Epidemiological Studies of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation and Cancer: Rationale and Framework for the Monograph and Overview of Eligible Studies

A Historical Survey of Key Epidemiological Studies of Ionizing Radiation Exposure

In this article we review the history of key epidemiological studies of populations exposed to ionizing radiation. We highlight historical and recent findings regarding radiation-associated risks for incidence and mortality of cancer and non-cancer outcomes with emphasis on study design and methods of exposure assessment and dose estimation along with brief consideration of sources of bias for a few of the more important studies. We examine the findings from the epidemiological studies of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, persons exposed to radiation for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes, those exposed to environmental sources including Chornobyl and other reactor accidents, and occupationally exposed cohorts. We also summarize results of pooled studies. These summaries are necessarily brief, but we provide references to more detailed information. We discuss possible future directions of study, to include assessment of susceptible populations, and possible new populations, data sources, study designs and methods of analysis.

Improving the Safety of Computed Tomography Through Automated Quality Measurement: A Radiologist Reader Study of Radiation Dose, Image Noise, and Image Quality

OBJECTIVES

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services funded the development of a computed tomography (CT) quality measure for use in pay-for-performance programs, which balances automated assessments of radiation dose with image quality to incentivize dose reduction without compromising the diagnostic utility of the tests. However, no existing quantitative method for assessing CT image quality has been validated against radiologists' image quality assessments on a large number of CT examinations. Thus to develop an automated measure of image quality, we tested the relationship between radiologists' subjective ratings of image quality with measurements of radiation dose and image noise.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Board-certified, posttraining, clinically active radiologists rated the image quality of 200 diagnostic CT examinations from a set of 734, representing 14 CT categories. Examinations with significant distractions, motion, or artifact were excluded. Radiologists rated diagnostic image quality as excellent, adequate, marginally acceptable, or poor; the latter 2 were considered unacceptable for rendering diagnoses. We quantified the relationship between ratings and image noise and radiation dose, by category, by analyzing the odds of an acceptable rating per standard deviation (SD) increase in noise or geometric SD (gSD) in dose.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five radiologists contributed 24,800 ratings. Most (89%) were acceptable. The odds of an examination being rated acceptable statistically significantly increased per gSD increase in dose and decreased per SD increase in noise for most categories, including routine dose head, chest, and abdomen-pelvis, which together comprise 60% of examinations performed in routine practice. For routine dose abdomen-pelvis, the most common category, each gSD increase in dose raised the odds of an acceptable rating (2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-3.24), whereas each SD increase in noise decreased the odds (0.90; 0.79-0.99). For only 2 CT categories, high-dose head and neck/cervical spine, neither dose nor noise was associated with ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation dose and image noise correlate with radiologists' image quality assessments for most CT categories, making them suitable as automated metrics in quality programs incentivizing reduction of excessive radiation doses.

Virtual Pooled Registry-Cancer Linkage System: an improved method for ascertaining cancer diagnoses

BACKGROUND

The National Cancer Institute funds many large cohort studies that rely on self-reported cancer data requiring medical record validation. This is labor intensive, costly, and prone to underreporting or misreporting of cancer and disparity-related differential response. US population-based central cancer registries identify incident cancer within their catchment area, yielding all malignant neoplasms and benign brain and central nervous system tumors with standardized data fields. This manuscript describes the development, implementation, and features of a system to facilitate linkage between cohort studies and cancer registries and the release of cancer registry data for matched cohort participants.

METHODS

The Virtual Pooled Registry-Cancer Linkage System (VPR-CLS) provides an online system to link cohorts with multiple state cancer registries by 1) securely transmitting a study file to registries, 2) providing an optimized linkage algorithm to generate preliminary match counts, and 3) providing a streamlined process and templated forms for submitting and tracking data requests for cohort participants who matched with registries.

RESULTS

In 2022, the VPR-CLS launched with 45 registries, covering 95% of the US state populations and Puerto Rico. Registries have linked with 15 studies having 14 273-10.9 million participants. Except in 1 study, linkage sensitivity ranged from 87.0% to 99.9%. Numerous registries have adopted the VPR-CLS templated institutional review board-registry application (n = 39), templated data use agreement (n = 25), and central institutional review board (n = 16).

CONCLUSIONS

The VPR-CLS markedly improves ascertainment of cancer outcomes and is the preferred approach for determination of outcomes from cohort studies, postmarketing surveillance, and clinical trials.

Types of Evidence Needed to Assess the Clinical Value of Diagnostic Imaging

AbstractThe evidence underlying the use of advanced diagnostic imaging is based mainly on diagnostic accuracy studies and not on well-designed trials demonstrating improved patient outcomes. This has led to an expansion of low-value and potentially harmful patient care and raises ethical issues around the widespread implementation of tests with incompletely known benefits and harms. Randomized clinical trials are needed to support the safety and effectiveness of imaging tests and should be required for clearance of most new technologies. Large, diverse cohort studies are needed to quantify disease risk associated with many imaging findings, especially incidental findings, to enable evidence-based management. The responsibility to minimize the use of tests with unknown or low value requires engagement of clinicians, medical societies, and the public.

Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward

Medical imaging is both valuable and essential in the care of patients. Much of this imaging depends on ionizing radiation with attendant responsibilities for judicious use when performing an examination. This responsibility applies in settings of both individual as well as multiple (recurrent) imaging with associated repeated radiation exposures. In addressing the roles and responsibilities of the medical communities in the paradigm of recurrent imaging, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) have issued position statements, each affirmed by other organizations. The apparent difference in focus and approach has resulted in a lack of clarity and continued debate. Aiming towards a coherent approach in dealing with radiation exposure in recurrent imaging, the IAEA convened a panel of experts, the purpose of which was to identify common ground and reconcile divergent perspectives. The effort has led to clarifying recommendations for radiation exposure aspects of recurrent imaging, including the relevance of patient agency and the provider-patient covenant in clinical decision-making. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: An increasing awareness, generating some lack of clarity and divergence in perspectives, with patients receiving relatively high radiation doses (e.g., ≥ 100 mSv) from recurrent imaging warrants a multi-stakeholder accord for the benefit of patients, providers, and the imaging community. KEY POINTS: • Recurrent medical imaging can result in an accumulation of exposures which exceeds 100 milli Sieverts. • Professional organizations have different perspectives on roles and responsibilities for recurrent imaging. • An expert panel reconciles differing perspectives for addressing radiation exposure from recurrent medical imaging.

A generalisation of the method of regression calibration and comparison with Bayesian and frequentist model averaging methods

For many cancer sites low-dose risks are not known and must be extrapolated from those observed in groups exposed at much higher levels of dose. Measurement error can substantially alter the dose-response shape and hence the extrapolated risk. Even in studies with direct measurement of low-dose exposures measurement error could be substantial in relation to the size of the dose estimates and thereby distort population risk estimates. Recently, there has been considerable attention paid to methods of dealing with shared errors, which are common in many datasets, and particularly important in occupational and environmental settings. In this paper we test Bayesian model averaging (BMA) and frequentist model averaging (FMA) methods, the first of these similar to the so-called Bayesian two-dimensional Monte Carlo (2DMC) method, and both fairly recently proposed, against a very newly proposed modification of the regression calibration method, the extended regression calibration (ERC) method, which is particularly suited to studies in which there is a substantial amount of shared error, and in which there may also be curvature in the true dose response. The quasi-2DMC with BMA method performs well when a linear model is assumed, but very poorly when a linear-quadratic model is assumed, with coverage probabilities both for the linear and quadratic dose coefficients that are under 5% when the magnitude of shared Berkson error is large (50%). For the linear model the bias is generally under 10%. However, using a linear-quadratic model it produces substantially biased (by a factor of 10) estimates of both the linear and quadratic coefficients, with the linear coefficient overestimated and the quadratic coefficient underestimated. FMA performs as well as quasi-2DMC with BMA when a linear model is assumed, and generally much better with a linear-quadratic model, although the coverage probability for the quadratic coefficient is uniformly too high. However both linear and quadratic coefficients have pronounced upward bias, particularly when Berkson error is large. By comparison ERC yields coverage probabilities that are too low when shared and unshared Berkson errors are both large (50%), although otherwise it performs well, and coverage is generally better than the quasi-2DMC with BMA or FMA methods, particularly for the linear-quadratic model. The bias of the predicted relative risk at a variety of doses is generally smallest for ERC, and largest for the quasi-2DMC with BMA and FMA methods (apart from unadjusted regression), with standard regression calibration and Monte Carlo maximum likelihood exhibiting bias in predicted relative risk generally somewhat intermediate between ERC and the other two methods. In general ERC performs best in the scenarios presented, and should be the method of choice in situations where there may be substantial shared error, or suspected curvature in the dose response.

A generalisation of the method of regression calibration and comparison with Bayesian and frequentist model averaging methods

For many cancer sites low-dose risks are not known and must be extrapolated from those observed in groups exposed at much higher levels of dose. Measurement error can substantially alter the dose-response shape and hence the extrapolated risk. Recently, there has been considerable attention paid to methods of dealing with shared errors, which are particularly important in occupational and environmental settings. In this paper we test Bayesian model averaging (BMA) and frequentist model averaging (FMA) methods, the first of these similar to the so-called Bayesian two-dimensional Monte Carlo (2DMC) method, and both fairly recently proposed, against a very newly proposed modification of the regression calibration method, the extended regression calibration (ERC) method. The quasi-2DMC+BMA method performs well when a linear model is assumed, but poorly when a linear-quadratic model is assumed. FMA performs as well as quasi-2DMC+BMA when a linear model is assumed, and generally much better with a linear-quadratic model, although the coverage probability for the quadratic coefficient is uniformly too high. ERC yields coverage probabilities that are too low when shared and unshared Berkson errors are both large (50%), although otherwise it performs well, and coverage is generally better than the quasi-2DMC+BMA or FMA methods, particularly for the linear-quadratic model. The bias of predicted relative risk at a variety of doses is generally smallest for ERC, and largest for quasi-2DMC+BMA and FMA, with standard regression calibration and Monte Carlo maximum likelihood exhibiting bias in predicted relative risk generally somewhat intermediate between ERC and the other two methods. In general ERC performs best in the scenarios presented, and should be the method of choice in situations where there may be substantial shared error, or suspected curvature in the dose response.

