Robert D Daniels1, Gerald M Kendall2, Isabelle Thierry-Chef3,4,5, Martha S Linet6, Harry M Cullings7. 1. Division of Science Integration, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH. 2. Cancer Epidemiology Unit, NDPH, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. Barcelona Institute for Global Health, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. 4. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. 5. CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Spain. 6. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 7. Department of Statistics, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A monograph systematically evaluating recent evidence on the dose-response relationship between low-dose ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risk required a critical appraisal of dosimetry methods in 26 potentially informative studies. METHODS: The relevant literature included studies published in 2006-2017. Studies comprised case-control and cohort designs examining populations predominantly exposed to sparsely ionizing radiation, mostly from external sources, resulting in average doses of no more than 100 mGy. At least two dosimetrists reviewed each study and appraised the strengths and weaknesses of the dosimetry systems used, including assessment of sources and effects of dose estimation error. An overarching concern was whether dose error might cause the spurious appearance of a dose-response where none was present. RESULTS: The review included 8 environmental, 4 medical, and 14 occupational studies that varied in properties relative to evaluation criteria. Treatment of dose estimation error also varied among studies, although few conducted a comprehensive evaluation. Six studies appeared to have known or suspected biases in dose estimates. The potential for these biases to cause a spurious dose-response association was constrained to three case-control studies that relied extensively on information gathered in interviews conducted after case ascertainment. CONCLUSIONS: The potential for spurious dose-response associations from dose information appeared limited to case-control studies vulnerable to recall errors that may be differential by case status. Otherwise, risk estimates appeared reasonably free of a substantial bias from dose estimation error. Future studies would benefit from a comprehensive evaluation of dose estimation errors, including methods accounting for their potential effects on dose-response associations. Published by Oxford University Press 2020. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND: A monograph systematically evaluating recent evidence on the dose-response relationship between low-dose ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risk required a critical appraisal of dosimetry methods in 26 potentially informative studies. METHODS: The relevant literature included studies published in 2006-2017. Studies comprised case-control and cohort designs examining populations predominantly exposed to sparsely ionizing radiation, mostly from external sources, resulting in average doses of no more than 100 mGy. At least two dosimetrists reviewed each study and appraised the strengths and weaknesses of the dosimetry systems used, including assessment of sources and effects of dose estimation error. An overarching concern was whether dose error might cause the spurious appearance of a dose-response where none was present. RESULTS: The review included 8 environmental, 4 medical, and 14 occupational studies that varied in properties relative to evaluation criteria. Treatment of dose estimation error also varied among studies, although few conducted a comprehensive evaluation. Six studies appeared to have known or suspected biases in dose estimates. The potential for these biases to cause a spurious dose-response association was constrained to three case-control studies that relied extensively on information gathered in interviews conducted after case ascertainment. CONCLUSIONS: The potential for spurious dose-response associations from dose information appeared limited to case-control studies vulnerable to recall errors that may be differential by case status. Otherwise, risk estimates appeared reasonably free of a substantial bias from dose estimation error. Future studies would benefit from a comprehensive evaluation of dose estimation errors, including methods accounting for their potential effects on dose-response associations. Published by Oxford University Press 2020. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Marina O Degteva; Lynn R Anspaugh; Alexander V Akleyev; Peter Jacob; Denis V Ivanov; Albrecht Wieser; Marina I Vorobiova; Elena A Shishkina; Valentina A Shved; Alexandra Vozilova; Sergey N Bayankin; Bruce A Napier Journal: Health Phys Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 1.316
Authors: M O Degteva; N B Shagina; E I Tolstykh; N G Bougrov; V I Zalyapin; L R Anspaugh; B A Napier Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: Ausrele Kesminiene; Anne-Sophie Evrard; Viktor K Ivanov; Irina V Malakhova; Juozas Kurtinaitise; Aivars Stengrevics; Mare Tekkel; Sergei Chekin; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Yuri Gavrilin; Ivan Golovanov; Viktor P Kryuchkov; Evaldas Maceika; Anatoly K Mirkhaidarov; Semion Polyakov; Vanessa Tenet; Aleksandr R Tukov; Graham Byrnes; Elisabeth Cardis Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 2.841
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: Victor Kryuchkov; Vadim Chumak; Evaldas Maceika; Lynn R Anspaugh; Elisabeth Cardis; Elena Bakhanova; Ivan Golovanov; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Nickolas Luckyanov; Ausrele Kesminiene; Paul Voillequé; André Bouville Journal: Health Phys Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.316
Authors: Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Robert D Daniels; Elisabeth Cardis; Harry M Cullings; Ethel Gilbert; Michael Hauptmann; Gerald Kendall; Dominique Laurier; Martha S Linet; Mark P Little; Jay H Lubin; Dale L Preston; David B Richardson; Daniel Stram; Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Mary K Schubauer-Berigan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2020-07-01
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: Kyle Steenland; M K Schubauer-Berigan; R Vermeulen; R M Lunn; K Straif; S Zahm; P Stewart; W D Arroyave; S S Mehta; N Pearce Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Mark P Little; Richard Wakeford; Simon D Bouffler; Kossi Abalo; Michael Hauptmann; Nobuyuki Hamada; Gerald M Kendall Journal: Environ Int Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 13.352