Attributable fraction of cardiac disease following radiotherapy among breast cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Radiat ResOct 9, 2026

Jeeyoung Lee, Eun Jung Park, Eria Bwogi et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis assessed the relationship between mean heart dose (MHD) from radiotherapy and cardiac disease among breast cancer survivors. Thirteen studies involving 16 446 survivors were included. Each 1 Gy increase in MHD was associated with a pooled relative risk of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13). At a representative MHD of 3.39 Gy, the estimated attributable fraction among irradiated patients was 24.3%; the population attributable fraction was 14.4%, assuming radiotherapy use of 52.7%.

Key findings

  • The pooled relative risk of cardiac disease was 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13) per Gy increase in mean heart dose.
  • At a representative mean heart dose of 3.39 Gy, the estimated attributable fraction among irradiated patients was 24.3%.
  • With radiotherapy utilization of 52.7%, the estimated population attributable fraction among breast cancer survivors was 14.4%.
  • From before 2000 to thereafter, mean heart dose fell from 7.03 Gy to 2.57 Gy and the population attributable fraction from 24.5% to 13.2%.

Why it matters

The findings quantify a continuing cardiac disease burden associated with heart exposure during breast cancer radiotherapy, even as mean heart dose has declined. They support attention to cardiac dose as part of treatment planning and survivorship care, while the attributable fractions remain estimates derived from pooled dose-response data and representative exposure assumptions.

What to keep in mind

Attributable fractions were estimated using pooled dose-response coefficients and representative mean heart doses and radiotherapy utilization, rather than measured directly across all survivors.

Source

Published in J Radiat Res. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Oncology (Medical)

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.