COVID-19 and cancer risk arising from ionizing radiation exposure through CT scans: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The surge in the utilization of CT scans for COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring during the pandemic is undeniable. This increase has brought to the forefront concerns about the potential long-term health consequences, especially radiation-induced cancer risk. This study aimed to quantify the potential cancer risk associated with CT scans performed for COVID-19 detection.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study data from a total of 561 patients, who were referred to the radiology center at Imam Hossein Hospital in Shahroud, was collected. CT scan reports were categorized into three groups based on the radiologist's interpretation. The BEIR VII model was employed to estimate the risk of radiation-induced cancer.

RESULTS

Among the 561 patients, 299 (53.3%) were males and the average age of the patients was 49.61 ± 18.73 years. Of the CT scans, 408 (72.7%) were reported as normal. The average age of patients with normal, abnormal, and potentially abnormal CT scans was 47.57 ± 19.06, 54.80 ± 16.70, and 58.14 ± 16.60 years, respectively (p-value < 0.001). The average effective dose was 1.89 ± 0.21 mSv, with 1.76 ± 0.11 mSv for males and 2.05 ± 0.29 mSv for females (p-value < 0.001). The average risk of lung cancer was 3.84 ± 1.19 and 9.73 ± 3.27 cases per 100,000 patients for males and females, respectively. The average LAR for all cancer types was 10.30 ± 6.03 cases per 100,000 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the critical issue of increased CT scan usage for COVID-19 diagnosis and the potential long-term consequences, especially the risk of cancer incidence. Healthcare policies should be prepared to address this potential rise in cancer incidence and the utilization of CT scans should be restricted to cases where laboratory tests are not readily available or when clinical symptoms are severe.

Radiation-Related Thyroid Cancer

Radiation is an environmental factor that elevates the risk of developing thyroid cancer. Actual and possible scenarios of exposures to external and internal radiation are multiple and diverse. This article reviews radiation doses to the thyroid and corresponding cancer risks due to planned, existing, and emergency exposure situations, and medical, public, and occupational categories of exposures. Any exposure scenario may deliver a range of doses to the thyroid, and the risk for cancer is addressed along with modifying factors. The consequences of the Chornobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plant accidents are described, summarizing the information on thyroid cancer epidemiology, treatment, and prognosis, clinicopathological characteristics, and genetic alterations. The Chornobyl thyroid cancers have evolved in time: becoming less aggressive and driver shifting from fusions to point mutations. A comparison of thyroid cancers from the 2 areas reveals numerous differences that cumulatively suggest the low probability of the radiogenic nature of thyroid cancers in Fukushima. In view of continuing usage of different sources of radiation in various settings, the possible ways of reducing thyroid cancer risk from exposures are considered. For external exposures, reasonable measures are generally in line with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable principle, while for internal irradiation from radioactive iodine, thyroid blocking with stable iodine may be recommended in addition to other measures in case of anticipated exposures from a nuclear reactor accident. Finally, the perspectives of studies of radiation effects on the thyroid are discussed from the epidemiological, basic science, and clinical points of view.

A generalisation of the method of regression calibration and comparison with the Bayesian 2-dimensional Monte Carlo method

For many cancer sites it is necessary to assess risks from low-dose exposures via extrapolation from groups exposed at moderate and high levels of dose. Measurement error can substantially alter the shape of this relationship and hence the derived population risk estimates. Even in studies with direct measurement of low-dose exposures measurement error could be substantial in relation to the size of the dose estimates and thereby distort population risk estimates. Recently, much attention has been devoted to the issue of shared errors, common in many datasets, and particularly important in occupational settings. In this paper we test a Bayesian model averaging method, the so-called Bayesian two-dimensional Monte Carlo (2DMC) method, that has been fairly recently proposed against a very newly proposed modification of the regression calibration method, which is particularly suited to studies in which there is a substantial amount of shared error, and in which there may also be curvature in the true dose response. We also compared both methods against standard regression calibration and Monte Carlo maximum likelihood. The Bayesian 2DMC method performs poorly, with coverage probabilities both for the linear and quadratic dose coefficients that are under 5%, particularly when the magnitudes of classical and Berkson error are both moderate to large (20%-50%). The method also produces substantially biased (by a factor of 10) estimates of both the linear and quadratic coefficients, with the linear coefficient overestimated and the quadratic coefficient underestimated. By comparison the extended regression calibration method yields coverage probabilities that are too low when shared and unshared Berkson errors are both large (50%), although otherwise it performs well, and coverage is generally better than the Bayesian 2DMC and all other methods. The bias of the predicted relative risk at a variety of doses is generally smallest for extended regression calibration, and largest for the Bayesian 2DMC method (apart from unadjusted regression), with standard regression calibration and Monte Carlo maximum likelihood exhibiting bias in predicted relative risk generally somewhat intermediate between the other two methods.

