Literature DB >> 23161400

Neutron relative biological effectiveness for solid cancer incidence in the Japanese A-bomb survivors: an analysis considering the degree of independent effects from γ-ray and neutron absorbed doses with hierarchical partitioning.

Linda Walsh1.   

Abstract

It has generally been assumed that the neutron and γ-ray absorbed doses in the data from the life span study (LSS) of the Japanese A-bomb survivors are too highly correlated for an independent separation of the all solid cancer risks due to neutrons and due to γ-rays. However, with the release of the most recent data for all solid cancer incidence and the increased statistical power over previous datasets, it is instructive to consider alternatives to the usual approaches. Simple excess relative risk (ERR) models for radiation-induced solid cancer incidence fitted to the LSS epidemiological data have been applied with neutron and γ-ray absorbed doses as separate explanatory covariables. A simple evaluation of the degree of independent effects from γ-ray and neutron absorbed doses on the all solid cancer risk with the hierarchical partitioning (HP) technique is presented here. The degree of multi-collinearity between the γ-ray and neutron absorbed doses has also been considered. The results show that, whereas the partial correlation between the neutron and γ-ray colon absorbed doses may be considered to be high at 0.74, this value is just below the level beyond which remedial action, such as adding the doses together, is usually recommended. The resulting variance inflation factor is 2.2. Applying HP indicates that just under half of the drop in deviance resulting from adding the γ-ray and neutron absorbed doses to the baseline risk model comes from the joint effects of the neutrons and γ-rays-leaving a substantial proportion of this deviance drop accounted for by individual effects of the neutrons and γ-rays. The average ERR/Gy γ-ray absorbed dose and the ERR/Gy neutron absorbed dose that have been obtained here directly for the first time, agree well with previous indirect estimates. The average relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of neutrons relative to γ-rays, calculated directly from fit parameters to the all solid cancer ERR model with both colon absorbed dose covariables, is 65 (95 %CI: 11; 170). Therefore, although the 95 % CI is quite wide, reference to the colon doses with a neutron weighting of 10 may not be optimal as the basis for the determination of all solid cancer risks. Further investigations into the neutron RBE are required, ideally based on the LSS data with organ-specific neutron and γ-ray absorbed doses for all organs rather than the RBE weighted absorbed doses currently provided. The HP method is also suggested for use in other epidemiological cohort analyses that involve correlated explanatory covariables.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23161400     DOI: 10.1007/s00411-012-0445-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys        ISSN: 0301-634X            Impact factor:   1.925


  18 in total

Review 1.  Neutron RBE values and their relationship to judgements in radiological protection.

Authors:  A A Edwards
Journal:  J Radiol Prot       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 1.394

2.  Risk estimation for fast neutrons with regard to solid cancer.

Authors:  A M Kellerer; L Walsh
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.841

3.  Indications of the neutron effect contribution in the solid cancer data of the A-bomb survivors.

Authors:  Albrecht M Kellerer; Werner Rühm; Linda Walsh
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 1.316

4.  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2007

5.  Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 12, Part I. Cancer: 1950-1990.

Authors:  D A Pierce; Y Shimizu; D L Preston; M Vaeth; K Mabuchi
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.841

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

Authors:  Dale L Preston; Donald A Pierce; Yukiko Shimizu; Harry M Cullings; Shoichiro Fujita; Sachiyo Funamoto; Kazunori Kodama
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.841

7.  Solid cancer risk coefficient for fast neutrons in terms of effective dose.

Authors:  Albrecht M Kellerer; Linda Walsh
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.841

8.  Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: Solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950-1997.

Authors:  Dale L Preston; Yukiko Shimizu; Donald A Pierce; Akihiko Suyama; Kiyohiko Mabuchi
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.841

9.  Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998.

Authors:  D L Preston; E Ron; S Tokuoka; S Funamoto; N Nishi; M Soda; K Mabuchi; K Kodama
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.841

10.  The impact of possible modifications to the DS86 dosimetry on neutron risk and relative biological effectiveness.

Authors:  Nezahat Hunter; Monty W Charles
Journal:  J Radiol Prot       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 1.394

View more
  6 in total

1.  Reply to Little et al.: dose-responses from multi-model inference for the non-cancer disease mortality of atomic bomb survivors.

Authors:  H Schöllnberger; J C Kaiser; L Walsh; P Jacob
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2013-01-12       Impact factor: 1.925

2.  The influence of follow-up on DS02 low-dose ranges with a significant excess relative risk of all solid cancer in the Japanese A-bomb survivors.

Authors:  Linda Walsh; Uwe Schneider
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 1.925

3.  Radiation risk models for all solid cancers other than those types of cancer requiring individual assessments after a nuclear accident.

Authors:  Linda Walsh; Wei Zhang
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 4.  Typical doses and dose rates in studies pertinent to radiation risk inference at low doses and low dose rates.

Authors:  Werner Rühm; Tamara Azizova; Simon Bouffler; Harry M Cullings; Bernd Grosche; Mark P Little; Roy S Shore; Linda Walsh; Gayle E Woloschak
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 2.724

Review 5.  Are Risks From Medical Imaging Still too Small to Be Observed or Nonexistent?

Authors:  Brant A Ulsh
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 6.  Neutron relative biological effectiveness in Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors: a critical review.

Authors:  Masao S Sasaki; Satoru Endo; Masaharu Hoshi; Taisei Nomura
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2016-09-10       Impact factor: 2.724

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.