Quality-of-Life Comparison of Three Different Breath-Hold Techniques for Left-Sided Breast Radiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare QoL outcomes among patients undergoing active breathing control (ABC), voluntary deep inspiration breath hold (vDIBH), and surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT). Methods: This was a non-randomized, three-arm clinical trial in which 55 patients were sequentially allocated to ABC (n = 19), SGRT (n = 20), or vDIBH (n = 16). QoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline, treatment completion, and 6–8 weeks post-treatment. Linear regression was used to compare changed scales in QoL domains across groups. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Baseline QoL scores were high across all groups, with physical functioning being the highest-rated domain and global health status the lowest. Fatigue, pain, and insomnia were the most highly reported symptoms at all time points. At 6–8 weeks, social functioning improved significantly in SGRT compared to vDIBH (16.67 vs. −12.50, p = 0.0053). Patients in the vDIBH group reported significantly increased pain compared to ABC at 6–8 weeks (p = 0.0240). No other significant differences were observed in QoL changes between the groups. Conclusions: The three breath-hold techniques maintained overall QoL with no differences between the groups, except for pain between vDIBH and ABC and social functioning for vDIBH and SGRT both at 6–8 weeks of follow-up. Despite the limitations of this study, each breath-hold technique has demonstrated comparable impact on QoL in patients with left-sided breast cancer and each could be used as a viable option with respect to QoL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".