Literature DB >> 7761580

Lung cancer mortality between 1950 and 1987 after exposure to fractionated moderate-dose-rate ionizing radiation in the Canadian fluoroscopy cohort study and a comparison with lung cancer mortality in the Atomic Bomb survivors study.

G R Howe1.   

Abstract

Current lung cancer risk estimates after exposure to low-linear energy transfer radiation such as X rays are based on studies of people exposed to such radiation at high dose rates, for example the atomic bomb survivors. Radiobiology and animal experiments suggest that risks from exposure at low to moderate dose rates, for example medical diagnostic procedures, may be over-estimated by such risk models, but data for humans to examine this issue are limited. In this paper we report on lung cancer mortality between 1950 and 1987 in a cohort of 64,172 Canadian tuberculosis patients, of whom 39% were exposed to highly fractionated multiple chest fluoroscopies leading to a mean lung radiation dose of 1.02 Sv received at moderate dose rates. These data have been used to estimate the excess relative risk per sievert of lung cancer mortality, and this is compared directly to estimates derived from 75,991 atomic bomb survivors. Based on 1,178 lung cancer deaths in the fluoroscopy study, there was no evidence of any positive association between risk and dose, with the relative risk at 1 Sv being 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.94, 1.07), which contrasts with that based on the atomic bomb survivors, 1.60 (1.27, 1.99). The difference in effect between the two studies almost certainly did not arise by chance (P = 0.0001). This study provides strong support from data for humans for a substantial fractionation/dose-rate effect for low-linear energy transfer radiation and lung cancer risk.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7761580

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


  26 in total

Review 1.  Hormesis, an update of the present position.

Authors:  Lennart Johansson
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-04-26       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  Effects of radiation exposure from cardiac imaging: how good are the data?

Authors:  Andrew J Einstein
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Circulatory disease mortality in the Massachusetts tuberculosis fluoroscopy cohort study.

Authors:  Mark P Little; Lydia B Zablotska; Alina V Brenner; Steven E Lipshultz
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-08-09       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  Fluoroscopy X-Ray Organ-Specific Dosimetry System (FLUXOR) for Estimation of Organ Doses and Their Uncertainties in the Canadian Fluoroscopy Cohort Study.

Authors:  A Iulian Apostoaei; Brian A Thomas; F Owen Hoffman; David C Kocher; Kathleen M Thiessen; David Borrego; Choonsik Lee; Steven L Simon; Lydia B Zablotska
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  A rebuttal to chiropractic radiologists' view of the 50-year-old, linear-no-threshold radiation risk model.

Authors:  Paul A Oakley; Donald D Harrison; Deed E Harrison; Jason W Haas
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2006-09

6.  Sparsely ionizing diagnostic and natural background radiations are likely preventing cancer and other genomic-instability-associated diseases.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott; Jennifer Di Palma
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2006-12-21       Impact factor: 2.658

7.  Smoking and hormesis as confounding factors in radiation pulmonary carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Charles L Sanders; Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2006-12-06       Impact factor: 2.658

8.  Stochastic thresholds: a novel explanation of nonlinear dose-response relationships for stochastic radiobiological effects.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2006-05-22       Impact factor: 2.658

9.  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 10.  Cardiac imaging: does radiation matter?

Authors:  Andrew J Einstein; Juhani Knuuti
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 29.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.