Effects of low-dose ionizing radiation on genomic instability in interventional radiology workers

Interventional radiologists are chronically exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation (IR), which may represent a health risk. The aim of the present study was to evaluate genomic instability by analyzing chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, and 53BP1 DNA repair foci in peripheral blood lymphocytes of radiologists. Based on the IAEA guidelines on biodosimetry using dicentrics, the average protracted whole-body dose in radiologists were estimated. Since preleukemic fusion genes (PFG) are the primary events leading to leukemia, we also studied their presence by RT-qPCR and FISH. No significant difference in 53BP1 foci and incidence of PFG (MLL-AF4, MLL-AF9, AML1-ETO, BCR-ABL p190) was found in cells of interventional radiologists in comparison to controls. However, our results showed an increased frequency of micronuclei and various types of chromosomal aberrations including dicentrics in interventional radiologists. The average protracted whole body estimated dose was defined at 452.63 mGy. We also found a significantly higher amplification of the MLL gene segment and increased RNA expression in cells of interventional radiologists in comparison to controls. In conclusion, our results showed that long-term low-dose IR induces genomic instability in interventional radiologists.

A generalisation of the method of regression calibration

There is direct evidence of risks at moderate and high levels of radiation dose for highly radiogenic cancers such as leukaemia and thyroid cancer. For many cancer sites, however, it is necessary to assess risks via extrapolation from groups exposed at moderate and high levels of dose, about which there are substantial uncertainties. Crucial to the resolution of this area of uncertainty is the modelling of the dose-response relationship and the importance of both systematic and random dosimetric errors for analyses in the various exposed groups. It is well recognised that measurement error can alter substantially the shape of this relationship and hence the derived population risk estimates. Particular attention has been devoted to the issue of shared errors, common in many datasets, and particularly important in occupational settings. We propose a modification of the regression calibration method which is particularly suited to studies in which there is a substantial amount of shared error, and in which there may also be curvature in the true dose response. This method can be used in settings where there is a mixture of Berkson and classical error. In fits to synthetic datasets in which there is substantial upward curvature in the true dose response, and varying (and sometimes substantial) amounts of classical and Berkson error, we show that the coverage probabilities of all methods for the linear coefficient [Formula: see text] are near the desired level, irrespective of the magnitudes of assumed Berkson and classical error, whether shared or unshared. However, the coverage probabilities for the quadratic coefficient [Formula: see text] are generally too low for the unadjusted and regression calibration methods, particularly for larger magnitudes of the Berkson error, whether this is shared or unshared. In contrast Monte Carlo maximum likelihood yields coverage probabilities for [Formula: see text] that are uniformly too high. The extended regression calibration method yields coverage probabilities that are too low when shared and unshared Berkson errors are both large, although otherwise it performs well, and coverage is generally better than these other three methods. A notable feature is that for all methods apart from extended regression calibration the estimates of the quadratic coefficient [Formula: see text] are substantially upwardly biased.

A generalisation of the method of regression calibration

There is direct evidence of risks at moderate and high levels of radiation dose for highly radiogenic cancers such as leukaemia and thyroid cancer. For many cancer sites, however, it is necessary to assess risks via extrapolation from groups exposed at moderate and high levels of dose, about which there are substantial uncertainties. Crucial to the resolution of this area of uncertainty is the modelling of the dose-response relationship and the importance of both systematic and random dosimetric errors for analyses in the various exposed groups. It is well recognised that measurement error can alter substantially the shape of this relationship and hence the derived population risk estimates. Particular attention has been devoted to the issue of shared errors, common in many datasets, and particularly important in occupational settings. We propose a modification of the regression calibration method which is particularly suited to studies in which there is a substantial amount of shared error, and in which there may also be curvature in the true dose response. This method can be used in settings where there is a mixture of Berkson and classical error. In fits to synthetic datasets in which there is substantial upward curvature in the true dose response, and varying (and sometimes substantial) amounts of classical and Berkson error, we show that the coverage probabilities of all methods for the linear coefficient \(\alpha\) are near the desired level, irrespective of the magnitudes of assumed Berkson and classical error, whether shared or unshared. However, the coverage probabilities for the quadratic coefficient \(\beta\) are generally too low for the unadjusted and regression calibration methods, particularly for larger magnitudes of the Berkson error, whether this is shared or unshared. In contrast Monte Carlo maximum likelihood yields coverage probabilities for \(\beta\) that are uniformly too high. The extended regression calibration method yields coverage probabilities that are too low when shared and unshared Berkson errors are both large, although otherwise it performs well, and coverage is generally better than these other three methods. A notable feature is that for all methods apart from extended regression calibration the estimates of the quadratic coefficient \(\beta\) are substantially upwardly biased.

Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of protracted low dose, low dose rate exposure to ionising radiation on the risk of cancer.

DESIGN

Multinational cohort study.

SETTING

Cohorts of workers in the nuclear industry in France, the UK, and the US included in a major update to the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS).

PARTICIPANTS

309 932 workers with individual monitoring data for external exposure to ionising radiation and a total follow-up of 10.7 million person years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Estimates of excess relative rate per gray (Gy) of radiation dose for mortality from cancer.

