Martha S Linet1, Mary K Schubauer-Berigan2, Amy Berrington de González1. 1. Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, Rockville, MD. 2. Monographs Programme, Evidence Synthesis and Classification Section, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcome assessment problems and errors that could lead to biased risk estimates in low-dose radiation epidemiological studies of cancer risks have not been systematically evaluated. METHODS: Incidence or mortality risks for all cancers or all solid cancers combined and for leukemia were examined in 26 studies published in 2006-2017 involving low-dose (mean dose ≤100 mGy) radiation from environmental, medical, or occupational sources. We evaluated the impact of loss to follow-up, under- or overascertainment, outcome misclassification, and changing classifications occurring similarly or differentially across radiation dose levels. RESULTS: Loss to follow-up was not reported in 62% of studies, but when reported it was generally small. Only one study critically evaluated the completeness of the sources of vital status. Underascertainment of cancers ("false negatives") was a potential shortcoming for cohorts that could not be linked with high-quality population-based registries, particularly during early years of exposure in five studies, in two lacking complete residential history, and in one with substantial emigration. False positives may have occurred as a result of cancer ascertainment from self- or next-of-kin report in three studies or from enhanced medical surveillance of exposed patients that could lead to detection bias (eg, reporting precancer lesions as physician-diagnosed cancer) in one study. Most pediatric but few adult leukemia studies used expert hematopathology review or current classifications. Only a few studies recoded solid cancers to the latest International Classification of Diseases or International Classification of Diseases for Oncology codes. These outcome assessment shortcomings were generally nondifferential in relation to radiation exposure level except possibly in four studies. CONCLUSION: The majority of studies lacked information to enable comprehensive evaluation of all major sources of outcome assessment errors, although reported data suggested that the outcome assessment limitations generally had little effect on risk or biased estimates towards the null except possibly in four studies. Published by Oxford University Press 2020. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND: Outcome assessment problems and errors that could lead to biased risk estimates in low-dose radiation epidemiological studies of cancer risks have not been systematically evaluated. METHODS: Incidence or mortality risks for all cancers or all solid cancers combined and for leukemia were examined in 26 studies published in 2006-2017 involving low-dose (mean dose ≤100 mGy) radiation from environmental, medical, or occupational sources. We evaluated the impact of loss to follow-up, under- or overascertainment, outcome misclassification, and changing classifications occurring similarly or differentially across radiation dose levels. RESULTS: Loss to follow-up was not reported in 62% of studies, but when reported it was generally small. Only one study critically evaluated the completeness of the sources of vital status. Underascertainment of cancers ("false negatives") was a potential shortcoming for cohorts that could not be linked with high-quality population-based registries, particularly during early years of exposure in five studies, in two lacking complete residential history, and in one with substantial emigration. False positives may have occurred as a result of cancer ascertainment from self- or next-of-kin report in three studies or from enhanced medical surveillance of exposed patients that could lead to detection bias (eg, reporting precancer lesions as physician-diagnosed cancer) in one study. Most pediatric but few adult leukemia studies used expert hematopathology review or current classifications. Only a few studies recoded solid cancers to the latest International Classification of Diseases or International Classification of Diseases for Oncology codes. These outcome assessment shortcomings were generally nondifferential in relation to radiation exposure level except possibly in four studies. CONCLUSION: The majority of studies lacked information to enable comprehensive evaluation of all major sources of outcome assessment errors, although reported data suggested that the outcome assessment limitations generally had little effect on risk or biased estimates towards the null except possibly in four studies. Published by Oxford University Press 2020. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
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; Lydia B Zablotska; David Borrego; Keith T Griffin; Rodrigue S Allodji; Florent de Vathaire; Choonsik Lee; Alina V Brenner; Jeremy S Miller; David Campbell; Siegal Sadetzki; Michele M Doody; Erik Holmberg; Marie Lundell; Michael Jacob Adams; Benjamin French; Martha S Linet; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez Journal: Leukemia Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 11.528
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