Literature DB >> 30004025

Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear nonthreshold model and radiation protection.

R E Shore1, H L Beck, J D Boice, E A Caffrey, S Davis, H A Grogan, F A Mettler, R J Preston, J E Till, R Wakeford, L Walsh, L T Dauer.   

Abstract

The recently published NCRP Commentary No. 27 evaluated the new information from epidemiologic studies as to their degree of support for applying the linear nonthreshold (LNT) model of carcinogenic effects for radiation protection purposes (NCRP 2018 Implications of Recent Epidemiologic Studies for the Linear Nonthreshold Model and Radiation Protection, Commentary No. 27 (Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements)). The aim was to determine whether recent epidemiologic studies of low-LET radiation, particularly those at low doses and/or low dose rates (LD/LDR), broadly support the LNT model of carcinogenic risk or, on the contrary, demonstrate sufficient evidence that the LNT model is inappropriate for the purposes of radiation protection. An updated review was needed because a considerable number of reports of radiation epidemiologic studies based on new or updated data have been published since other major reviews were conducted by national and international scientific committees. The Commentary provides a critical review of the LD/LDR studies that are most directly applicable to current occupational, environmental and medical radiation exposure circumstances. This Memorandum summarises several of the more important LD/LDR studies that incorporate radiation dose responses for solid cancer and leukemia that were reviewed in Commentary No. 27. In addition, an overview is provided of radiation studies of breast and thyroid cancers, and cancer after childhood exposures. Non-cancers are briefly touched upon such as ischemic heart disease, cataracts, and heritable genetic effects. To assess the applicability and utility of the LNT model for radiation protection, the Commentary evaluated 29 epidemiologic studies or groups of studies, primarily of total solid cancer, in terms of strengths and weaknesses in their epidemiologic methods, dosimetry approaches, and statistical modelling, and the degree to which they supported a LNT model for continued use in radiation protection. Recommendations for how to make epidemiologic radiation studies more informative are outlined. The NCRP Committee recognises that the risks from LD/LDR exposures are small and uncertain. The Committee judged that the available epidemiologic data were broadly supportive of the LNT model and that at this time no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30004025     DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/aad348

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Radiol Prot        ISSN: 0952-4746            Impact factor:   1.394


  16 in total

Review 1.  Pediatric CT radiation exposure: where we were, and where we are now.

Authors:  Thomas R Goodman; Adel Mustafa; Erin Rowe
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-03-29

2.  Cleanup and Complexity: Nuclear and Industrial Contamination at The Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California.

Authors:  Nicola Ulibarri; Cameron L Tracy; Ryan J McCarty
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Radio-biologically motivated modeling of radiation risks of mortality from ischemic heart diseases in the Canadian fluoroscopy cohort study.

Authors:  Helmut Schöllnberger; Jan Christian Kaiser; Markus Eidemüller; Lydia B Zablotska
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 1.925

4.  Among Individuals Irradiated for Benign Conditions in Childhood, Developing Thyroid Cancer Does Not Affect All-Cause Survival.

Authors:  Leonid Vydro; Cari M Kitahara; Jay H Lubin; Arthur B Schneider; Dan V Mihailescu
Journal:  Thyroid       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 6.568

5.  Projected lifetime cancer risk from cone-beam computed tomography for orthodontic treatment.

Authors:  Nayansi Jha; Yoon-Ji Kim; Youngjun Lee; Ju Young Lee; Won Jin Lee; Sang-Jin Sung
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 1.372

6.  Risk bases can complement dose bases for implementing and optimising a radiological protection strategy in urgent and transition emergency phases.

Authors:  Linda Walsh; Alexander Ulanowski; Jan Christian Kaiser; Clemens Woda; Wolfgang Raskob
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2019-07-25       Impact factor: 1.925

7.  Patient-adapted organ absorbed dose and effective dose estimates in pediatric 18F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography studies.

Authors:  Brian M Quinn; Yiming Gao; Usman Mahmood; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Gerald Behr; Pat Zanzonico; Lawrence T Dauer
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 1.930

8.  Background radiation impacts human longevity and cancer mortality: reconsidering the linear no-threshold paradigm.

Authors:  Elroei David; Marina Wolfson; Vadim E Fraifeld
Journal:  Biogerontology       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 4.277

9.  Risk of Hematologic Malignant Neoplasms From Abdominopelvic Computed Tomographic Radiation in Patients Who Underwent Appendectomy.

Authors:  Kyung Hee Lee; Seungjae Lee; Ji Hoon Park; Sung Soo Lee; Hae Young Kim; Won Jin Lee; Eun Shil Cha; Kwang Pyo Kim; Woojoo Lee; Ji Yun Lee; Kyoung Ho Lee
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 14.766

Review 10.  Adverse outcome pathways for ionizing radiation and breast cancer involve direct and indirect DNA damage, oxidative stress, inflammation, genomic instability, and interaction with hormonal regulation of the breast.

Authors:  Jessica S Helm; Ruthann A Rudel
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 5.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.