Literature DB >> 1438703

Fitting the Armitage-Doll model to radiation-exposed cohorts and implications for population cancer risks.

M P Little1, M M Hawkins, M W Charles, N G Hildreth.   

Abstract

The Armitage-Doll model of carcinogenesis is fitted to Japanese bomb survivors with the DS86 dosimetry and to three other radiation-exposed cohorts. The model is found to provide an adequate description of solid cancer incidence and also, to a lesser extent, of that of leukemia as a function of radiation dose when up to two radiation-affected stages are assumed. For non-leukemias the optimal model is one in which there are two radiation-affected stages separated by two additional stages. In the case of leukemia one radiation-affected stage or two adjacent stages provide suitable fits. There appear to be significant differences between the optimal models fitted to each cohort, although there is no heterogeneity within the Japanese data set by sex, by cancer type, or by age at exposure. Low-dose and low-dose-rate population risks for a population having the cancer and overall mortality rates of the current UK population are calculated on the basis of the optimal models fitted to the Japanese data to be about 8.3 x 10(-2) excess cancer deaths person-1 Sv-1, 10.1 x 10(-2) radiation-induced cancer deaths person-1 Sv-1, or 1.40 years of life lost person-1 Sv-1. Risks for a population having the mortality rates of the current Japanese population are about 6.5 x 10(-2) excess cancer deaths person-1 Sv-1, 7.8 x 10(-2) radiation-induced cancer deaths person-1 Sv-1, or 0.89 years of life lost person-1 Sv-1. It is a feature of the Armitage-Doll model, and other multistage models of carcinogenesis, that if radiation acts at more than one stage then (inverse) dose-rate effects may arise as a result of interactions between the effects of a protracted dose at the various radiation-affected stages. However, it is shown in this paper that these three measures of cancer risk in general display fairly slight dependence on administered dose in the range 0.001 to 1.0 Sv and on the length of the time over which the dose is administered in the range 1 to 100 years. Dose-rate effects resulting from the protraction of a radiation exposure over many years acting on (the same) cells at various stages of a multistep process of carcinogenesis are therefore expected to be slight. Dose-rate effects which have been observed in epidemiological studies and cellular radiobiology may thus find their explanation in other phenomena such as short-term intracellular repair.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1438703

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Issues in Interpreting Epidemiologic Studies of Populations Exposed to Low-Dose, High-Energy Photon Radiation.

Authors:  Ethel S Gilbert; Mark P Little; Dale L Preston; Daniel O Stram
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2020-07-01

2.  Possible selection effects for radiation risk estimates in Japanese A-bomb survivors: reanalysis of acute radiation symptoms data.

Authors:  Nezahat Hunter; Colin R Muirhead; Wei Zhang
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2006-03-25       Impact factor: 1.925

3.  Risk of Thyroid Nodules in Residents of Belarus Exposed to Chernobyl Fallout as Children and Adolescents.

Authors:  Elizabeth K Cahoon; Eldar A Nadyrov; Olga N Polyanskaya; Vasilina V Yauseyenka; Ilya V Veyalkin; Tamara I Yeudachkova; Tamara I Maskvicheva; Victor F Minenko; Wayne Liu; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Kiyohiko Mabuchi; Mark P Little; Lydia B Zablotska; Robert J McConnell; Maureen Hatch; Kamau O Peters; Alexander V Rozhko; Alina V Brenner
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 4.  Preventability of cancer: the relative contributions of biologic and social and physical environmental determinants of cancer mortality.

Authors:  Graham A Colditz; Esther K Wei
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 21.981

5.  Heterogeneity of variation of relative risk by age at exposure in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

Authors:  Mark P Little
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 1.925

6.  A hybrid likelihood algorithm for risk modelling.

Authors:  A M Kellerer; M Kreisheimer; D Chmelevsky; D Barclay
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 7.  Do non-targeted effects increase or decrease low dose risk in relation to the linear-non-threshold (LNT) model?

Authors:  M P Little
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2010-01-25       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 8.  What can be learnt from models of incidence rates?

Authors:  Graham A Colditz; Bernard A Rosner
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2006-06-06       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Temporal variation in the association between benzene and leukemia mortality.

Authors:  David B Richardson
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Lack of Correlation between Stem-Cell Proliferation and Radiation- or Smoking-Associated Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Mark P Little; Jolyon H Hendry; Jerome S Puskin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.