Meta-analysis of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) versus free breathing (FB) in postoperative radiotherapy for left-side breast cancer
This meta-analysis evaluates the difference in deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) versus free breathing (FB) for patients receiving postoperative radiotherapy for left breast cancer and provides a useful reference for clinical practice.
The relevant controlled trials of DIBH versus FB in postoperative radiotherapy for left-side breast cancer were retrieved from the databases of PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. The principal outcome of interest was heart dose, left anterior descending coronary artery (LADCA) dose, and left lung dose and target coverage. We calculated summary standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.
The analysis included 1019 patients from 12 observational studies, of which 576 cases were in the DIBH group and 443 cases in the FB group. Compared with the FB group, the DIBH group can have lower heart dose, left anterior descending coronary artery (LADCA) dose, and left lung dose more effectively, and the difference was statistically significant (heart dose, SMD = − 1.36, 95% CI − 1.64 ~ − 1.09, P < 0.01. LADCA dose, SMD = − 1.45, 95% CI − 1.62 ~ − 1.27, P < 0.01. Left lung dose, SMD = − 0.52, 95% CI − 0.81 ~ − 0.23, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in target coverage between the two groups (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI − 0.11 ~ 0.18, P = 0.64).
By this meta-analysis, we found that implementation of DIBH in postoperative radiotherapy for left-side breast cancer can reduce irradiation of heart dose, LADCA dose and left lung dose, without compromising target coverage.
KeywordsBreast cancer Radiotherapy Deep inspiration breath hold Meta-analysis
The authors thank Senxiang Yan (PhD, Radiotherapy Center, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University) for providing assistance and contributing to revisions.
JL performed the planning study and the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript. SH, YL, RZ, QZ, and PC participated in information and data collection. MZ, YZ, and FZ helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
This study was supported by grants from The First batch of Yiwu Science and Technology Project in 2019 [Grant Number: 19-3-03].
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 1.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;67(1):277–300.Google Scholar
- 14.Shuster JJ. Review: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews for interventions, Version 5.1.0, published 3/2011. Julian P.T. Higgins and Sally Green, Editors. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(2):126–30.Google Scholar
- 15.Feng Z, Jiayan S, Zhongjie L, et al. Abdominal DIBH reduces the cardiac dose even further: a prospective analysis. Radiother Oncol. 2018;13(1):116.Google Scholar
- 20.Eldredge-Hindy H, Lockamy V, Crawford A, Nettleton V, Werner-Wasik M, Siglin J, et al. Active Breathing Coordinator reduces radiation dose to the control in patients with left breast cancer: report of a prospective heart and preserves local trial. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(1):4–10.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar