Cited by 244Radiation Dose and ImagingEffects of Radiation ExposureRadiology practices and education

Relationship between paediatric CT scans and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: assessment of the impact of underlying conditions

Open access
de Gonzalez, Amy Berrington, Salotti, Jane A, McHugh, Kieran, Little, Mark P, Harbron, Richard W, Lee, Choonsik, Ntowe, Estelle, Braganza, Melissa Z +6 more·2016·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We previously reported evidence of a dose-response relationship between ionising-radiation exposure from paediatric computed tomography (CT) scans and the risk of leukaemia and brain tumours in a large UK cohort. Underlying unreported conditions could have introduced bias into these findings. METHODS: We collected and reviewed additional clinical information from radiology information systems (RIS) databases, underlying cause of death and pathology reports. We conducted sensitivity analyses excluding participants with cancer-predisposing conditions or previous unreported cancers and compared the dose-response analyses with our original results. RESULTS: We obtained information from the RIS and death certificates for about 40% of the cohort (n∼180 000) and found cancer-predisposing conditions in 4 out of 74 leukaemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) cases and 13 out of 135 brain tumour cases. As these conditions were unrelated to CT exposure, exclusion of these participants did not alter the dose-response relationships. We found evidence of previous unreported cancers in 2 leukaemia/MDS cases, 7 brain tumour cases and 232 in non-cases. These previous cancers were related to increased number of CTs. Exclusion of these cancers reduced the excess relative risk per mGy by 15% from 0.036 to 0.033 for leukaemia/MDS (P-trend=0.02) and by 30% from 0.023 to 0.016 (P-trend<0.0001) for brain tumours. When we included pathology reports we had additional clinical information for 90% of the cases. Additional exclusions from these reports further reduced the risk estimates, but this sensitivity analysis may have underestimated risks as reports were only available for cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was evidence of some bias in our original risk estimates, re-analysis of the cohort with additional clinical data still showed an increased cancer risk after low-dose radiation exposure from CT scans in young patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/bjc.2015.415

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Gonzalez, A. B., Salotti, J. A., McHugh, K., Little, M. P., Harbron, R. W., Lee, C., Ntowe, E., Braganza, M. Z., Parker, L., Rajaraman, P., Stiller, C., Stewart, D. R., Craft, A. W., & Pearce, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Royal Victoria Infirmary (GB)
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital (GB)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2016-02
Volume
114
Issue
4
Pages
388-394
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2344227124
Cited by
244
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2014: 1
FWCI
23.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK (16015)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
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 › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
Keywords
pediatric computed tomography, ionizing radiation exposure, leukemia, brain tumors, myelodysplastic syndrome, cancer risk, dose-response relationship, low-dose radiation, childhood cancer
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain Neoplasms, Child, Female, Humans, Leukemia, Male, Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced, Retrospective Studies, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Cohort Studies, Young Adult

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