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