 participants

Abstract

The predictive value of radiation dose to the whole heart (WH) and cardiac substructures (CS) for cardiac events (CEs) and survival in patients with lung cancer remains uncertain. The goal of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide an evidence-based estimate of the relationship between these associations. A systematic meta-analysis was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series. Outcomes were classified into major adverse cardiac events (MACE), arrhythmias, pericardial effusion, and survival. Depending on heterogeneity, random- or fixed-effects models were applied to calculate pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for univariable and multivariable analyses. A total of 80 studies, including 21,645 patients, were analyzed. Of these, 25 studies reported CEs, and 69 reported survival outcomes. Among 91 WH and 215 CS parameters evaluated, several showed significant associations. Key findings from our meta-analysis include: (1) left anterior descending (LAD) V15 was significantly associated with MACE. The mean heart dose (MHD), as well as ventricle and LAD doses, were significantly associated with ischemic events. (2) Multiple CS parameters were associated with different arrhythmia subtypes. (3) MHD, heart V5/V35/V55 and pericardial doses were significantly associated with pericardial effusion. (4) MHD was significantly associated with survival; CS parameters also showed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 21,645 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free