Mark P Little1, Richard Wakeford2, David Borrego3, Benjamin French4, Lydia B Zablotska5, M Jacob Adams6, Rodrigue Allodji7, Florent de Vathaire7, Choonsik Lee3, Alina V Brenner3, Jeremy S Miller8, David Campbell8, Mark S Pearce9, Michele M Doody3, Erik Holmberg10, Marie Lundell11, Siegal Sadetzki12, Martha S Linet3, Amy Berrington de González3. 1. Radiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: mark.little@nih.gov. 2. Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 3. Radiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan. 5. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. 7. Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, INSERM Unit 1018, Institut Gustave Roussy, University of Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. 8. Information Management Services, Silver Spring, MD, USA. 9. Institute of Health and Society, and National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit for Chemical and Radiation Threats and Hazards, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. 10. Department of Oncology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 11. Department of Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 12. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; Gertner Institute, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Substantial evidence links exposure to moderate or high doses of ionising radiation, particularly in childhood, with increased risk of leukaemia. The association of leukaemia with exposure to low-dose (<100 mSv) radiation is less certain, although this is the dose range most relevant to the general population. We aimed to estimate the risk of leukaemia associated with low-dose radiation exposure in childhood (age <21 years). METHODS: In this analysis of historical cohort studies, we pooled eligible cohorts reported up to June 30, 2014. We evaluated leukaemia and myeloid malignancy outcomes in these cohorts with the relevant International Classification of Diseases and International Classification of Diseases for Oncology definitions. The cohorts included had not been treated for malignant disease, had reported at least five cases of the relevant haematopoietic neoplasms, and estimated individual active bone marrow (ABM) doses. We restricted analysis to individuals who were younger than 21 years at first irradiation who had mean cumulative ABM doses of less than 100 mSv. Dose-response models were fitted by use of Poisson regression. The data were received in fully anonymised form by the statistical analyst. FINDINGS: We identified nine eligible cohorts from Canada, France, Japan, Sweden, the UK, and the USA, including 262 573 people who had been exposed to less than 100 mSv enrolled between June 4, 1915, and Dec 31, 2004. Mean follow-up was 19·63 years (SD 17·75) and mean cumulative ABM dose was 19·6 mSv (SD 22·7). 154 myeloid malignancies were identified (which included 79 acute myeloid leukaemias, eight myelodysplastic syndromes, and 36 chronic myeloid leukaemias, in addition to other unspecified myeloid malignancies) and 40 acute lymphoblastic leukaemias, with 221 leukaemias (including otherwise unclassified leukaemias but excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia) identified overall. The fitted relative risks at 100 mSv were 3·09 (95% CI 1·41-5·92; ptrend=0·008) for acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndromes combined, 2·56 (1·09-5·06; ptrend=0·033) for acute myeloid leukaemia, and 5·66 (1·35-19·71; ptrend=0·023) for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. There was no clear dose-response for chronic myeloid leukaemia, which had a relative risk at 100 mSv of 0·36 (0·00-2·36; ptrend=0·394). There were few indications of between-cohort heterogeneity or departure from linearity. For acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndromes combined and for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, the dose-responses remained significant for doses of less than 50 mSv. Excess absolute risks at 100 mSv were in the range of 0·1-0·4 cases or deaths per 10 000 person-years. INTERPRETATION: The risks of acute myeloid leukaemia and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia were significantly increased after cumulative doses of ionising radiation of less than 100 mSv in childhood or adolescence, with an excess risk also apparent for cumulative radiation doses of less than 50 mSv for some endpoints. These findings support an increased risk of leukaemia associated with low-dose exposure to radiation and imply that the current system of radiological protection is prudent and not overly protective. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program, National Cancer Institute, and US National Institutes for Health.
