CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 202Radiation Dose and ImagingEffects of Radiation ExposureGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are the studies on cancer risk from CT scans biased by indication? Elements of answer from a large-scale cohort study in France

Open access
Journy, N, Rehel, J-L, Ducou Le Pointe, H, Lee, C, Brisse, H, Chateil, J-F, Caer-Lorho, S, Laurier, D, Bernier, M-O·2015·British Journal of Cancer
DOI 10.1038/bjc.2014.526PMC PMC4647234
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent epidemiological results suggested an increase of cancer risk after receiving computed tomography (CT) scans in childhood or adolescence. Their interpretation is questioned due to the lack of information about the reasons for examination. Our objective was to estimate the cancer risk related to childhood CT scans, and examine how cancer-predisposing factors (PFs) affect assessment of the radiation-related risk. METHODS: The cohort included 67,274 children who had a first scan before the age of 10 years from 2000 to 2010 in 23 French departments. Cumulative X-rays doses were estimated from radiology protocols. Cancer incidence was retrieved through the national registry of childhood cancers; PF from discharge diagnoses. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 4 years, 27 cases of tumours of the central nervous system, 25 of leukaemia and 21 of lymphoma were diagnosed; 32% of them among children with PF. Specific patterns of CT exposures were observed according to PFs. Adjustment for PF reduced the excess risk estimates related to cumulative doses from CT scans. No significant excess risk was observed in relation to CT exposures. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the indication for examinations, whether suspected cancer or PF management, should be considered to avoid overestimation of the cancer risks associated with CT scans.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/bjc.2014.526

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Preston D, Lubin J, Pierce DA, McConney M (1993) Epicure Users Guide. Hirosoft: Seattle, WA, USA.
  2. Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hillier MC (1991) Survey of CT practice in the UK; Part 2: Dosimetric aspects. National Radiological Protection Board: London, UK.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–202 of 202

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Journy, N., Rehel, J.-L., Ducou Le Pointe, H., Lee, C., Brisse, H., Chateil, J.-F., Caer-Lorho, S., Laurier, D., & Bernier, M.-O.
Affiliations
  • Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (FR)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Institut Curie (FR)
  • Hôpital Pellegrin (FR)
Corresponding author
Bernier, M-O
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-10-14
Volume
112
Issue
1
Pages
185-193
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
DOI
10.1038/bjc.2014.526
PMC
PMC4647234
OpenAlex
W1502222060
Cited by
202
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 21
FWCI
18.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (269912)
  • Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Montpellier
  • Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Effects of Radiation Exposure
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
radiation-induced cancer risk, confounding by indication, cumulative radiation dose, central nervous system tumors, pediatric leukemia, pediatric lymphoma, childhood cancer incidence
MeSH terms
Child, Child, Preschool, Female, France, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Cohort Studies, Incidence, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review