RESULTS

The study included 103 553 deaths, of which 28 089 were due to solid cancers. The estimated rate of mortality due to solid cancer increased with cumulative dose by 52% (90% confidence interval 27% to 77%) per Gy, lagged by 10 years. Restricting the analysis to the low cumulative dose range (0-100 mGy) approximately doubled the estimate of association (and increased the width of its confidence interval), as did restricting the analysis to workers hired in the more recent years of operations when estimates of occupational external penetrating radiation dose were recorded more accurately. Exclusion of deaths from lung cancer and pleural cancer had a modest effect on the estimated magnitude of association, providing indirect evidence that the association was not substantially confounded by smoking or occupational exposure to asbestos.

CONCLUSIONS

This major update to INWORKS provides a direct estimate of the association between protracted low dose exposure to ionising radiation and solid cancer mortality based on some of the world's most informative cohorts of radiation workers. The summary estimate of excess relative rate solid cancer mortality per Gy is larger than estimates currently informing radiation protection, and some evidence suggests a steeper slope for the dose-response association in the low dose range than over the full dose range. These results can help to strengthen radiation protection, especially for low dose exposures that are of primary interest in contemporary medical, occupational, and environmental settings.

Accelerated subsequent lung cancer after post-operative radiotherapy for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Post-operative whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (BC) may increase the risk of subsequent lung cancer (LC). The impact of radiotherapy intensification (boost) has not been specifically explored in this context. We investigated the role of radiation modalities on the development of subsequent LC among our patients treated by radiotherapy for localized BC.

METHODS

All patients with a diagnosis of LC between 2000 and 2020 with a history of prior localized BC treated by surgery and post-operative radiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. Primary endpoint was time to first diagnosis of LC after BC treatment with radiotherapy (RT).

RESULTS

From 98 patients who developed subsequent LC after primary BC treated with post-operative RT, 38% of patients (n = 37) received an additional RT boost, and 46% (n = 45) received hormonal treatment post radiation. A total of 61% (n = 60) were smokers. With regards to LC characteristics, adenocarcinoma was the most frequent histology (68%, n = 66); 36% (n = 35) harbored at least 1 molecular alteration, 57% (n = 20) of them being amenable to targeted therapy. Median time to first diagnosis of LC was 6 years [1.7-28.4 yrs] in the whole cohort. In the subgroup of patients treated with boost this time was reduced to 4 years [1.8-20.8 years] compared to 8 years for patients without boost [1.7-28.4 yrs] (p = 0.007). Boost, smoking usage, endocrine therapy, and age <50 yrs old at BC radiation remained independent factors associated with shorter time to first diagnosis of LC after BC treatment.

DISCUSSION

We report for the first time the potential impact of boost -part of BC radiation treatment- for BC on the risk of subsequent LC. The impact of low dose radiation on lung parenchyma could explain this phenomenon, but the underlying physiopathology is still under investigation. This work highlights the need for clinicians to identify patients at risk of developing faster subsequent thoracic malignancy after BC radiation, for implementing personalized surveillance.

Lympho-hematopoietic malignancies risk after exposure to low dose ionizing radiation during cardiac catheterization in childhood

Pediatric patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) often undergo low dose ionizing radiation (LDIR) from cardiac catheterization (CC) for the diagnosis and/or treatment of their disease. Although radiation doses from a single CC are usually low, less is known about the long-term radiation associated cancer risks. We aimed to assess the risk of lympho-hematopoietic malignancies in pediatric CHD patients diagnosed or treated with CC. A French cohort of 17,104 children free of cancer who had undergone a first CC from 01/01/2000 to 31/12/2013, before the age of 16 was set up. The follow-up started at the date of the first recorded CC until the exit date, i.e., the date of death, the date of first cancer diagnosis, the date of the 18th birthday, or the 31/12/2015, whichever occurred first. Poisson regression was used to estimate the LDIR associated cancer risk. The median follow-up was 5.9 years, with 110,335 person-years. There were 22,227 CC procedures, yielding an individual active bone marrow (ABM) mean cumulative dose of 3.0 milligray (mGy). Thirty-eight incident lympho-hematopoietic malignancies were observed. When adjusting for attained age, gender and predisposing factors to cancer status, no increased risk was observed for lympho-hematopoietic malignancies RR/mGy = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.88; 1.10). In summary, the risk of lympho-hematopoietic malignancies and lymphoma was not associated to LDIR in pediatric patients with CHD who undergo CC. Further epidemiological studies with greater statistical power are needed to improve the assessment of the dose-risk relationship.

The scientific basis for the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model at low doses and dose rates in radiological protection

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model was introduced into the radiological protection system about 60 years ago, but this model and its use in radiation protection are still debated today. This article presents an overview of results on effects of exposure to low linear-energy-transfer radiation in radiobiology and epidemiology accumulated over the last decade and discusses their impact on the use of the LNT model in the assessment of radiation-related cancer risks at low doses. The knowledge acquired over the past 10 years, both in radiobiology and epidemiology, has reinforced scientific knowledge about cancer risks at low doses. In radiobiology, although certain mechanisms do not support linearity, the early stages of carcinogenesis comprised of mutational events, which are assumed to play a key role in carcinogenesis, show linear responses to doses from as low as 10 mGy. The impact of non-mutational mechanisms on the risk of radiation-related cancer at low doses is currently difficult to assess. In epidemiology, the results show excess cancer risks at dose levels of 100 mGy or less. While some recent results indicate non-linear dose relationships for some cancers, overall, the LNT model does not substantially overestimate the risks at low doses. Recent results, in radiobiology or in epidemiology, suggest that a dose threshold, if any, could not be greater than a few tens of mGy. The scientific knowledge currently available does not contradict the use of the LNT model for the assessment of radiation-related cancer risks within the radiological protection system, and no other dose-risk relationship seems more appropriate for radiological protection purposes.

