Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33676609›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Oncology2021

Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Hedvig Hricak, May Abdel-Wahab, Rifat Atun, Miriam Mikhail Lette, Diana Paez, James A Brink, Lluís Donoso-Bach, Guy Frija, Monika Hierath, Ola Holmberg and 7 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 169 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
169citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

169 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Point-A vs. volume-based brachytherapy for the treatment of cervix cancer: A meta-analysis.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Global burden of subarachnoid hemorrhage in young adults, 1990-2021: disparities, risk factors, and projections to 2050.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Hedvig HricakDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: hricakh@mskcc.org.
May Abdel-WahabInternational Atomic Energy Agency, Division of Human Health, Vienna, Austria; Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt; Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Rifat AtunDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Miriam Mikhail LetteInternational Atomic Energy Agency, Division of Human Health, Vienna, Austria.
Diana PaezInternational Atomic Energy Agency, Division of Human Health, Vienna, Austria.
James A BrinkDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Lluís Donoso-BachDepartment of Medical Imaging, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Guy FrijaUniversité de Paris, Paris, France.
Monika HierathEuropean Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Ola HolmbergRadiation Protection of Patients Unit, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
Pek-Lan KhongDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Jason S LewisDepartment of Radiology and Molecular Pharmacology Programme, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Departments of Pharmacology and Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Geraldine McGintyDepartments of Radiology and Population Science, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, USA.
Wim J G OyenDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Humanitas Clinical and Research Centre, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Lawrence N ShulmanDepartment of Medicine, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Zachary J WardCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Andrew M ScottTumour Targeting Laboratory, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Leveraging Pb-203/212 for the Theranostic Imaging and Therapy of Prostate CancerR35CA232130 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI LEWIS, JASON S. · 2019 to 2025
$8.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R35 CA232130
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessDeveloping CountriesDiagnostic ImagingHealth Care CostsHumansNeoplasmsNuclear MedicinePovertyRadiography

Identifiers

PMID33676609
PMCPMC8444235

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.