Literature DB >> 3480381

Radiation dose and leukemia risk in patients treated for cancer of the cervix.

J D Boice1, M Blettner, R A Kleinerman, M Stovall, W C Moloney, G Engholm, D F Austin, A Bosch, D L Cookfair, E T Krementz, H B Latourette, L J Peters, M D Schulz, M Lundell, F Pettersson, H H Storm, C M Bell, M P Coleman, P Fraser, M Palmer, P Prior, N W Choi, T G Hislop, M Koch, D Robb, D Robson, R F Spengler, D von Fournier, R Frischkorn, H Lochmüller, V Pompe-Kirn, A Rimpela, K Kjørstad, M H Pejovic, K Sigurdsson, P Pisani, H Kucera, G B Hutchison.   

Abstract

To quantify the risk of radiation-induced leukemia and provide further information on the nature of the relationship between dose and response, a case-control study was undertaken in a cohort of over 150,000 women with invasive cancer of the uterine cervix. The cases either were reported to one of 17 population-based cancer registries or were treated in any of 16 oncologic clinics in Canada, Europe, and the United States. Four controls were individually matched to each of 195 cases of leukemia on the basis of age and calendar year when diagnosed with cervical cancer and survival time. Leukemia diagnoses were verified by one hematologist. Radiation dose to active bone marrow was estimated by medical physicists on the basis of the original radiotherapy records of study subjects. The risk of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, one of the few malignancies without evidence for an association with ionizing radiation, was not increased [relative risk (RR) = 1.03; n = 52]. However, for all other forms of leukemia taken together (n = 143), a twofold risk was evident (RR = 2.0; 90% confidence interval = 1.0-4.2). Risk increased with increasing radiation dose until average doses of about 400 rad (4 Gy) were reached and then decreased at higher doses. This pattern is consistent with experimental data for which the down-turn in risk at high doses has been interpreted as due to killing of potentially leukemic cells. The dose-response information was modeled with various RR functions, accounting for the nonhomogeneous distribution of radiation dose during radiotherapy. The local radiation doses to each of 14 bone marrow compartments for each patient were incorporated in the models, and the corresponding risks were summed. A good fit to the observed data was obtained with a linear-exponential function, which included a positive linear induction term and a negative exponential term. The estimate of the excess RR per rad was 0.9%, and the estimated RR at 100 rad (1 Gy) was 1.7. The model proposed in this study of risk proportional to mass exposed and of risk to an individual given by the sum of incremental risks to anatomic sites appears to be applicable to a wide range of dose distributions. Furthermore, the pattern of leukemia incidence associated with different levels of radiation dose is consistent with a model postulating increasing risk with increasing exposure, modified at high doses by increased frequency of cell death, which reduces risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3480381

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  38 in total

1.  A new view of radiation-induced cancer.

Authors:  I Shuryak; R K Sachs; D J Brenner
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-11-27       Impact factor: 0.972

Review 2.  Second malignant neoplasms and cardiovascular disease following radiotherapy.

Authors:  Lois B Travis; Andrea K Ng; James M Allan; Ching-Hon Pui; Ann R Kennedy; X George Xu; James A Purdy; Kimberly Applegate; Joachim Yahalom; Louis S Constine; Ethel S Gilbert; John D Boice
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-02-06       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Cancer risks after radiation exposure in middle age.

Authors:  Igor Shuryak; Rainer K Sachs; David J Brenner
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-10-25       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do.

Authors:  Mark P Little; Richard Wakeford; E Janet Tawn; Simon D Bouffler; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk.

Authors:  Harrison H Barrett; Kyle J Myers; Christoph Hoeschen; Matthew A Kupinski; Mark P Little
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Epipodophyllotoxins, alkylating agents, and radiation and risk of secondary leukaemia after childhood cancer.

Authors:  M M Hawkins; L M Wilson; M A Stovall; H B Marsden; M H Potok; J E Kingston; J M Chessells
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-04-11

7.  30 years After the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident: Time for Reflection and Re-evaluation of Current Disaster Preparedness Plans.

Authors:  Lydia B Zablotska
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.671

Review 8.  Cancer burden and trends in the Asian Pacific Rim region.

Authors:  Binh H Yang; D Maxwell Parkin; Lin Cai; Zuo Feng Zhang
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2004 Apr-Jun

Review 9.  Histologic verification of leukemia, myelodysplasia, and multiple myeloma diagnoses in patients in Ukraine, 1987-1998.

Authors:  Irina Dyagil; Mircea Adam; Gilbert W Beebe; J David Burch; Svetlana N Gaidukova; Daniel Gluzman; Natalia Gudzenko; Victor Klimenko; LoAnn Peterson; Robert F Reiss; Stuart C Finch
Journal:  Int J Hematol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.490

Review 10.  Ionising radiation and cancer risks: what have we learned from epidemiology?

Authors:  Ethel S Gilbert
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.694

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.