Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27550664›Full record

ReviewEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging2016

Comments on potential health effects of MRI-induced DNA lesions: quality is more important to consider than quantity.

M A Hill, P O'Neill, W G McKenna

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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 · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cardiac MR imaging genotoxicity?European heart journal · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M A HillCRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Gray Laboratories, ORCRB Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK mark.hill@oncology.ox.ac.uk.
P O'NeillCRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Gray Laboratories, ORCRB Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK.
W G McKennaCRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Gray Laboratories, ORCRB Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK.
CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16466Medical Research Council MC_PC_12001Medical Research Council MC_U142760473
6 · The paper itself

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

Radiation, IonizingCardiovascular DiseasesDNA DamageEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineMaleNeeds AssessmentQualitative ResearchRadiation DosageRadiation ToleranceRisk Assessmentcancer riskDNA damageionizing radiationMRI

Identifiers

PMID27550664
PMCPMC5081138
OpenAlexW2516292430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.