Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) is a known respiratory sensitizer linked to occupational asthma (OA). To better manage worker risks, an appropriate characterization of the TDI-OA dose-risk relationship is ...needed.
The literature was reviewed for data suitable for dose-response modeling. Previous study data were fit to models to derive prospective occupational exposure limits (OELs), using benchmark dose (BMD) and low-dose extrapolation approaches.
Data on eight TDI-exposed populations were suitable for analysis. There were 118 OA cases in a population contributing 13 590 person-years. The BMD-based OEL was 0.4 ppb. The OEL based on low-dose extrapolation to working lifetime extra risk of 1/1000 was 0.3 ppb.
This study synthesized epidemiologic data to characterize the TDI-OA dose-risk relationship. This approach yielded prospective OEL estimates below recent recommendations by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, but given significant study limitations, this should be interpreted with caution. Confirmatory research is needed.
Positive associations between external radiation dose and non-cancer mortality have been found in a number of published studies, primarily of populations exposed to high-dose, high-dose-rate ionizing ...radiation. The goal of this study was to determine whether external radiation dose was associated with non-cancer mortality in a large pooled cohort of nuclear workers exposed to low-dose radiation accumulated at low dose rates. The cohort comprised 308,297 workers from France, United Kingdom and United States. The average cumulative equivalent dose at a tissue depth of 10 mm Hp(10) was 25.2 mSv. In total, 22% of the cohort were deceased by the end of follow-up, with 46,029 deaths attributed to non-cancer outcomes, including 27,848 deaths attributed to circulatory diseases. Poisson regression was used to investigate the relationship between cumulative radiation dose and non-cancer mortality rates. A statistically significant association between radiation dose and all non-cancer causes of death was observed excess relative risk per sievert (ERR/Sv) = 0.19; 90% CI: 0.07, 0.30. This was largely driven by the association between radiation dose and mortality due to circulatory diseases (ERR/Sv = 0.22; 90% CI: 0.08, 0.37), with slightly smaller positive, but nonsignificant, point estimates for mortality due to nonmalignant respiratory disease (ERR/Sv = 0.13; 90% CI: –0.17, 0.47) and digestive disease (ERR/Sv = 0.11; 90% CI: –0.36, 0.69). The point estimate for the association between radiation dose and deaths due to external causes of death was nonsignificantly negative (ERR = –0.12; 90% CI: <–0.60, 0.45). Within circulatory disease subtypes, associations with dose were observed for mortality due to cerebrovascular disease (ERR/Sv = 0.50; 90% CI: 0.12, 0.94) and mortality due to ischemic heart disease (ERR/Sv = 0.18; 90% CI: 0.004, 0.36). The estimates of associations between radiation dose and non-cancer mortality are generally consistent with those observed in atomic bomb survivor studies. The findings of this study could be interpreted as providing further evidence that non-cancer disease risks may be increased by external radiation exposure, particularly for ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease. However, heterogeneity in the estimated ERR/Sv was observed, which warrants further investigation. Further follow-up of these cohorts, with the inclusion of internal exposure information and other potential confounders associated with lifestyle factors, may prove informative, as will further work on elucidating the biological mechanisms that might cause these non-cancer effects at low doses.
Study question Is protracted exposure to low doses of ionising radiation associated with an increased risk of solid cancer?Methods In this cohort study, 308 297 workers in the nuclear industry from ...France, the United Kingdom, and the United States with detailed monitoring data for external exposure to ionising radiation were linked to death registries. Excess relative rate per Gy of radiation dose for mortality from cancer was estimated. Follow-up encompassed 8.2 million person years. Of 66 632 known deaths by the end of follow-up, 17 957 were due to solid cancers.Study answer and limitations Results suggest a linear increase in the rate of cancer with increasing radiation exposure. The average cumulative colon dose estimated among exposed workers was 20.9 mGy (median 4.1 mGy). The estimated rate of mortality from all cancers excluding leukaemia increased with cumulative dose by 48% per Gy (90% confidence interval 20% to 79%), lagged by 10 years. Similar associations were seen for mortality from all solid cancers (47% (18% to 79%)), and within each country. The estimated association over the dose range of 0-100 mGy was similar in magnitude to that obtained over the entire dose range but less precise. Smoking and occupational asbestos exposure are potential confounders; however, exclusion of deaths from lung cancer and pleural cancer did not affect the estimated association. Despite substantial efforts to characterise the performance of the radiation dosimeters used, the possibility of measurement error remains. What this study adds The study provides a direct estimate of the association between protracted low dose exposure to ionising radiation and solid cancer mortality. Although high dose rate exposures are thought to be more dangerous than low dose rate exposures, the risk per unit of radiation dose for cancer among radiation workers was similar to estimates derived from studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Quantifying the cancer risks associated with protracted radiation exposures can help strengthen the foundation for radiation protection standards. Funding, competing interests, data sharing Support from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan; Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire; AREVA; Electricité de France; US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; US Department of Energy; and Public Health England. Data are maintained and kept at the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Abstract
Background
Ionizing radiation is an established carcinogen, but risks from low-dose exposures are controversial. Since the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII review of the ...epidemiological data in 2006, many subsequent publications have reported excess cancer risks from low-dose exposures. Our aim was to systematically review these studies to assess the magnitude of the risk and whether the positive findings could be explained by biases.
