BACKGROUND: Studies of atomic bomb survivors and medically exposed populations have demonstrated an increased risk of breast cancer associated with acute or protracted, intermediate-dose or high-dose, ionizing radiation; however, the risks associated with low-dose and low-dose-rate (protracted) exposures are less certain. METHODS: The authors evaluated incident breast cancer risks from 1983 to 1998 according to employment characteristics and a 4-level proxy index for cumulative radiation exposure based on 2 mail surveys among 56,436 U.S. female radiologic technologists who were certified from 1925 to 1980, adjusting for established breast cancer risk factors. RESULTS: During follow-up, 1050 new breast cancer diagnoses were ascertained. Compared with radiologic technologists who began working in 1970 or later, adjusted breast cancer risks for those who first worked in the 1960s, 1950s, 1940s, from 1935 to 1939, and before 1935 were 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.2), 1.2 (95% CI, 0.9-1.6), 1.0 (95% CI, 0.7-1.5), 1.8 (95% CI, 1.0-3.2), and 2.9 (95% CI, 1.3-6.2), respectively. The risk rose with the number of years worked before 1940 (P value for trend = .002) and was elevated significantly among those who began working before age 17 years (relative risk, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.1; 10 women) but was not related to the total years worked in the 1940s or later. Compared with technologists who had a Level 1 (minimal) proxy index for cumulative radiation exposure, breast cancer risks were 1.0 (95% CI, 0.9-1.2), 1.0 (95% CI, 0.7-1.3), and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.2), respectively, for technologists who had Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 (highest) exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer risk was elevated significantly in female radiologic technologists who experienced daily low-dose radiation exposures over several years that potentially resulted in appreciable cumulative exposure. The increased risk for total years worked before 1940, but not later, was consistent with decreasing occupational radiation exposures, improvements in radiation technology, and more stringent radiation protection standards over time. Copyright 2006 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Studies of atomic bomb survivors and medically exposed populations have demonstrated an increased risk of breast cancer associated with acute or protracted, intermediate-dose or high-dose, ionizing radiation; however, the risks associated with low-dose and low-dose-rate (protracted) exposures are less certain. METHODS: The authors evaluated incident breast cancer risks from 1983 to 1998 according to employment characteristics and a 4-level proxy index for cumulative radiation exposure based on 2 mail surveys among 56,436 U.S. female radiologic technologists who were certified from 1925 to 1980, adjusting for established breast cancer risk factors. RESULTS: During follow-up, 1050 new breast cancer diagnoses were ascertained. Compared with radiologic technologists who began working in 1970 or later, adjusted breast cancer risks for those who first worked in the 1960s, 1950s, 1940s, from 1935 to 1939, and before 1935 were 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.2), 1.2 (95% CI, 0.9-1.6), 1.0 (95% CI, 0.7-1.5), 1.8 (95% CI, 1.0-3.2), and 2.9 (95% CI, 1.3-6.2), respectively. The risk rose with the number of years worked before 1940 (P value for trend = .002) and was elevated significantly among those who began working before age 17 years (relative risk, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.1; 10 women) but was not related to the total years worked in the 1940s or later. Compared with technologists who had a Level 1 (minimal) proxy index for cumulative radiation exposure, breast cancer risks were 1.0 (95% CI, 0.9-1.2), 1.0 (95% CI, 0.7-1.3), and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.2), respectively, for technologists who had Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 (highest) exposure. CONCLUSIONS:Breast cancer risk was elevated significantly in female radiologic technologists who experienced daily low-dose radiation exposures over several years that potentially resulted in appreciable cumulative exposure. The increased risk for total years worked before 1940, but not later, was consistent with decreasing occupational radiation exposures, improvements in radiation technology, and more stringent radiation protection standards over time. Copyright 2006 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Steven L Simon; Dale L Preston; Martha S Linet; Jeremy S Miller; Alice J Sigurdson; Bruce H Alexander; Deukwoo Kwon; R Craig Yoder; Parveen Bhatti; Mark P Little; Preetha Rajaraman; Dunstana Melo; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Robert M Weinstock; Michele M Doody Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Sara J Schonfeld; David Pee; Robert T Greenlee; Patricia Hartge; James V Lacey; Yikyung Park; Arthur Schatzkin; Kala Visvanathan; Ruth M Pfeiffer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Martha S Linet; Kwang Pyo Kim; Donald L Miller; Ruth A Kleinerman; Steven L Simon; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Christine M Duffy; Annlouise Assaf; Michele Cyr; Gary Burkholder; Elizabeth Coccio; Tom Rohan; Anne McTiernan; Electra Paskett; Dorothy Lane; V K Chetty Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-09-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Parveen Bhatti; Michele M Doody; Bruce H Alexander; Jeff Yuenger; Steven L Simon; Robert M Weinstock; Marvin Rosenstein; Marilyn Stovall; Michael Abend; Dale L Preston; Paul Pharoah; Jeffery P Struewing; Alice J Sigurdson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Parveen Bhatti; Michele M Doody; Preetha Rajaraman; Bruce H Alexander; Meredith Yeager; Amy Hutchinson; Laurie Burdette; Gilles Thomas; David J Hunter; Steven L Simon; Robert M Weinstock; Marvin Rosenstein; Marilyn Stovall; Dale L Preston; Martha S Linet; Robert N Hoover; Stephen J Chanock; Alice J Sigurdson Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.841