Literature DB >> 15447045

Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates.

Dale L Preston1, Donald A Pierce, Yukiko Shimizu, Harry M Cullings, Shoichiro Fujita, Sachiyo Funamoto, Kazunori Kodama.   

Abstract

The Radiation Effects Research Foundation has recently implemented a new dosimetry system, DS02, to replace the previous system, DS86. This paper assesses the effect of the change on risk estimates for radiation-related solid cancer and leukemia mortality. The changes in dose estimates were smaller than many had anticipated, with the primary systematic change being an increase of about 10% in gamma-ray estimates for both cities. In particular, an anticipated large increase of the neutron component in Hiroshima for low-dose survivors did not materialize. However, DS02 improves on DS86 in many details, including the specifics of the radiation released by the bombs and the effects of shielding by structures and terrain. The data used here extend the last reported follow-up for solid cancers by 3 years, with a total of 10,085 deaths, and extends the follow-up for leukemia by 10 years, with a total of 296 deaths. For both solid cancer and leukemia, estimated age-time patterns and sex difference are virtually unchanged by the dosimetry revision. The estimates of solid-cancer radiation risk per sievert and the curvilinear dose response for leukemia are both decreased by about 8% by the dosimetry revision, due to the increase in the gamma-ray dose estimates. The apparent shape of the dose response is virtually unchanged by the dosimetry revision, but for solid cancers, the additional 3 years of follow-up has some effect. In particular, there is for the first time a statistically significant upward curvature for solid cancer on the restricted dose range 0-2 Sv. However, the low-dose slope of a linear-quadratic fit to that dose range should probably not be relied on for risk estimation, since that is substantially smaller than the linear slopes on ranges 0-1 Sv, 0-0.5 Sv, and 0- 0.25 Sv. Although it was anticipated that the new dosimetry system might reduce some apparent dose overestimates for Nagasaki factory workers, this did not materialize, and factory workers have significantly lower risk estimates. Whether or not one makes allowance for this, there is no statistically significant city difference in the estimated cancer risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15447045     DOI: 10.1667/rr3232

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


  114 in total

1.  Indeed, what has changed!

Authors:  S Bruce Greenberg
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2012-01-08

2.  Breast cancer risk in atomic bomb survivors from multi-model inference with incidence data 1958-1998.

Authors:  J C Kaiser; P Jacob; R Meckbach; H M Cullings
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 3.  Evaluation and follow-up of patients with urinary lithiasis: minimizing radiation exposure.

Authors:  Elias S Hyams; Ojas Shah
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Comparison of mortality and incidence solid cancer risk after radiation exposure in the Techa River Cohort.

Authors:  M Eidemüller; E Ostroumova; L Krestinina; S Epiphanova; A Akleyev; P Jacob
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2010-05-12       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Estimate of the uncertainties in the relative risk of secondary malignant neoplasms following proton therapy and intensity-modulated photon therapy.

Authors:  Jonas D Fontenot; Charles Bloch; David Followill; Uwe Titt; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 6.  Cancer risk related to gastrointestinal diagnostic radiation exposure.

Authors:  Mimi L Chang; Jason K Hou
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2011-10

7.  Low- and middle-income countries can reduce risks of subsequent neoplasms by referring pediatric craniospinal cases to centralized proton treatment centers.

Authors:  Phillip J Taddei; Nabil Khater; Bassem Youssef; Rebecca M Howell; Wassim Jalbout; Rui Zhang; Fady B Geara; Annelise Giebeler; Anita Mahajan; Dragan Mirkovic; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Biomed Phys Eng Express       Date:  2018-02-07

Review 8.  Assessment of the risk for developing a second malignancy from scattered and secondary radiation in radiation therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.316

9.  The preference for error-free or error-prone postreplication repair in Saccharomyces cerevisiae exposed to low-dose methyl methanesulfonate is cell cycle dependent.

Authors:  Dongqing Huang; Brian D Piening; Amanda G Paulovich
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 4.272

10.  Impact of early life exposure to ionizing radiation on influenza vaccine response in an elderly Japanese cohort.

Authors:  Tomonori Hayashi; Heather E Lynch; Susan Geyer; Kengo Yoshida; Keiko Furudoi; Keiko Sasaki; Yukari Morishita; Hiroko Nagamura; Mayumi Maki; Yiqun Hu; Ikue Hayashi; Seishi Kyoizumi; Yoichiro Kusunoki; Waka Ohishi; Saeko Fujiwara; Munechika Misumi; Ivo Shterev; Janko Nikolich-Žugich; Donna Murasko; Laura P Hale; Gregory D Sempowski; Kei Nakachi
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 3.641

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.