ReviewEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging2016
Comments on potential health effects of MRI-induced DNA lesions: quality is more important to consider than quantity.
Review in European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in magnetic resonance environment: an update on regulation, exposure assessment techniques, health risk evaluation, and surveillance.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022Review
- Radiation protection in non-ionizing and ionizing body composition assessment procedures.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2020Review
- To scan or not to scan? Examining the controversial issue of performing neuroimaging in adolescent patients presenting to a tertiary psychiatric inpatient unit.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2020Article
- The potential toxic impact of different gadolinium-based contrast agents combined with 7-T MRI on isolated human lymphocytes.European radiology experimental · 2018Article
- Absence of DNA double-strand breaks in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells after 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging assessed by γH2AX flow cytometry.European radiology · 2018Article
- Cardiac MR imaging genotoxicity?European heart journal · 2018Article
- The effect of 1.5 T cardiac magnetic resonance on human circulating leucocytes.European heart journal · 2018Article
- Article
- Ndrg3 gene regulates DSB repair during meiosis through modulation the ERK signal pathway in the male germ cells.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography May Carry Similar (but Very Low) Risks of Carcinogenesis.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used in cardiology to detect heart disease and guide therapy. It is mooted to be a safer alternative to imaging techniques, such as computed tomography (CT) or coronary angiographic imaging. However, there has recently been an increased interest in the potential long-term health risks of MRI, especially in the light of the controversy resulting from a small number of research studies reporting an increase in DNA damage following exposure, with calls to limit its use and avoid unnecessary examination, according to the precautionary principle. Overall the published data are somewhat limited and inconsistent; the ability of MRI to produce DNA lesions has yet to be robustly demonstrated and future experiments should be carefully designed to optimize sensitivity and benchmarked to validate and assess reproducibility. The majority of the current studies have focussed on the initial induction of DNA damage, and this has led to comparisons between the reported induction of γH2AX and implied double-strand break (DSB) yields produced following MRI with induction by imaging techniques using ionizing radiation. However, γH2AX is not only a marker of classical double-ended DSB, but also a marker of stalled replication forks and in certain circumstances stalled DNA transcription. Additionally, ionizing radiation is efficient at producing complex DNA damage, unique to ionizing radiation, with an associated reduction in repairability. Even if the fields associated with MRI are capable of producing DNA damage, the lesions produced will in general be simple, similar to those produced by endogenous processes. It is therefore inappropriate to try and infer cancer risk by simply comparing the yields of γH2AX foci or DNA lesions potentially produced by MRI to those produced by a given exposure of ionizing radiation, which will generally be more biologically effective and have a greater probability of leading to long-term health effects. As a result, it is important to concentrate on more relevant downstream end points (e.g. chromosome aberration production), along with potential mechanisms by which MRI may lead to DNA lesions. This could potentially involve a perturbation in homeostasis of oxidative stress, modifying the background rate of endogenous DNA damage induction. In summary, what the field needs at the moment is more research and less fear mongering.
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.