ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Radiation risks associated with serial imaging in colorectal cancer patients: should we worry?
Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancements in Image-Based Analyses for Morphology and Staging of Colon Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.BioMed research international · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic Performance of [World journal of nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- Native kidney small renal masses in patients with kidney transplants: Does chronic immunosuppression affect tumor biology?Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021Article
- The Peripheral Blood Transcriptome Is Correlated With PET Measures of Lung Inflammation During Successful Tuberculosis Treatment.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Article
- Which is the best current guideline for the diagnosis and management of cystic pancreatic neoplasms? An appraisal using evidence-based practice methods.European radiology · 2016Review
- High and low dose radiation effects on mammary adenocarcinoma cells - an epigenetic connection.Oncoscience · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To provide an overview of the radiation related cancer risk associated with multiple computed tomographic scans required for follow up in colorectal cancer patients. A literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was carried out and limited to the last 10 years from December 2012. Inclusion criteria were studies where computed tomographic scans or radiation from other medical imaging modalities were used and the risks associated with ionizing radiation reported. Thirty-six studies were included for appraisal with no randomized controlled trials. Thirty-four of the thirty-six studies showed a positive association between medical imaging radiation and increased risk of cancer. The radiation dose absorbed and cancer risk was greater in children and young adults than in older patients. Most studies included in the review used a linear, no-threshold model to calculate cancer risks and this may not be applicable at low radiation doses. Many studies are retrospective and ensuring complete follow up on thousands of patients is difficult. There was a minor increased risk of cancer from ionizing radiation in medical imaging studies. The radiation risks of low dose exposure (< 50 milli-Sieverts) are uncertain. A clinically justified scan in the context of colorectal cancer is likely to provide more benefits than harm but current guidelines for patient follow up will need to be revised to accommodate a more aggressive approach to treating metastatic disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.