Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25314057›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015

Are the studies on cancer risk from CT scans biased by indication? Elements of answer from a large-scale cohort study in France.

N Journy, J-L Rehel, H Ducou Le Pointe, C Lee, H Brisse, J-F Chateil, S Caer-Lorho, D Laurier, M-O Bernier

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
19.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 194 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cancer Effects of Low to Moderate Doses of Ionizing Radiation in Young People with Cancer-Predisposing Conditions: A Systematic Review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

N JournyLaboratory of Epidemiology, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, BP 17, 92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
J-L RehelMedical Radiation Protection Expertise Unit, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, BP 17, 92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
H Ducou Le PointeDepartment of Paediatric Radiology, Trousseau University Hospital, 26 avenue du Docteur Arnold-Netter, 75012 Paris, France.
C LeeDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, 20892 Bethesda, MD, USA.
H BrisseDepartment of Radiology, Institut Curie, 11-13 rue Pierre et Marie Curie, 75005 Paris, France.
J-F ChateilDepartment of Paediatric Radiology, Pellegrin University Hospital, Place Amélie Raba-Léon, 33000 Bordeaux, France.
S Caer-LorhoLaboratory of Epidemiology, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, BP 17, 92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
D LaurierLaboratory of Epidemiology, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, BP 17, 92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
M-O BernierLaboratory of Epidemiology, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, BP 17, 92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
Hôpital Pellegrin · FRNational Cancer Institute · USSorbonne Université · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent epidemiological results suggested an increase of cancer risk after receiving computed tomography (CT) scans in childhood or adolescence. Their interpretation is questioned due to the lack of information about the reasons for examination. Our objective was to estimate the cancer risk related to childhood CT scans, and examine how cancer-predisposing factors (PFs) affect assessment of the radiation-related risk.

methodsThe cohort included 67,274 children who had a first scan before the age of 10 years from 2000 to 2010 in 23 French departments. Cumulative X-rays doses were estimated from radiology protocols. Cancer incidence was retrieved through the national registry of childhood cancers; PF from discharge diagnoses.

resultsDuring a mean follow-up of 4 years, 27 cases of tumours of the central nervous system, 25 of leukaemia and 21 of lymphoma were diagnosed; 32% of them among children with PF. Specific patterns of CT exposures were observed according to PFs. Adjustment for PF reduced the excess risk estimates related to cumulative doses from CT scans. No significant excess risk was observed in relation to CT exposures.

conclusionsThis study suggests that the indication for examinations, whether suspected cancer or PF management, should be considered to avoid overestimation of the cancer risks associated with CT scans.

Indexed as

ChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesFemaleFranceHumansIncidenceMaleNeoplasmsRisk AssessmentTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID25314057
PMCPMC4453597
OpenAlexW1502222060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.