BACKGROUND: Substantial evidence links exposure to moderate or high doses of ionising radiation, particularly in childhood, with increased risk of leukaemia. The association of leukaemia with exposure to low-dose (<100 mSv) radiation is less certain, although this is the dose range most relevant to the general population. We aimed to estimate the risk of leukaemia associated with low-dose radiation exposure in childhood (age <21 years). METHODS: In this analysis of historical cohort studies, we pooled eligible cohorts reported up to June 30, 2014. We evaluated leukaemia and myeloid malignancy outcomes in these cohorts with the relevant International Classification of Diseases and International Classification of Diseases for Oncology definitions. The cohorts included had not been treated for malignant disease, had reported at least five cases of the relevant haematopoietic neoplasms, and estimated individual active bone marrow (ABM) doses. We restricted analysis to individuals who were younger than 21 years at first irradiation who had mean cumulative ABM doses of less than 100 mSv. Dose-response models were fitted by use of Poisson regression. The data were received in fully anonymised form by the statistical analyst. FINDINGS: We identified nine eligible cohorts from Canada, France, Japan, Sweden, the UK, and the USA, including 262 573 people who had been exposed to less than 100 mSv enrolled between June 4, 1915, and Dec 31, 2004. Mean follow-up was 19·63 years (SD 17·75) and mean cumulative ABM dose was 19·6 mSv (SD 22·7). 154 myeloid malignancies were identified (which included 79 acute myeloid leukaemias, eight myelodysplastic syndromes, and 36 chronic myeloid leukaemias, in addition to other unspecifiedmyeloid malignancies) and 40 acute lymphoblastic leukaemias, with 221 leukaemias (including otherwise unclassified leukaemias but excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia) identified overall. The fitted relative risks at 100 mSv were 3·09 (95% CI 1·41-5·92; ptrend=0·008) for acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndromes combined, 2·56 (1·09-5·06; ptrend=0·033) for acute myeloid leukaemia, and 5·66 (1·35-19·71; ptrend=0·023) for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. There was no clear dose-response for chronic myeloid leukaemia, which had a relative risk at 100 mSv of 0·36 (0·00-2·36; ptrend=0·394). There were few indications of between-cohort heterogeneity or departure from linearity. For acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndromes combined and for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, the dose-responses remained significant for doses of less than 50 mSv. Excess absolute risks at 100 mSv were in the range of 0·1-0·4 cases or deaths per 10 000 person-years. INTERPRETATION: The risks of acute myeloid leukaemia and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia were significantly increased after cumulative doses of ionising radiation of less than 100 mSv in childhood or adolescence, with an excess risk also apparent for cumulative radiation doses of less than 50 mSv for some endpoints. These findings support an increased risk of leukaemia associated with low-dose exposure to radiation and imply that the current system of radiological protection is prudent and not overly protective. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program, National Cancer Institute, and US National Institutes for Health.
Authors: Atte Nikkilä; Sini Erme; Hannu Arvela; Olli Holmgren; Jani Raitanen; Olli Lohi; Anssi Auvinen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Cécile M Ronckers; Charles E Land; Jeremy S Miller; Marilyn Stovall; John E Lonstein; Michele M Doody Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: G M Kendall; M P Little; R Wakeford; K J Bunch; J C H Miles; T J Vincent; J R Meara; M F G Murphy Journal: Leukemia Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: S Davis; R W Day; K J Kopecky; M C Mahoney; P L McCarthy; A M Michalek; K B Moysich; L E Onstad; V F Stepanenko; P G Voillequé; T Chegerova; K Falkner; S Kulikov; E Maslova; V Ostapenko; N Rivkind; V Shevchuk; A F Tsyb Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2005-11-03 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: D C Lloyd; A A Edwards; A Leonard; G L Deknudt; L Verschaeve; A T Natarajan; F Darroudi; G Obe; F Palitti; C Tanzarella Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 1992-03 Impact factor: 2.694
Authors: Carlos Sanchez-Cano; Ramon A Alvarez-Puebla; John M Abendroth; Tobias Beck; Robert Blick; Yuan Cao; Frank Caruso; Indranath Chakraborty; Henry N Chapman; Chunying Chen; Bruce E Cohen; Andre L C Conceição; David P Cormode; Daxiang Cui; Kenneth A Dawson; Gerald Falkenberg; Chunhai Fan; Neus Feliu; Mingyuan Gao; Elisabetta Gargioni; Claus-C Glüer; Florian Grüner; Moustapha Hassan; Yong Hu; Yalan Huang; Samuel Huber; Nils Huse; Yanan Kang; Ali Khademhosseini; Thomas F Keller; Christian Körnig; Nicholas A Kotov; Dorota Koziej; Xing-Jie Liang; Beibei Liu; Sijin Liu; Yang Liu; Ziyao Liu; Luis M Liz-Marzán; Xiaowei Ma; Andres Machicote; Wolfgang Maison; Adrian P Mancuso; Saad Megahed; Bert Nickel; Ferdinand Otto; Cristina Palencia; Sakura Pascarelli; Arwen Pearson; Oula Peñate-Medina; Bing Qi; Joachim Rädler; Joseph J Richardson; Axel Rosenhahn; Kai Rothkamm; Michael Rübhausen; Milan K Sanyal; Raymond E Schaak; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Marius Schmidt; Oliver Schmutzler; Theo Schotten; Florian Schulz; A K Sood; Kathryn M Spiers; Theresa Staufer; Dominik M Stemer; Andreas Stierle; Xing Sun; Gohar Tsakanova; Paul S Weiss; Horst Weller; Fabian Westermeier; Ming Xu; Huijie Yan; Yuan Zeng; Ying Zhao; Yuliang Zhao; Dingcheng Zhu; Ying Zhu; Wolfgang J Parak Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Amit Sud; Subhayan Chattopadhyay; Hauke Thomsen; Kristina Sundquist; Jan Sundquist; Richard S Houlston; Kari Hemminki Journal: Blood Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Judith E Lupatsch; Christian Kreis; Garyfallos Konstantinoudis; Marc Ansari; Claudia E Kuehni; Ben D Spycher Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Cato M Milder; Gerald M Kendall; Aryana Arsham; Helmut Schöllnberger; Richard Wakeford; Harry M Cullings; Mark P Little Journal: Int J Radiat Biol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 2.694
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