Observational studyEuropean radiology2026
Biological effects of
Observational study in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the radiation effects of internal MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective two-center observational study included patients undergoing clinically indicated FDG-PET/CT using different CT dose protocols. Peripheral blood was sampled at three time points: before FDG administration, after FDG administration, and after CT acquisition. Unstable chromosomal aberrations (CAs) in PBLs were quantified at each time point. Non-parametric tests were used for group comparisons, and associations between radiation dose parameters and changes in CAs were evaluated using generalized linear mixed-effects models.
resultsA total of 101 consecutive patients were enrolled in the reduced-dose protocol center (Center RD; mean age 70 ± 9 years [standard deviation], 55 men) and 56 patients in the standard-dose protocol center (Center SD; 64 ± 11 years, 31 men). The CA-evaluable population comprised 101 patients in Center RD and 55 patients in Center SD. FDG administration did not significantly increase CAs at either center. Following CT acquisition, no significant increase in CAs was observed with the reduced-dose protocol, whereas CAs increased significantly with the standard-dose protocol (Center SD: p = 0.016).
conclusionFDG administration had no detectable impact on CAs, whereas CT effective dose was associated with CA frequency after multivariable adjustment, with no evidence of a synergistic interaction with FDG. These findings support CT dose optimization and the use of reduced-dose CT protocols in PET/CT when clinically appropriate. KEY POINTS: Question How do internal 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and external CT exposures during PET/CT affect chromosomes, and how do these effects differ between reduced- and standard-dose CT protocols? Findings Chromosomal aberrations increased after standard-dose PET/CT, and CT effective dose, but not FDG effective dose, was independently associated with chromosomal aberration frequency after multivariable adjustment. Clinical relevance CT effective dose was independently associated with chromosomal aberration frequency, while age and prior chemotherapy also influenced CA frequency. This provides biological justification for CT dose optimization and broader use of reduced-dose PET/CT when clinically appropriate.
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.