The Evidence for Excess Risk of Cancer and Non-Cancer Disease at Low Doses and Dose Rates

The question of whether there are excess radiation-associated health risks at low dose is controversial. We present evidence of excess cancer risks in a number of (largely pediatrically or in utero exposed) groups exposed to low doses of radiation (<0.1 Gy). Moreover, the available data on biological mechanisms do not provide support for the idea of a low-dose threshold or hormesis for any of these endpoints. There are emerging data suggesting risks of cardiovascular disease and cataract at low doses, but this is less well established. This large body of evidence does not suggest and, indeed, is not statistically compatible with any very large threshold in dose (>10 mGy), or with possible beneficial effects from exposures. The presented data suggest that exposure to low-dose radiation causes excess cancer risks and quite possibly also excess risks of various non-cancer endpoints.

Inter-agency perspective: Translating advances in biomarker discovery and medical countermeasures development between terrestrial and space radiation environments

Over the past 20+ years, the U.S. Government has made significant strides in establishing research funding and initiating a portfolio consisting of subject matter experts on radiation-induced biological effects in normal tissues. Research supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) provided much of the early findings on identifying cellular pathways involved in radiation injuries, due to the need to push the boundaries to kill tumor cells while minimizing damage to intervening normal tissues. By protecting normal tissue surrounding the tumors, physicians can deliver a higher radiation dose to tumors and reduce adverse effects related to the treatment. Initially relying on this critical NCI research, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), first tasked with developing radiation medical countermeasures in 2004, has provided bridge funding to move basic research toward advanced development and translation. The goal of the NIAID program is to fund approaches that can one day be employed to protect civilian populations during a radiological or nuclear incident. In addition, with the reality of long-term space flights and the possibility of radiation exposures to both acute, high-intensity, and chronic lower-dose levels, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has identified requirements to discover and develop radioprotectors and mitigators to protect their astronauts during space missions. In sustained partnership with sister agencies, these three organizations must continue to leverage funding and findings in their overlapping research areas to accelerate biomarker identification and product development to help safeguard these different and yet undeniably similar human populations - cancer patients, public citizens, and astronauts.

Chromosomal damage in occupationally exposed health professionals assessed by two cytogenetic methods

The study assessed occupationally induced chromosomal damage in hospital personnel at risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs and/or low doses of ionizing radiation by two cytogenetic methods. Cultured peripheral blood lymphocytes of eighty-five hospital workers were examined twice over 2 to 3 years by classical chromosomal aberration analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization. The comparison of the 1^st and the 2^nd sampling of hospital workers showed a significant increase in chromatid and chromosomal aberrations (all p < .05) examined by classical chromosomal aberration analysis, and in unstable aberrations (all p < .05) detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Both cytogenetic methods were able to detect an increase of unstable aberrations in the 2^nd sampling. The raised frequency of unstable cytogenetic parameters suggested higher recent exposure to genotoxic agents.

Nuclear and Radiological Emergencies: Biological Effects, Countermeasures and Biodosimetry

Atomic and radiological crises can be caused by accidents, military activities, terrorist assaults involving atomic installations, the explosion of nuclear devices, or the utilization of concealed radiation exposure devices. Direct damage is caused when radiation interacts directly with cellular components. Indirect effects are mainly caused by the generation of reactive oxygen species due to radiolysis of water molecules. Acute and persistent oxidative stress associates to radiation-induced biological damages. Biological impacts of atomic radiation exposure can be deterministic (in a period range a posteriori of the event and because of destructive tissue/organ harm) or stochastic (irregular, for example cell mutation related pathologies and heritable infections). Potential countermeasures according to a specific scenario require considering basic issues, e.g., the type of radiation, people directly affected and first responders, range of doses received and whether the exposure or contamination has affected the total body or is partial. This review focuses on available medical countermeasures (radioprotectors, radiomitigators, radionuclide scavengers), biodosimetry (biological and biophysical techniques that can be quantitatively correlated with the magnitude of the radiation dose received), and strategies to implement the response to an accidental radiation exposure. In the case of large-scale atomic or radiological events, the most ideal choice for triage, dose assessment and victim classification, is the utilization of global biodosimetry networks, in combination with the automation of strategies based on modular platforms.

