Evidence Hub

Comparison of organs at risk doses between deep inspiration breath-hold and free-breathing techniques during radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Eyachew Misganew Tegaw, G. Tadesse, G. Geraily, S. Gholami, W. Gebreamlak

Polish Journal of Medical Physics And Engineering, 2022

634 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Abstract After radiotherapy (RT) of left-sided breast cancer patients, organs at risk (OARs) such as heart, left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery, and left lung could be affected by radiation dose in the long term. The objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis and determine OARs dose reduction during left-sided breast cancer treatment using different RT modalities combined with deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) relative to free-breathing (FB). PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were used to search for studies until June 6, 2021. Nineteen eligible studies were selected and analyzed using the RevMan 5.3 statistical software package. The pooled weighted mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals for each of the three OAR mean doses were determined using a random-effects meta-analysis model to assess the dose reductions. From a total of 189 studies, 1 prospective study, 15 retrospective studies, and 3 randomized control trials (RCTs) with an overall of 634 patients were included. Reduction of doses to the heart (weighted MD = -1.79 Gy; 95% CI (-2.28, -1.30); P = 0.00001), LAD (weighted MD = -8.34 Gy; 95% CI (-11.06, -5.61); P = 0.00001), and left-lung (weighted MD = -0.90 Gy; 95% CI (-1.19, -0.61); P = 0.00001) were observed using DIBH combinations relative to FB combination. This study emphasizes that during the treatment of left-sided breast/chest wall (CW) ±…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. 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: 634 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