Literature DB >> 32942303

Lifetime Mortality Risk from Cancer and Circulatory Disease Predicted from the Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivor Life Span Study Data Taking Account of Dose Measurement Error.

Mark P Little1, David Pawel2, Munechika Misumi3, Nobuyuki Hamada4, Harry M Cullings3, Richard Wakeford5, Kotaro Ozasa6.   

Abstract

Dosimetric measurement error is known to potentially bias the magnitude of the dose response, and can also affect the shape of dose response. In this report, generalized relative and absolute rate models are fitted to the latest Japanese atomic bomb survivor solid cancer, leukemia and circulatory disease mortality data (followed from 1950 through 2003), with the latest (DS02R1) dosimetry, using Bayesian techniques to adjust for errors in dose estimates and assessing other model uncertainties. Linear-quadratic models are fitted and used to assess lifetime mortality risks for contemporary UK, USA, French, Russian, Japanese and Chinese populations. For a test dose of 0.1 Gy absorbed dose weighted by neutron relative biological effectiveness, solid cancer, leukemia and circulatory disease mortality risks for a UK population using a generalized linear-quadratic relative rate model were estimated to be 3.88% Gy-1 [95% Bayesian credible interval (BCI): 1.17, 6.97], 0.35% Gy-1 (95% BCI: -0.03, 0.78) and 2.24% Gy-1 (95% BCI: -0.17, 13.76), respectively. Using a generalized absolute rate linear-quadratic model at 0.1 Gy, the lifetime risks for these three end points were estimated to be 3.56% Gy-1 (95% BCI: 0.54, 6.78), 0.41% Gy-1 (95% BCI: 0.01, 0.86) and 1.56% Gy-1 (95% BCI: -1.10, 7.21), respectively. There was substantial evidence of curvature for solid cancer (in particular, the group of solid cancers excluding lung, breast and stomach cancers) and leukemia, so that for solid cancer and leukemia, estimates of excess risk per unit dose were nearly doubled by increasing the dose from 0.01 to 1.0 Gy, with most of the increase occurring in the interval from 0.1 to 1.0 Gy. For circulatory disease, the dose-response curvature was inverse, so that risk per unit dose was nearly halved by going from 0.01 t o 1.0 Gy weighted absorbed dose, although there were substantial uncertainties. In general, there were higher radiation risks for females compared to males. This was true for solid cancer and circulatory disease overall, as well as for lung, breast, stomach and the group of other solid cancers, and was the case whether relative or absolute rate projection models were employed; however, for leukemia this pattern was reversed. Risk estimates varied somewhat between populations, with lower cancer risks in aggregate for China and Russia, but higher circulatory disease risks for Russia, particularly using the relative rate model. There was more pronounced variation for certain cancer sites and certain types of projection models, so that breast cancer risk was markedly lower in China and Japan using a relative rate model, but the opposite was the case for stomach cancer. There was less variation between countries using the absolute rate models for stomach cancer and breast cancer, but this was not the case for lung cancer and the group of other solid cancers, or for circulatory disease. ©2020 by Radiation Research Society. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32942303      PMCID: PMC7646983          DOI: 10.1667/RR15571.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  43 in total

1.  Evidence for curvilinearity in the cancer incidence dose-response in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

Authors:  M P Little; C R Muirhead
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.694

2.  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2007

Review 3.  A systematic review of epidemiological associations between low and moderate doses of ionizing radiation and late cardiovascular effects, and their possible mechanisms.

Authors:  M P Little; E J Tawn; I Tzoulaki; R Wakeford; G Hildebrandt; F Paris; S Tapio; P Elliott
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.841

4.  Projection of cancer risks from the Japanese atomic bomb survivors to the England and Wales population taking into account uncertainty in risk parameters.

Authors:  M P Little; I Deltour; S Richardson
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Conditional independence models for epidemiological studies with covariate measurement error.

Authors:  S Richardson; W R Gilks
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-09-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  A Bayesian approach to measurement error problems in epidemiology using conditional independence models.

Authors:  S Richardson; W R Gilks
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1993-09-15       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Corrections for exposure measurement error in logistic regression models with an application to nutritional data.

Authors:  J Kuha
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1994-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, Report 14, 1950-2003: an overview of cancer and noncancer diseases.

Authors:  Kotaro Ozasa; Yukiko Shimizu; Akihiko Suyama; Fumiyoshi Kasagi; Midori Soda; Eric J Grant; Ritsu Sakata; Hiromi Sugiyama; Kazunori Kodama
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 2.841

9.  Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998.

Authors:  D L Preston; E Ron; S Tokuoka; S Funamoto; N Nishi; M Soda; K Mabuchi; K Kodama
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.841

10.  Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part III. Leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma, 1950-1987.

Authors:  D L Preston; S Kusumi; M Tomonaga; S Izumi; E Ron; A Kuramoto; N Kamada; H Dohy; T Matsuo; T ] Matsui T [corrected to Matsuo
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 2.841

View more
  6 in total

1.  Radiation cancer risk at different dose rates: new dose-rate effectiveness factors derived from revised A-bomb radiation dosimetry data and non-tumor doses.

Authors:  Hiroshi Tanooka
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 2.724

Review 2.  Cancer risks among studies of medical diagnostic radiation exposure in early life without quantitative estimates of dose.

Authors:  Mark P Little; Richard Wakeford; Simon D Bouffler; Kossi Abalo; Michael Hauptmann; Nobuyuki Hamada; Gerald M Kendall
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2022-03-26       Impact factor: 10.753

3.  Impact of uncertainties in exposure assessment on thyroid cancer risk among cleanup workers in Ukraine exposed due to the Chornobyl accident.

Authors:  Mark P Little; Elizabeth K Cahoon; Natalia Gudzenko; Kiyohiko Mabuchi; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Maureen Hatch; Alina V Brenner; Vibha Vij; Konstantin Chizhov; Elena Bakhanova; Natalia Trotsyuk; Victor Kryuchkov; Ivan Golovanov; Vadim Chumak; Dimitry Bazyka
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 12.434

Review 4.  Cardiovascular Disease Risk Modeling for Astronauts: Making the Leap From Earth to Space.

Authors:  Janice L Huff; Ianik Plante; Steve R Blattnig; Ryan B Norman; Mark P Little; Amit Khera; Lisa C Simonsen; Zarana S Patel
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-05-19

5.  Temporal Changes in Sparing and Enhancing Dose Protraction Effects of Ionizing Irradiation for Aortic Damage in Wild-Type Mice.

Authors:  Nobuyuki Hamada; Ki-Ichiro Kawano; Takaharu Nomura; Kyoji Furukawa; Farina Mohamad Yusoff; Tatsuya Maruhashi; Makoto Maeda; Ayumu Nakashima; Yukihito Higashi
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 6.  Review of the risk of cancer following low and moderate doses of sparsely ionising radiation received in early life in groups with individually estimated doses.

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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.