Methods
Eligible studies had mean cumulative doses of less than 100 mGy, individualized dose estimates, risk estimates, and confidence intervals (CI) for the dose-response and were published in 2006–2017. We summarized the evidence for bias (dose error, confounding, outcome ascertainment) and its likely direction for each study. We tested whether the median excess relative risk (ERR) per unit dose equals zero and assessed the impact of excluding positive studies with potential bias away from the null. We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the ERR and assess consistency across studies for all solid cancers and leukemia.
Results
Of the 26 eligible studies, 8 concerned environmental, 4 medical, and 14 occupational exposure. For solid cancers, 16 of 22 studies reported positive ERRs per unit dose, and we rejected the hypothesis that the median ERR equals zero (P = .03). After exclusion of 4 positive studies with potential positive bias, 12 of 18 studies reported positive ERRs per unit dose (P = .12). For leukemia, 17 of 20 studies were positive, and we rejected the hypothesis that the median ERR per unit dose equals zero (P = .001), also after exclusion of 5 positive studies with potential positive bias (P = .02). For adulthood exposure, the meta-ERR at 100 mGy was 0.029 (95% CI = 0.011 to 0.047) for solid cancers and 0.16 (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.25) for leukemia. For childhood exposure, the meta-ERR at 100 mGy for leukemia was 2.84 (95% CI = 0.37 to 5.32); there were only two eligible studies of all solid cancers.
Conclusions
Our systematic assessments in this monograph showed that these new epidemiological studies are characterized by several limitations, but only a few positive studies were potentially biased away from the null. After exclusion of these studies, the majority of studies still reported positive risk estimates. We therefore conclude that these new epidemiological studies directly support excess cancer risks from low-dose ionizing radiation. Furthermore, the magnitude of the cancer risks from these low-dose radiation exposures was statistically compatible with the radiation dose-related cancer risks of the atomic bomb survivors.
There is much uncertainty about the risks of leukaemia and lymphoma after repeated or protracted low-dose radiation exposure typical of occupational, environmental, and diagnostic medical settings. ...We quantified associations between protracted low-dose radiation exposures and leukaemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma mortality among radiation-monitored adults employed in France, the UK, and the USA.
We assembled a cohort of 308 297 radiation-monitored workers employed for at least 1 year by the Atomic Energy Commission, AREVA Nuclear Cycle, or the National Electricity Company in France, the Departments of Energy and Defence in the USA, and nuclear industry employers included in the National Registry for Radiation Workers in the UK. The cohort was followed up for a total of 8·22 million person-years. We ascertained deaths caused by leukaemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. We used Poisson regression to quantify associations between estimated red bone marrow absorbed dose and leukaemia and lymphoma mortality.
Doses were accrued at very low rates (mean 1·1 mGy per year, SD 2·6). The excess relative risk of leukaemia mortality (excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia) was 2·96 per Gy (90% CI 1·17–5·21; lagged 2 years), most notably because of an association between radiation dose and mortality from chronic myeloid leukaemia (excess relative risk per Gy 10·45, 90% CI 4·48–19·65).
This study provides strong evidence of positive associations between protracted low-dose radiation exposure and leukaemia.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, AREVA, Electricité de France, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, US Department of Energy, US Department of Health and Human Services, University of North Carolina, Public Health England.
