Evaluation of organs at risk (OARs) in whole-breast irradiation: a comparison of prone, supine position and with deep inspiration breath-hold techniques-subgroup analysis from a prospective study.
[BACKGROUND] This study aimed to compare the dosimetric characteristics of three radiotherapy techniques-supine free-breathing (FB), supine deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH), and prone positioning-i
- p-value p < 0.05
- p-value P = 0.000
APA
Feng L, Liang Y, et al. (2026). Evaluation of organs at risk (OARs) in whole-breast irradiation: a comparison of prone, supine position and with deep inspiration breath-hold techniques-subgroup analysis from a prospective study.. BMC cancer, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-15445-6
MLA
Feng L, et al.. "Evaluation of organs at risk (OARs) in whole-breast irradiation: a comparison of prone, supine position and with deep inspiration breath-hold techniques-subgroup analysis from a prospective study.." BMC cancer, vol. 26, no. 1, 2026.
PMID
41572204
Abstract
[BACKGROUND] This study aimed to compare the dosimetric characteristics of three radiotherapy techniques-supine free-breathing (FB), supine deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH), and prone positioning-in terms of normal tissue sparing during whole-breast irradiation following breast-conserving surgery.
[METHODS] A total of 75 breast cancer patients (34 right-sided and 41 left-sided) were included in this dosimetric planning study. The study was approved by the local ethics board and registered at www.
[CLINICALTRIALS] gov on 2023-1-31 (NCT05609058). They all underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan in standard supine position in free-breathing (FB), supine position with deep inspiratory breath hold (DIBH), and prone position (prone). Three-dimensional treatment plans were made for all 3 CTs. The primary endpoint of the study was the comparative evaluation of OAR dose reduction. Data were analyzed with ANOVA or Friedman test with appropriate post-hoc comparisons. Values of p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.
[RESULTS] The Dmean to the ipsilateral lung was significantly lower in the prone position than in the supine position (3.31 Gy vs. 7.73 Gy, 7.25 Gy, P = 0.000). Despite a 62% increase in lung volume with DIBH (range: 15-132%), no pulmonary dose reduction was achieved versus FB. In light of the anatomical characteristics of the heart and the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and right coronary artery (RA), we conducted an analysis of these three indicators, which were divided into two categories: right breast cancer and left breast cancer. For left-sided breast cancer, DIBH significantly reduced the Dmean and Vx doses to the heart and LAD. For right-sided breast cancer, the prone position significantly increased the Dmean and Vx to the heart and RA. DIBH has not shown to significantly decrease the radiation dose to the heart.
[CONCLUSION] For left-sided breast cancer, DIBH is optimal for heart protection, while prone positioning benefits lung sparing. For right-sided cancer, free-breathing suffices is adequate.
[TRIAL REGISTRATION] The study was approved by the local ethics board and registered on www.
[CLINICALTRIALS] gov (NCT05609058).
[METHODS] A total of 75 breast cancer patients (34 right-sided and 41 left-sided) were included in this dosimetric planning study. The study was approved by the local ethics board and registered at www.
[CLINICALTRIALS] gov on 2023-1-31 (NCT05609058). They all underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan in standard supine position in free-breathing (FB), supine position with deep inspiratory breath hold (DIBH), and prone position (prone). Three-dimensional treatment plans were made for all 3 CTs. The primary endpoint of the study was the comparative evaluation of OAR dose reduction. Data were analyzed with ANOVA or Friedman test with appropriate post-hoc comparisons. Values of p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.
[RESULTS] The Dmean to the ipsilateral lung was significantly lower in the prone position than in the supine position (3.31 Gy vs. 7.73 Gy, 7.25 Gy, P = 0.000). Despite a 62% increase in lung volume with DIBH (range: 15-132%), no pulmonary dose reduction was achieved versus FB. In light of the anatomical characteristics of the heart and the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and right coronary artery (RA), we conducted an analysis of these three indicators, which were divided into two categories: right breast cancer and left breast cancer. For left-sided breast cancer, DIBH significantly reduced the Dmean and Vx doses to the heart and LAD. For right-sided breast cancer, the prone position significantly increased the Dmean and Vx to the heart and RA. DIBH has not shown to significantly decrease the radiation dose to the heart.
[CONCLUSION] For left-sided breast cancer, DIBH is optimal for heart protection, while prone positioning benefits lung sparing. For right-sided cancer, free-breathing suffices is adequate.
[TRIAL REGISTRATION] The study was approved by the local ethics board and registered on www.
[CLINICALTRIALS] gov (NCT05609058).
MeSH Terms
Humans; Female; Organs at Risk; Prone Position; Supine Position; Breath Holding; Prospective Studies; Breast Neoplasms; Middle Aged; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; Adult; Radiotherapy Dosage; Aged; Lung; Patient Positioning; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Mastectomy, Segmental; Unilateral Breast Neoplasms
같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (5)
- The efficacy of single-photon emission computed tomography in identifying dystonic muscles in cervical dystonia.
- Machine learning integrating MRI and clinical features predicts early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after resection.
- Evaluation of breast cancer coding quality and its influence on diagnosis-related groupings: a cross-sectional study.
- SYT8 as a potential prognostic biomarker and therapeutic predictor in colorectal cancer: insights from multi-cohort transcriptomic analyses.
- BMD, TBS, and osteoporosis in women with breast cancer vs. healthy controls: An age-stratified retrospective analysis.