ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Radiological findings on irradiation-CT in patients with non metastatic breast cancer.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical significance of incidental findings on coronary CT angiography: Insights from a randomized controlled trial.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the number of incidental findings on native CT treatment-planning scans for radiation in breast cancer patients.
methodsThe treatment-planning scans of 382 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer were retrospectively analyzed for additional findings. The planning scan area covered the entire thorax and the upper part of the abdomen. Incidental findings were classified according to their clinical relevance.
resultsOverall 892 incidental findings were detected in the CT treatment-planning scans (mean 2.34 findings per patient). Only a small proportion of patients (n = 63, 16.4%) had no finding. Most findings were located in the thorax (683, 76.57%), and 209 findings (23.43%) were abdominal. 79 findings (8.87%) were of major clinical relevance, 232 findings (26.01%) were of moderate clinical relevance and 580 findings (65.02%) were of minor clinical relevance. Most clinically relevant findings were in the thorax (p = 0.006). Abdominal findings were more of significantly minor clinical relevance (p < 0.0001).
conclusionRadiological findings are frequent in native CT treatment-planning scans for radiation of breast cancer patients. Therefore, the radiologist should use this performed sectional image to obtain additional information of the patient. Advances in knowledge: Treatment-planning CT scans can show several radiological findings, namely 2.34 findings per patient. Major clinically relevant findings account for 8.87%.
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.