PURPOSE: To demonstrate a limitation of lifetime radiation-induced cancer risk metrics in the setting of testicular cancer surveillance-in particular, their failure to capture the delayed timing of radiation-induced cancers over the course of a patient's lifetime. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for the use of computed tomographic (CT) dosimetry data in this study. Informed consent was waived. This study was HIPAA compliant. A Markov model was developed to project outcomes in patients with testicular cancer who were undergoing CT surveillance in the decade after orchiectomy. To quantify effects of early versus delayed risks, life expectancy losses and lifetime mortality risks due to testicular cancer were compared with life expectancy losses and lifetime mortality risks due to radiation-induced cancers from CT. Projections of life expectancy loss, unlike lifetime risk estimates, account for the timing of risks over the course of a lifetime, which enabled evaluation of the described limitation of lifetime risk estimates. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to estimate the uncertainty of the results. RESULTS: As an example of evidence yielded, 33-year-old men with stage I seminoma who were undergoing CT surveillance were projected to incur a slightly higher lifetime mortality risk from testicular cancer (598 per 100 000; 95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 302, 894) than from radiation-induced cancers (505 per 100 000; 95% UI: 280, 730). However, life expectancy loss attributable to testicular cancer (83 days; 95% UI: 42, 124) was more than three times greater than life expectancy loss attributable to radiation-induced cancers (24 days; 95% UI: 13, 35). Trends were consistent across modeled scenarios. CONCLUSION: Lifetime radiation risk estimates, when used for decision making, may overemphasize radiation-induced cancer risks relative to short-term health risks.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate a limitation of lifetime radiation-induced cancer risk metrics in the setting of testicular cancer surveillance-in particular, their failure to capture the delayed timing of radiation-induced cancers over the course of a patient's lifetime. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for the use of computed tomographic (CT) dosimetry data in this study. Informed consent was waived. This study was HIPAA compliant. A Markov model was developed to project outcomes in patients with testicular cancer who were undergoing CT surveillance in the decade after orchiectomy. To quantify effects of early versus delayed risks, life expectancy losses and lifetime mortality risks due to testicular cancer were compared with life expectancy losses and lifetime mortality risks due to radiation-induced cancers from CT. Projections of life expectancy loss, unlike lifetime risk estimates, account for the timing of risks over the course of a lifetime, which enabled evaluation of the described limitation of lifetime risk estimates. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to estimate the uncertainty of the results. RESULTS: As an example of evidence yielded, 33-year-old men with stage I seminoma who were undergoing CT surveillance were projected to incur a slightly higher lifetime mortality risk from testicular cancer (598 per 100 000; 95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 302, 894) than from radiation-induced cancers (505 per 100 000; 95% UI: 280, 730). However, life expectancy loss attributable to testicular cancer (83 days; 95% UI: 42, 124) was more than three times greater than life expectancy loss attributable to radiation-induced cancers (24 days; 95% UI: 13, 35). Trends were consistent across modeled scenarios. CONCLUSION: Lifetime radiation risk estimates, when used for decision making, may overemphasize radiation-induced cancer risks relative to short-term health risks.
Authors: Mark P Little; Richard Wakeford; E Janet Tawn; Simon D Bouffler; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Neeraj Agarwal; Clair Beard; Graeme B Bolger; Barry Boston; Michael A Carducci; Toni K Choueiri; Robert A Figlin; Mayer Fishman; Steven L Hancock; Gary R Hudes; Eric Jonasch; Anne Kessinger; Timothy M Kuzel; Paul H Lange; Ellis G Levine; Kim A Margolin; M Dror Michaelson; Thomas Olencki; Roberto Pili; Bruce G Redman; Cary N Robertson; Lawrence H Schwartz; Joel Sheinfeld; Jue Wang Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: M P Little; W F Heidenreich; S H Moolgavkar; H Schöllnberger; D C Thomas Journal: Radiat Environ Biophys Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: S A Sohaib; D M Koh; Y Barbachano; J Parikh; J E S Husband; D P Dearnaley; A Horwich; R Huddart Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Aaron Sodickson; Pieter F Baeyens; Katherine P Andriole; Luciano M Prevedello; Richard D Nawfel; Richard Hanson; Ramin Khorasani Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gordon J Rustin; Graham M Mead; Sally P Stenning; Paul A Vasey; Nina Aass; Robert A Huddart; Michael P Sokal; Jonathan K Joffe; Stephen J Harland; Sarah J Kirk Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jonathan D Eisenberg; Michael E Gilmore; Mannudeep K Kalra; Chung Yin Kong; Pari V Pandharipande Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sorapop Kiatpongsan; Lesley Meng; Jonathan D Eisenberg; Maurice Herring; Laura L Avery; Chung Yin Kong; Pari V Pandharipande Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Diana L Lam; Pari V Pandharipande; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: C A Lago-Hernandez; H Feldman; E O'Donnell; B A Mahal; V Perez; S Howard; M Rosenthal; S C Cheng; P L Nguyen; C Beard; A V D'Amico; C J Sweeney Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: C J Sullivan; K P Murphy; P D McLaughlin; M Twomey; K N O'Regan; D G Power; M M Maher; O J O'Connor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-12-13 Impact factor: 5.315