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.
To evaluate trends of nonmalignant respiratory disease (NMRD) mortality among US underground uranium miners on the Colorado Plateau, and to estimate the exposure-response association between ...cumulative radon progeny exposure and NMRD subtype mortality.
Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) and excess relative rates per 100 working level months (excess relative rate ERR/100 WLM) were estimated in a cohort of 4021 male underground uranium miners who were followed from 1960 through 2016.
We observed elevated SMRs for all NMRD subtypes. Silicosis had the largest SMR (n = 52, SMR = 41.4; 95% confidence interval CI: 30.9, 54.3), followed by other pneumoconiosis (n = 49, SMR = 39.6; 95% CI: 29.6, 52.3) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (n = 64, SMR = 4.77; 95% CI 3.67, 6.09). SMRs for silicosis increased with duration of employment; SMRs for IPF increased with duration of employment and calendar period. There was a positive association between cumulative radon exposure and silicosis with evidence of modification by smoking (ERR/100 WLM
= 0.78; 95% CI: 0.05, 24.6 and ERR/100 WLM
= 0.01; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.52), as well as a small positive association between radon and IPF (ERR/100 WLM = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.24); these associations were driven by workers with prior employment in hard rock mining.
Uranium mining workers had excess NMRD mortality compared with the general population; this excess persisted throughout follow-up. Exposure-response analyses indicated a positive association between radon exposure and IPF and silicosis, but these analyses have limitations due to outcome misclassification and missing information on occupational co-exposures such as silica dust.
This study aims to estimate the association between radon and site-specific cancer mortality among a large contemporary cohort of male uranium miners.
Annual occupational radon exposure was estimated ...based on a worker's duration of underground mining in a year and estimates of potential alpha energy of radon progeny in their location of work. Cancer mortality over the period 1977-1992 was ascertained for a cohort of 16 434 male underground uranium miners employed in the Czech Republic between 1946 and 1992. Poisson regression was used to estimate relationships between cumulative radiation exposure (in working level months WLM) and site-specific cancer mortality.
Radon is positively associated with lung cancer mortality (excess relative rate ERR per 100 WLM = 0.2; 95% confidence interval CI: 0.10, 0.37). The best fit of the dose-response relationship between radon and lung cancer mortality was linear and estimates of radon-lung cancer associations varied by windows of time-since-exposure. Positive associations between radon and several types of cancer other than lung cancer were identified, notably chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) (ERR/100 WLM = 0.24; 95% CI: not determined ND, 5.10) and extrathoracic cancer (ERR/100 WLM = 0.12; 95% CI: ND, 0.69). We observed no associations between radon and stomach cancer, nor between radon and several hematopoietic cancer subtypes.
This study confirms the established radon-lung cancer association and suggests that radon may also be associated with other types of cancer mortality. Further investigations of extrathoracic and CLL cancer, with the aim of obtaining more precise estimates, are warranted to understand associations between radon and cancers other than lung.
•IARC Monographs conducts systematic evaluations of potentially carcinogenic agents.•A new data science prioritization approach integrates literature and chemical data.•Chemical and non-chemical ...agents can be prioritized using the integrated approach.•The approach evaluated 119 agents prioritized by an IARC Monographs’ advisory group.
Systematic evaluation of literature data on the cancer hazards of human exposures is an essential process underlying cancer prevention strategies. The scope and volume of evidence for suspected carcinogens can range from very few to thousands of publications, requiring a complex, systematically planned, and critical procedure to nominate, prioritize and evaluate carcinogenic agents. To aid in this process, database fusion, cheminformatics and text mining techniques can be combined into an integrated approach to inform agent prioritization, selection, and grouping.
We have applied these techniques to agents recommended for the IARC Monographs evaluations during 2020–2024. An integration of PubMed filters to cover cancer epidemiology, key characteristics of carcinogens, chemical lists from 34 databases relevant for cancer research, chemical structure grouping and a literature data-based clustering was applied in an innovative approach to 119 agents recommended by an advisory group for future IARC Monographs evaluations. The approach also facilitated a rational grouping of these agents and aids in understanding the volume and complexity of relevant information, as well as important gaps in coverage of the available studies on cancer etiology and carcinogenesis.
A new data-science approach has been applied to diverse agents recommended for cancer hazard assessments, and its applications for the IARC Monographs are demonstrated. The prioritization approach has been made available at www.cancer.idsl.me site for ranking cancer agents.
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
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.
The paper continues the series of publications from the International Nuclear Workers Study cohort that comprises 308,297 workers from France, the United Kingdom and the United States, providing 8.2 ...million person‐years of observation from a combined follow‐up period (at earliest 1944 to at latest 2005). These workers’ external radiation exposures were primarily to photons, resulting in an estimated average career absorbed dose to the colon of 17.4 milligray. The association between cumulative ionizing radiation dose and cancer mortality was evaluated in general relative risk models that describe modification of the excess relative risk (ERR) per gray (Gy) by time since exposure and age at exposure. Methods analogous to a nested‐case control study using conditional logistic regression of sampled risks sets were used. Outcomes included: all solid cancers, lung cancer, leukemias excluding chronic lymphocytic, acute myeloid leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, multiple myeloma, Hodgkin lymphoma and non‐Hodgkin lymphoma. Significant risk heterogeneity was evident in chronic myeloid leukemia with time since exposure, where we observed increased ERR per Gy estimates shortly after exposure (2–10 year) and again later (20–30 years). We observed delayed effects for acute myeloid leukemia although estimates were not statistically significant. Solid cancer excess risk was restricted to exposure at age 35+ years and also diminished for exposure 30 years prior to attained age. Persistent or late effects suggest additional follow‐up may inform on lifetime risks. However, cautious interpretation of results is needed due to analytical limitations and a lack of confirmatory results from other studies.
What's new?
Being exposed to radiation is harmful, and practices are in place to protect people from high doses in the workplace. Therefore, nuclear workers generally experience only low daily doses of radiation, but how does this affect their lifetime cancer risk? To find out, researchers have pooled data from more than 300,000 workers in France, the UK, and the USA, in some cases covering a 60‐year follow‐up. These authors investigated the relationship between age at exposure, time since exposure and cancer risk. They observed an increased risk of chronic myeloid leukemia 2–10 years after exposure, and again 20–30 years afterward.
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
