ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2017
Surveillance Scans in Lymphoma: Friend or Foe?
Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2017. 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.
- Prognostic relevance of immunoglobulin heavy chain rearrangement and immunoglobulin kappa light chain rearrangement in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Health-Related Quality of Life in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors: A Prospective Cohort Study.Cancer research and treatment · 2018Article
- Fertility preservation in Hodgkin's lymphoma patients that undergo targeted molecular therapies: an important step forward from the chemotherapy era.Cancer management and research · 2018Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementAdvancements in the treatment of lymphoma over the last few decades have allowed more patients to achieve a remission after the completion of therapy. Due to the improvement in response rates, methods to detect recurrence early and accurately during follow-up, especially in patients with potential curable aggressive lymphomas, are a key. Observation has always involved close clinical follow-up with the use of physical exams and routine labs, but rapid changes in technology have allowed CT scans, PET scans, and MRIs to become an integral part of managing patients with lymphoma. While the utility of scans in initial staging and immediately after completion of therapy is well established, the use of these imaging modalities for monitoring recurrence in lymphoma patients is still controversial. Patient advocacy groups and other regulatory committees have questioned the frequency and in some cases even the need for these tests in patients without evidence of active disease given the concern for radiation-associated health risks. Additionally, the extent to which this form of testing impacts the psyche of our patients is not completely known. Given the numerous questions raised about the benefits, safety, and cost-effectiveness of CT imaging, firm guidelines are needed at this time in standard practice and within our clinical trials to limit the use of surveillance imaging. Such efforts are expected to improve the utility of these scans in asymptomatic patients, reduce healthcare costs, and reduce patient exposure to radiation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28214975What 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.