ArticlePloS one2022
Gender based lung cancer risks for symptomatic coronary artery disease patients undergone cardiac CT.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We estimate the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of lung cancer incidence in symptomatic Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) patients receiving enhanced Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) and the unenhanced Computed Tomography Calcium Scoring (CTCS) examination. Retrospective analysis has been made of CCTA and CTCS data collected for 87 confirmed CAD adult patients. Patient effective dose (E) and organ doses (ODs) were calculated using CT-EXPO. Statistical correlation and the differences between E and ODs in enhanced CCTA and unenhanced CTCS were calculated using the Pearson coefficient and Wilcoxon unpaired t-test. Following BEIR VII report guidance, organ-specific LARs for the cohort were estimated using the organ-equivalent dose-to-risk conversion factor for numbers of cases per 100,000 patients exposed to low doses of 0.1 Gy. Significant statistical difference (p<0.0001) is found between E obtained for CTCS and that of CCTA. The scan length was found to be greater in CCTA (17.5 ± 2.9 cm) compared to that for CTCS (15 ± 2 cm). More elevated values of dose were noted for the esophagus (4.2 ± 2.15 mSv) and thymus (9.6 ± 2.54 mSv) for both CTCS and CCTA. CTCS organ doses were lower than that of CCTA. Per 100,000 patients, female cumulative doses are seen to give rise to greater lung cancer LARs compared to that for males, albeit with risk varying significantly, noticeably greater for females, younger patients and combined CCTA and CTCS scans. While scan parameters and tube-modulation methods clearly contribute to patient dose, mAs offers by far the greater contribution.
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.