References | Year | Number | Study objectives | Inclusion criteria | Observated results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Merchant et al. [10] | 1994 | 56 | Prone whole breast iradiation | Breast irradiation | Improve dose homogeneity of the breast |
Grann et al. [19] | 2000 | 56 | Prone whole breast iradiation | Large or pendulous breast | Improve dose homogeneity of the breast. Eighty percent of patients experienced Grade I or Grade II erythema. |
Mahe et al. [20] | 2002 | 35 | Prone whole breast iradiation | Large and/or pendulous breast | The high-dose regions of the base and the top of the breast did not exceed 105Â %. Only G1-2 acute dermatitis was observed. |
Griem et al. [8] | 2003 | 15 | Planning comparison prone vs. supine | Breast irradiation | Improve dose homogeneity with the prone position. Significant improve lung DVH, no differences for heart. |
Formenti et al. [7] | 2004 | 50 | Partial breast irradiation in prone | Postmenopausal T1N0 | Good lung and heart DVH |
Buijsen et al. [6] | 2007 | 10 | Planning comparison prone vs. supine | Pendulous breasts (bra sizeD and over) | Improve dose homogeneity and lung DVH with the prone position |
Stegman et al. [29] | 2007 | 245 | Prone whole breast iradiation | Beams with gantry angles of 90° ± 10°and 270° ± 10° | Grade 2–3 acute dermatitis were limited to 18 %. Grade 2, Grade 3, and Grade 4 chronic dermatitis was seen in 27.8, 2.8, and 1.6 %. |
Varga et al. [11] | 2009 | 61 | Planning comparison prone vs. supine | Breast irradiation | Significant improve lung DVH, no differences for heart. |
Kirby et al. [24] | 2010 | 65 | Planning comparison prone vs. supine | Partial or total breast irradiation | Improve lung DVH; improve heart DVH for big breast |
Bergom et al. [21] | 2012 | 110 | Prone whole breast iradiation | Large body habitus and/or large-pendulous breasts | Excellent to good cosmesis was achieved in 89Â %. G3 acute dermatitis in 5Â %. |
Lymberis et al. [25] | 2012 | 100 | Planning comparison prone vs. supine (3DCRT or IMRT) | Breast irradiation | Improve lung and heart DVH with the prone position |
Formenti et al. [26] | 2012 | 200 | Planning comparison prone vs. supine | Breast irradiation | Reduction in the amount of irradiated lung in all patients and in the amount of heart volume irradiated in 85Â % of patients with left breast cancer. |
Mulliez et al. [22] | 2013 | 100 | Comparing prone and supine setup of hypo-fractionated IMRT | European cup size C or more | Improve dose coverage, better homogeneity, less volumes of over-dosage with the prone position |