Prone position versus supine position in postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Issue 20 (21st May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lai, Junming; Zhong, Fangyan; Deng, Jianxiong; Hu, Shuang; Shen, Ruoyan; Luo, Hui; Luo, Yongbiao
• Other Names: Cruz. Jorddy Neves section editor.
• Is Part Of: Medicine. Volume 100:Issue 20(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-05-21
• Subjects: breast cancer -- deep inspiration breath hold -- meta-analysis -- prone position -- radiotherapy -- supine position; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Périodiques; Geneeskunde; Medicine; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026000
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7974

Abstract

Abstract: Background: This meta-analysis evaluates the difference of sparing organs at risk (OAR) in different position (Prone position and Supine position) with different breathing patterns (Free breathing, FB/Deep inspiration breath hold, DIBH) for breast cancer patients receiving postoperative radiotherapy and provides a useful reference for clinical practice. Method: The relevant controlled trials of prone position versus supine position in postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer were retrieved from the sources of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science and ClinicalTrails.gov. The principal outcome of interest was OAR doses (heart dose, left anterior descending coronary artery dose and ipsilateral lung dose) and target coverage. We mainly compared the effects of P-FB (Prone position FB) and S-FB (Supine position FB) and discussed the effects of DIBH combined with different positions on OAR dose in postoperative radiotherapy. We calculated summary standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Results: The analysis included 751 patients from 19 observational studies. Compared with the S-FB, the P-FB can have lower heart dose, left anterior descending coronary artery (LADCA) dose, and ipsilateral lung dose (ILL) more effectively, and the difference was statistically significant (heart dose, SMD = − 0.51, 95% CI − 0.66 ∼ − 0.36, P < .00001. LADCA dose, SMD = − 0.58, 95% CI – 0.85 ∼ − 0.31, P < .0001. ILL dose, SMD = − 2.84, 95% CI − 3.2 ∼ − 2.48, P < .00001). And there was no significant difference in target coverage between the S-FB and P-FB groups (SMD = − 0.1, 95% CI − 0.57 ∼ 0.36, P = .66). Moreover, through descriptive analysis, we found that P-DIBH (Prone position DIBH) has better sparing OAR than P-FB and S-DIBH (Supine position DIBH). Conclusion: By this meta-analysis, compared with the S-FB we found that implementation of P-FB in postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer can reduce irradiation of heart dose, LADCA dose and ILL dose, without compromising mean dose of target coverage. Moreover, P-DIBH might become the most promising way for breast cancer patients to undergo radiotherapy.