Skip to main content

Table 3 This comparison of the lungs and contralateral breast is recreated from the literature review in a publication of Doi et al. [8]

From: Retrospective evaluation of a robust hybrid planning technique established for irradiation of breast cancer patients with included mammary internal lymph nodes

Publication Ipsilateral lung Contralateral lung Total lung Contralateral breast
V20Gy (%) Dmean (Gy) V5Gy (%) Dmean (Gy) V20Gy (%) Dmean (Gy) V5Gy (%) Dmean (Gy)
Ma et al. [21] 6–12 field IMRT, MI LN incl. 28% ± 2 15.1 Gy ± 1.7 12% ± 11 2.3 Gy ± 1.3 2% ± 1 0.98 Gy ± 0.46
Nicols et al. [22] 2 field VMAT, MI LN incl. 23.3% ± 0.8 37.8% ± 4.9 16.3% ± 0.2 1.5 Gy ± 0.1
Zhao et al. [23] 2 field VMAT, MI LN incl. 17.7% ± 4.1 7.9 Gy ± 2.2 10.3% ± 5.7 6.5 Gy ± 16.6 -
Lai et al. [24] 2 field VMAT, MI LN excl. 23.1% ± 2.3 13.5 Gy ± 0.6 44.5% ± 6.5 5.1 Gy ± 0.7 3.1 Gy ± 0.3
Boman et al. [7] diff VMAT techniques, MI LN partly incl. 26–37% 14.4–18.6 Gy 3.0–2.7% 0.7–4.1Gy 6–40% 2–6 Gy
Balaji et al. [9] hybrid (3DCRT + VMAT), MI LN excl. 23–24% 12.7–14.3 Gy 0.07-11.9%
Doi et al. [8] hybrid (IMRT + VMAT), MI LN excl. 23.7% ± 6.4 12.0 Gy ± 2.4 5.2% ± 4.0 1.3 Gy ± 0.6 11.8% ± 3.3 6.7 Gy ± 3.8
This study hybrid (IMRT + VMAT), MI LN incl. 18.9% ± 3.7 10.9 Gy ± 1.5 10.2% ± 5.9 2.2 Gy ± 0.6 9.5% ± 1.9 6.5 Gy ± 0.9 2.4%  ± 3.9 1.7 Gy ± 0.6
  1. The evaluation of the data in this study is done with the original DVHs without renormalization