ArticlePediatric radiology2015
Use of PET/CT instead of CT-only when planning for radiation therapy does not notably increase life years lost in children being treated for cancer.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- PET/CT-guided treatment planning for paediatric cancer patients: a simulation study of proton and conventional photon therapy.The British journal of radiology · 2015Trial
- Optimized low-dose positron emission tomography/computed tomography schemes in pediatric tumor patients: a randomized clinical trial.Translational pediatrics · 2022Article
- Comparison of effective radiation doses from X-ray, CT, and PET/CT in pediatric patients with neuroblastoma using a dose monitoring program.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPET/CT may be more helpful than CT alone for radiation therapy planning, but the added risk due to higher doses of ionizing radiation is unknown.
objectiveTo estimate the risk of cancer induction and mortality attributable to the [F-18]2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) PET and CT scans used for radiation therapy planning in children with cancer, and compare to the risks attributable to the cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsOrgan doses and effective doses were estimated for 40 children (2-18 years old) who had been scanned using PET/CT as part of radiation therapy planning. The risk of inducing secondary cancer was estimated using the models in BEIR VII. The prognosis of an induced cancer was taken into account and the reduction in life expectancy, in terms of life years lost, was estimated for the diagnostics and compared to the life years lost attributable to the therapy. Multivariate linear regression was performed to find predictors for a high contribution to life years lost from the radiation therapy planning diagnostics.
resultsThe mean contribution from PET to the effective dose from one PET/CT scan was 24% (range: 7-64%). The average proportion of life years lost attributable to the nuclear medicine dose component from one PET/CT scan was 15% (range: 3-41%). The ratio of life years lost from the radiation therapy planning PET/CT scans and that of the cancer treatment was on average 0.02 (range: 0.01-0.09). Female gender was associated with increased life years lost from the scans (P < 0.001).
conclusionUsing FDG-PET/CT instead of CT only when defining the target volumes for radiation therapy of children with cancer does not notably increase the number of life years lost attributable to diagnostic examinations.
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.