ReviewJournal of medical radiation sciences2025
Quantifying the Carbon Footprint of External Beam Radiation Therapy-A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2025. 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.
- Letter to the Editor Regarding Quantifying the Carbon Footprint of External Beam Radiation Therapy-A Narrative Review.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Review
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
The health care sector contributes significant amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the global climate change issue. However, little remains known about the specific contribution of radiation therapy even though there are methods/tools to quantify its carbon footprint. This narrative review aimed to identify aspects within the external beam radiation therapy pathway that are associated with a significant carbon footprint and the methods by which this footprint can be assessed. These were categorised as power consumption of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) for imaging and/or diagnosis in the pre-treatment setting, power consumption of linear accelerators (LINACs) in the treatment phase as well as patient travel. A search strategy with appropriate search terms was carried out on PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science to identify relevant studies. No time filter was applied during the search. Life cycle assessment as a method to quantify carbon footprint for radiation therapy remains under-utilised. Direct conversion of power consumption into carbon dioxide equivalence is a more feasible method. In the pre-treatment setting, use of MRI results in more GHG output compared to CT. Longer courses of radiation therapy result in significantly more GHG output compared to shorter fractionations as an alternative in the same disease site. Fractionation impacts the frequency of patient travel, another aspect that contributes significantly to the radiation therapy carbon footprint. Identification of areas contributing the most to the carbon footprint of radiation therapy will pave the way for future research into finding solutions to its offset.
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.