PURPOSE: To assess the shape of the dose-response for various circulatory disease endpoints, and modifiers by age and time since exposure. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was an analysis of the US peptic ulcer data testing for heterogeneity of radiogenic risk by circulatory disease endpoint (ischemic heart, cerebrovascular, other circulatory disease). RESULTS: There were significant excess risks for all circulatory disease, with an excess relative risk Gy(-1) of 0.082 (95% CI 0.031-0.140), and ischemic heart disease, with an excess relative risk Gy(-1) of 0.102 (95% CI 0.039-0.174) (both p = 0.01), and indications of excess risk for stroke. There were no statistically significant (p > 0.2) differences between risks by endpoint, and few indications of curvature in the dose-response. There were significant (p < 0.001) modifications of relative risk by time since exposure, the magnitude of which did not vary between endpoints (p > 0.2). Risk modifications were similar if analysis was restricted to patients receiving radiation, although the relative risks were slightly larger and the risk of stroke failed to be significant. The slopes of the dose-response were generally consistent with those observed in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and in occupationally and medically exposed groups. CONCLUSIONS: There were excess risks for a variety of circulatory diseases in this dataset, with significant modification of risk by time since exposure. The consistency of the dose-response slopes with those observed in radiotherapeutically treated groups at much higher dose, as well as in lower dose-exposed cohorts such as the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and nuclear workers, implies that there may be little sparing effect of fractionation of dose or low-dose-rate exposure. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To assess the shape of the dose-response for various circulatory disease endpoints, and modifiers by age and time since exposure. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was an analysis of the US peptic ulcer data testing for heterogeneity of radiogenic risk by circulatory disease endpoint (ischemic heart, cerebrovascular, other circulatory disease). RESULTS: There were significant excess risks for all circulatory disease, with an excess relative risk Gy(-1) of 0.082 (95% CI 0.031-0.140), and ischemic heart disease, with an excess relative risk Gy(-1) of 0.102 (95% CI 0.039-0.174) (both p = 0.01), and indications of excess risk for stroke. There were no statistically significant (p > 0.2) differences between risks by endpoint, and few indications of curvature in the dose-response. There were significant (p < 0.001) modifications of relative risk by time since exposure, the magnitude of which did not vary between endpoints (p > 0.2). Risk modifications were similar if analysis was restricted to patients receiving radiation, although the relative risks were slightly larger and the risk of stroke failed to be significant. The slopes of the dose-response were generally consistent with those observed in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and in occupationally and medically exposed groups. CONCLUSIONS: There were excess risks for a variety of circulatory diseases in this dataset, with significant modification of risk by time since exposure. The consistency of the dose-response slopes with those observed in radiotherapeutically treated groups at much higher dose, as well as in lower dose-exposed cohorts such as the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and nuclear workers, implies that there may be little sparing effect of fractionation of dose or low-dose-rate exposure. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Berthe M P Aleman; Alexandra W van den Belt-Dusebout; Marie L De Bruin; Mars B van 't Veer; Margreet H A Baaijens; Jan Paul de Boer; Augustinus A M Hart; Willem J Klokman; Marianne A Kuenen; Gabey M Ouwens; Harry Bartelink; Flora E van Leeuwen Journal: Blood Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Zhanat A Carr; Charles E Land; Ruth A Kleinerman; Robert W Weinstock; Marilyn Stovall; Melvin L Griem; Kiyohiko Mabuchi Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marie L De Bruin; Lucille D A Dorresteijn; Mars B van't Veer; Augustinus D G Krol; Helena J van der Pal; Arnoud C Kappelle; Willem Boogerd; Berthe M P Aleman; Flora E van Leeuwen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Carolyn W Taylor; Andrew Nisbet; Paul McGale; Ulla Goldman; Sarah C Darby; Per Hall; Giovanna Gagliardi Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2008-11-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Vanessa J M al Rashida; Xin Wang; Orrin B Myers; Tawny W Boyce; Elizabeth Kocher; Megan Moreno; Roger Karr; Nour Assad; Linda S Cook; Akshay Sood Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Harriet Eldredge-Hindy; Virginia Lockamy; Albert Crawford; Virginia Nettleton; Maria Werner-Wasik; Joshua Siglin; Nicole L Simone; Kulbir Sidhu; Pramila R Anne Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2015 Jan-Feb
Authors: Stefanie Corradini; Hendrik Ballhausen; Helmut Weingandt; Philipp Freislederer; Stephan Schönecker; Maximilian Niyazi; Cristoforo Simonetto; Markus Eidemüller; Ute Ganswindt; Claus Belka Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Eugene Chung; James R Corbett; Jean M Moran; Kent A Griffith; Robin B Marsh; Mary Feng; Reshma Jagsi; Marc L Kessler; Edward C Ficaro; Lori J Pierce Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mark P Little; David Pawel; Munechika Misumi; Nobuyuki Hamada; Harry M Cullings; Richard Wakeford; Kotaro Ozasa Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Vanessa J M Al Rashida; Xin Wang; Orrin B Myers; Tawny W Boyce; Elizabeth Kocher; Megan Moreno; Roger Karr; Nour Ass'ad; Linda S Cook; Akshay Sood Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.162