Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21593785›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2011

Assessing the risk of second malignancies after modern radiotherapy.

Wayne D Newhauser, Marco Durante

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

126 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Frontiers in public health · 2024
    Article
  15. High-LET charged particles: radiobiology and application for new approaches in radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Wayne D NewhauserMD Anderson Cancer Center Radiation Oncology, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard Houston, Texas 77030-4009, USA. wnewhaus@mdanderson.org
Marco Durante

Funding

Prediction of Second Cancer Risks for Children Treated with Proton - vs. - PhotonR01CA131463 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI NEWHAUSER, WAYNE D · 2008 to 2010
$767k
NCI NIH HHS 1R01CA131463‑01A1NCI NIH HHS R01 CA131463
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in radiotherapy have enabled the use of different types of particles, such as protons and heavy ions, as well as refinements to the treatment of tumours with standard sources (photons). However, the risk of second cancers arising in long-term survivors continues to be a problem. The long-term risks from treatments such as particle therapy have not yet been determined and are unlikely to become apparent for many years. Therefore, there is a need to develop risk assessments based on our current knowledge of radiation-induced carcinogenesis.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildChild, PreschoolDisease ProgressionHumansNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasmsNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedPhotonsRadiation DosageRisk

Identifiers

PMID21593785
PMCPMC4101897

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.