Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28214975›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2017

Surveillance Scans in Lymphoma: Friend or Foe?

Tycel Phillips, Jessica Mercer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Tycel PhillipsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. tycelp@med.umich.edu.
Jessica MercerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDiagnostic ImagingEarly Detection of CancerHumansLymphomaMass ScreeningMorbidityMortalityPositron-Emission TomographyRisk AssessmentTomography, X-Ray ComputedC PETCTDLBCLHodgkinLymphomaNon-HodgkinSurvival

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.