Evidence Hub

A Randomized Comparison of Radiation Therapy Techniques in the Management of Node-Positive Breast Cancer: Primary Outcomes Analysis

R. Jagsi, K. Griffith, J. Moran, E. Ficaro, Robin B. Marsh, R. Dess, E. Chung, A. Liss et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2018

62 participants · 67 citations

Abstract

Background/purpose: Although inverse-planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) may allow for more conformal dose distributions, it is unknown whether using these technologies reduces cardiac or pulmonary toxicity of breast radiotherapy. Methods: A randomized controlled trial compared IMRT-DIBH versus standard, free-breathing, forward-planned, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in patients with left-sided, node-positive breast cancer in whom the internal mammary nodal region was targeted. Endpoints included dosimetric parameters and changes in pulmonary and cardiac perfusion and function, measured by single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scans and pulmonary function testing performed at baseline and one-year post-treatment. Results: Of 62 patients randomized, 54 who completed all follow-up procedures were analyzed. Mean doses to the ipsilateral lung, left ventricle, whole heart, and left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) were lower with IMRT-DIBH; the percent of left ventricle receiving ≥5 Gy (V5) averaged 15.8% with standard radiotherapy and 5.6% with IMRT-DIBH (p<0.001). SPECT revealed no differences in perfusion defects in the left anterior descending coronary artery territory, the study’s primary endpoint, but did reveal statistically significant differences (p=0.02) in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a secondary endpoint. No differences were found for lung perfusion or function.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 62 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