Age effects on radiation response: summary of a recent symposium and future perspectives

One of the principal uncertainties when estimating population risk of late effects from epidemiological data is that few radiation-exposed cohorts have been followed up to extinction. Therefore, the relative risk model has often been used to estimate radiation-associated risk and to extrapolate risk to the end of life. Epidemiological studies provide evidence that children are generally at higher risk of cancer induction than adults for a given radiation dose. However, the strength of evidence varies by cancer site and questions remain about site-specific age at exposure patterns. For solid cancers, there is a large body of evidence that excess relative risk (ERR) diminishes with increasing age at exposure. This pattern of risk is observed in the Life Span Study (LSS) as well as in other radiation-exposed populations for overall solid cancer incidence and mortality and for most site-specific solid cancers. However, there are some disparities by endpoint in the degree of variation of ERR with exposure age, with some sites (e.g., colon, lung) in the LSS incidence data showing no variation, or even increasing ERR with increasing age at exposure. The pattern of variation of excess absolute risk (EAR) with age at exposure is often similar, with EAR for solid cancers or solid cancer mortality decreasing with increasing age at exposure in the LSS. We shall review the human data from the Japanese LSS cohort, and a variety of other epidemiological data sets, including a review of types of medical diagnostic exposures, also some radiobiological animal data, all bearing on the issue of variations of radiation late-effects risk with age at exposure and with attained age. The paper includes a summary of several oral presentations given in a Symposium on "Age effects on radiation response" as part of the 67th Annual Meeting of the Radiation Research Society, held virtually on 3-6 October 2021.

Modulation of Secondary Cancer Risks from Radiation Exposure by Sex, Age and Gonadal Hormone Status: Progress, Opportunities and Challenges

Available data on cancer secondary to ionizing radiation consistently show an excess (2-fold amount) of radiation-attributable solid tumors in women relative to men. This excess risk varies by organ and age, with the largest sex differences (6- to more than 10-fold) found in female thyroid and breasts exposed between birth until menopause (~50 years old) relative to age-matched males. Studies in humans and animals also show large changes in cell proliferation rates, radiotracer accumulation and target density in female reproductive organs, breast, thyroid and brain in conjunction with physiological changes in gonadal hormones during the menstrual cycle, puberty, lactation and menopause. These sex differences and hormonal effects present challenges as well as opportunities to personalize radiation-based treatment and diagnostic paradigms so as to optimize the risk/benefit ratios in radiation-based cancer therapy and diagnosis. Specifically, Targeted Radionuclide Therapy (TRT) is a fast-expanding cancer treatment modality utilizing radiopharmaceuticals with high avidity to specific molecular tumor markers, many of which are influenced by sex and gonadal hormone status. However, past and present dosimetry studies of TRT agents do not stratify results by sex and hormonal environment. We conclude that cancer management using ionizing radiation should be personalized and informed by the patient sex, age and hormonal status.

Low-dose ionizing radiation and cancer mortality among enlisted men stationed on nuclear-powered submarines in the United States Navy

BACKGROUND

Men stationed on nuclear-powered submarines are occupationally exposed to external ionizing radiation at very low levels and radiation dose for each individual is closely monitored. Little is known about ionizing radiation (IR) risks of cancer mortality for populations with levels of cumulative ionizing radiation exposure this low.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This historical cohort study followed 85,033 enlisted men who had served on a nuclear-powered submarine in the U.S. Navy between 1969 and 1982 to determine patterns of cancer mortality. Occupational radiation doses were measured by badge dosimeters for each individual for all periods of Navy service potentially involving radiation exposure. Deaths were ascertained through 1995 by searches of multiple national mortality databases. Within-cohort dose-response relationships for cancer mortality were estimated using linear Poisson regression models. Individual level smoking status was not available so cancer risks were estimated separately for cancers with and without previously published evidence of consistently moderate or strong associations with smoking.

RESULTS

A total of 584 cancer deaths occurred during a follow-up period of up to 27 years. The mean and median cumulative occupational radiation doses received while in the Navy were 5.7 and 1.1 milliSieverts (mSv) respectively, range 0-242 mSv. Mortality Excess Relative Risks (ERRs) per 10 mSv and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were 0.053 (CI -0.03, 0.17) for all cancers, 0.052 (CI -0.03, 0.18) for all solid cancers, and 0.003 (CI -0.29, 0.30) for leukemias excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The ERRs per 10 mSv were 0.052 (CI -0.07, 0.17) for cancers previously associated with smoking and 0.012 (CI -0.10, 0.12) for cancers that were not.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERR point estimates for solid cancers and leukemia were statistically compatible with those reported in previous published studies of other ionizing radiation-exposed and monitored cohorts, albeit with wide confidence intervals. This study, with high quality measurements of in-Navy occupational external IR doses, high follow-up proportion, and detailed IR dose-response analyses, is consistent with the premise of a small excess cancer risk from low-dose IR.

[Modern tomography imaging techniques in urological diseases]

BACKGROUND

Radiologic imaging is important for the detection, staging and follow-up of urological tumors. Basic therapy decisions for both oncological (surgical vs. systemic therapy, e.g. in testicular cancer) and non-oncological pathologies (interventional vs. conservative therapy, e.g. for ureteral stones) depend largely on the tomographic imaging performed. Due to its almost ubiquitous availability, speed and cost-effectiveness, computed tomography (CT) plays an important role not only in the clarification of abdominal trauma and non-traumatic emergencies, but also in staging and follow-up of oncological patients. However, the level of radiation exposure, impaired renal function and allergies to iodinated contrast media limit the use of CT. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be a good alternative for many areas of application in oncological and non-oncological imaging due to its high soft tissue differentiation and functional-specific protocols but without the use of ionizing radiation.