Nuclear workers worldwide have been studied for decades to estimate associations between their exposure to ionizing radiation and cancer. The low-level exposure of these workers requires pooling of ...large cohorts studied over many years to obtain risk estimates with appropriate latency and good precision. We assembled a pooled cohort of 119,195 U.S. nuclear workers at four Department of Energy nuclear weapons facilities (Hanford site, Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Savannah River site) and at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The cohort was followed at the start of the workers beginning their radiation work (at earliest, between 1944 and 1952) through 2005, and we compared its mortality to that of the U.S. population. We also conducted regression-modeling analysis to evaluate dose-response associations for external radiation exposure and outcomes: all cancers, smoking- and nonsmoking-related cancers, all lymphatic and hematopoietic cancers, leukemia (excluding chronic lymphocytic), multiple myeloma, cardiovascular disease and others. The mean dose observed among the cohort was 20 mSv. For most outcomes, mortality was below expectation compared to the general population, but mesothelioma and pleura cancers were highly elevated. We found an excess relative risk (ERR) per 10 mSv of 0.14% 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.17%, 0.48% for all cancers excluding leukemia. Estimates were higher for nonsmoking-related cancers (0.70%, 95% CI: 0.058%, 1.5%) and lower for smoking-related cancers (−0.079%, 95% CI: −0.43%, 0.32%). The ERR per 10 mSv was 1.7% (95% CI: −0.22%, 4.7%) for leukemia, which was similar to the estimate of 1.8% (95% CI: 0.027%, 4.4%) for all lymphatic and hematopoietic cancers. The ERR per 10 mSv for multiple myeloma was 3.9% (95% CI: 0.60%, 9.5%). The ERR per 10 mSv for cardiovascular disease was 0.026% (−0.25%, 0.32%). Little evidence of heterogeneity was seen by facility, birth cohort or sex for most outcomes. The estimates observed here are similar to those found in previous large pooled nuclear worker studies and also (with the exception of multiple myeloma) to those conducted in the Life Span Study of Japanese atomic bomb survivors. The tendency of observed risks to persist many years after exposure for most outcomes illustrates the importance of continued follow-up of nuclear worker cohorts.
BACKGROUND:There is considerable scientific interest in associations between protracted low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and the occurrence of specific types of cancer.
METHODS:Associations ...between ionizing radiation and site-specific solid cancer mortality were examined among 308,297 nuclear workers employed in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Workers were monitored for external radiation exposure and follow-up encompassed 8.2 million person-years. Radiation–mortality associations were estimated using a maximum-likelihood method and using a Markov chain Monte Carlo method, the latter used to fit a hierarchical regression model to stabilize estimates of association.
RESULTS:The analysis included 17,957 deaths attributable to solid cancer, the most common being lung, prostate, and colon cancer. Using a maximum-likelihood method to quantify associations between radiation dose- and site-specific cancer, we obtained positive point estimates for oral, esophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, peritoneum, larynx, lung, pleura, bone and connective tissue, skin, ovary, testis, and thyroid cancer; in addition, we obtained negative point estimates for cancer of the liver and gallbladder, prostate, bladder, kidney, and brain. Most of these estimated coefficients exhibited substantial imprecision. Employing a hierarchical model for stabilization had little impact on the estimated associations for the most commonly observed outcomes, but for less frequent cancer types, the stabilized estimates tended to take less extreme values and have greater precision than estimates obtained without such stabilization.
CONCLUSIONS:The results provide further evidence regarding associations between low-dose radiation exposure and cancer.
Abstract
The evidence for styrene’s being a human lung carcinogen has been inconclusive. Occupational cohorts within the reinforced-plastics industry are an ideal population in which to study this ...association because of their relatively high levels of exposure to styrene and lack of concomitant exposures to other known carcinogens. However, healthy worker survivor bias (HWSB), where healthier workers stay employed longer and thus have higher exposure potential, is a likely source of confounding bias for exposure-response associations, in part due to styrene’s acute effects. Through December 31, 2016, we studied a cohort of 5,163 boatbuilders exposed to styrene in Washington State who were employed between 1959 and 1978; prior regression analyses had demonstrated little evidence for an exposure-response relationship between styrene exposure and lung cancer mortality. Based on estimates of necessary components of HWSB, we found evidence for a potentially large HWSB. Using g-estimation of a structural nested model to account for HWSB, we estimated that 1 year of styrene exposure at more than 30 parts per million accelerated time to lung cancer death by 2.29 years (95% confidence interval: 1.53, 2.94). Our results suggest possibly strong HWSB in our small cohort and indicate that large, influential studies of styrene-exposed workers may suffer from similar biases, warranting a reassessment of the evidence of long-term health effects of styrene exposure.
Abstract
Whether low-dose ionizing radiation can cause cancer is a critical and long-debated question in radiation protection. Since the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report by the ...National Academies in 2006, new publications from large, well-powered epidemiological studies of low doses have reported positive dose-response relationships. It has been suggested, however, that biases could explain these findings. We conducted a systematic review of epidemiological studies with mean doses less than 100 mGy published 2006–2017. We required individualized doses and dose-response estimates with confidence intervals. We identified 26 eligible studies (eight environmental, four medical, and 14 occupational), including 91 000 solid cancers and 13 000 leukemias. Mean doses ranged from 0.1 to 82 mGy. The excess relative risk at 100 mGy was positive for 16 of 22 solid cancer studies and 17 of 20 leukemia studies. The aim of this monograph was to systematically review the potential biases in these studies (including dose uncertainty, confounding, and outcome misclassification) and to assess whether the subset of minimally biased studies provides evidence for cancer risks from low-dose radiation. Here, we describe the framework for the systematic bias review and provide an overview of the eligible studies.
PDF
