Literature DB >> 10453089

Risks of leukemia in Japanese atomic bomb survivors, in women treated for cervical cancer, and in patients treated for ankylosing spondylitis.

M P Little1, H A Weiss, J D Boice, S C Darby, N E Day, C R Muirhead.   

Abstract

The dose-response relationship for radiation-induced leukemia was examined in a pooled analysis of three exposed populations: Japanese atomic bomb survivors, women treated for cervical cancer, and patients irradiated for ankylosing spondylitis. A total of 383 leukemias were observed among 283,139 study subjects. Considering all leukemias apart from chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the optimal relative risk model had a dose response with a purely quadratic term representing induction and an exponential term consistent with cell sterilization at high doses; the addition of a linear induction term did not improve the fit of the model. The relative risk decreased with increasing time since exposure and increasing attained age, and there were significant (P < 0.00001) differences in the parameters of the model between datasets. These differences were related in part to the significant differences (P = 0.003) between the models fitted to the three main radiogenic leukemia subtypes (acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia). When the three datasets were considered together but the analysis was repeated separately for the three leukemia subtypes, for each subtype the optimal model included quadratic and exponential terms in dose. For acute myeloid leukemia and chronic myeloid leukemia, there were reductions of relative risk with increasing time after exposure, whereas for acute lymphocytic leukemia the relative risk decreased with increasing attained age. For each leukemia subtype considered separately, there was no indication of a difference between the studies in the relative risk and its distribution as a function of dose, age and time (P > 0.10 for all three subtypes). The nonsignificant indications of differences between the three datasets when leukemia subtypes were considered separately may be explained by random variation, although a contribution from differences in exposure dose-rate regimens, inhomogeneous dose distribution within the bone marrow, inadequate adjustment forcell sterilization effects, or errors in dosimetry could have played a role.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10453089

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  32 in total

Review 1.  Hormesis, an update of the present position.

Authors:  Lennart Johansson
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-04-26       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Incidence of haematopoietic malignancies in US radiologic technologists.

Authors:  M S Linet; D M Freedman; A K Mohan; M M Doody; E Ron; K Mabuchi; B H Alexander; A Sigurdson; M Hauptmann
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.402

3.  Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do.

Authors:  Mark P Little; Richard Wakeford; E Janet Tawn; Simon D Bouffler; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk.

Authors:  Harrison H Barrett; Kyle J Myers; Christoph Hoeschen; Matthew A Kupinski; Mark P Little
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  How is the risk of radiation-induced cancer influenced by background risk factors? Invited commentary on "a method for determining weights for excess relative risk and excess absolute risk when applied in the calculation of lifetime risk of cancer from radiation exposure" by Walsh and Schneider (2012).

Authors:  Mark P Little; Richard Wakeford
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 1.925

6.  A multicellular basis for the origination of blast crisis in chronic myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Rainer K Sachs; Kerstin Johnsson; Philip Hahnfeldt; Janet Luo; Allen Chen; Lynn Hlatky
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 7.  Radiotherapy for benign disease; assessing the risk of radiation-induced cancer following exposure to intermediate dose radiation.

Authors:  Stephanie R McKeown; Paul Hatfield; Robin J D Prestwich; Richard E Shaffer; Roger E Taylor
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 8.  Ionizing radiation and aging: rejuvenating an old idea.

Authors:  Richard B Richardson
Journal:  Aging (Albany NY)       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 5.682

Review 9.  Mouse models for radiation-induced cancers.

Authors:  Leena Rivina; Michael J Davoren; Robert H Schiestl
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 10.  Ionising radiation and cancer risks: what have we learned from epidemiology?

Authors:  Ethel S Gilbert
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.694

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.