AIM

In the following, the main indications of abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI in urology and their limitations are summarized.

RESULTS

The areas of application between CT and MRI are increasingly overlapping, since the latest developments in CT continue to further reduce radiation exposure and increase contrast information, while the speed and robustness of MRI are significantly improving at the same time.

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

BACKGROUND

The detrimental health effects associated with the receipt of moderate (0.1-1 Gy) and high (>1 Gy) acute doses of sparsely ionising radiation are well established from human epidemiological studies. There is accumulating direct evidence of excess risk of cancer in a number of populations exposed at lower acute doses or doses received over a protracted period. There is evidence that relative risks are generally higher after radiation exposures in utero or in childhood.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We reviewed and summarised evidence from 60 studies of cancer or benign neoplasms following low- or moderate-level exposure in utero or in childhood from medical and environmental sources. In most of the populations studied the exposure was predominantly to sparsely ionising radiation, such as X-rays and gamma-rays. There were significant (p < 0.001) excess risks for all cancers, and particularly large excess relative risks were observed for brain/CNS tumours, thyroid cancer (including nodules) and leukaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the totality of this large body of data relating to in utero and childhood exposure provides support for the existence of excess cancer and benign neoplasm risk associated with radiation doses < 0.1 Gy, and for certain groups exposed to natural background radiation, to fallout and medical X-rays in utero, at about 0.02 Gy.

Cancer risk following low doses of ionising radiation - Current epidemiological evidence and implications for radiological protection

Recent studies suggest that every year worldwide about a million patients might be exposed to doses of the order of 100 mGy of low-LET radiation, due to recurrent application of radioimaging procedures. This paper presents a synthesis of recent epidemiological evidence on radiation-related cancer risks from low-LET radiation doses of this magnitude. Evidence from pooled analyses and meta-analyses also involving epidemiological studies that, individually, do not find statistically significant radiation-related cancer risks is reviewed, and evidence from additional and more recent epidemiological studies of radiation exposures indicating excess cancer risks is also summarized. Cohorts discussed in the present paper include Japanese atomic bomb survivors, nuclear workers, patients exposed for medical purposes, and populations exposed environmentally to natural background radiation or radioactive contamination. Taken together, the overall evidence summarized here is based on studies including several million individuals, many of them followed-up for more than half a century. In summary, substantial evidence was found from epidemiological studies of exposed groups of humans that ionizing radiation causes cancer at acute and protracted doses above 100 mGy, and growing evidence for doses below 100 mGy. The significant radiation-related solid cancer risks observed at doses of several 100 mGy of protracted exposures (observed, for example, among nuclear workers) demonstrate that doses accumulated over many years at low dose rates do cause stochastic health effects. On this basis, it can be concluded that doses of the order of 100 mGy from recurrent application of medical imaging procedures involving ionizing radiation are of concern, from the viewpoint of radiological protection.

Trends in Occupational Radiation Doses for U.S. Radiologic Technologists Performing General Radiologic and Nuclear Medicine Procedures, 1980-2015

Background Occupational doses to most medical radiation workers have declined substantially since the 1950s because of improvements in radiation protection practices. However, different patterns may have emerged for radiologic technologists working with nuclear medicine because of the higher per-procedure doses and increasing workloads. Purpose To summarize annual occupational doses during a 36-year period for a large cohort of U.S. radiologic technologists and to compare dose between general radiologic technologists and those specializing in nuclear medicine procedures. Materials and Methods Annual personal dose equivalents (referred to as doses) from 1980 to 2015 were summarized for 58 434 (62%) participants in the U.S. Radiologic Technologists (USRT) cohort who responded to the most recent mailed work history survey (years 2012-2014) and reported never regularly performing interventional procedures. Doses were partitioned according to the performance of nuclear medicine (yes or no, frequency, procedure type) by calendar year. Annual dose records were described by using summary statistics (eg, median and 25th and 75th percentiles). Results Median annual doses related to performance of general radiologic procedures decreased from 0.60 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 0.10-1.9 mSv) in 1980 to levels below the limits of detection by 2015, whereas annual doses related to performance of nuclear medicine procedures remained relatively high during this period (median, 1.2 mSv; IQR, 0.12-3.0 mSv). Higher median annual doses were associated with more frequent (above vs below the median) performance of diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures (≥35 vs <35 times per week; 1.6 mSv [IQR, 0.30-3.3 mSv] and 0.9 mSv [IQR, 0.10-2.6 mSv]). Higher and more variable annual doses were associated with more frequent performance of cardiac nuclear medicine (≥10 times per week) and PET (nine or more times per week) examinations (median, 1.6 mSv [IQR, 0.30-2.2 mSv] and 2.2 mSv [IQR, 0.10-4.6 mSv], respectively). Conclusion Annual doses to U.S. radiologic technologists performing general radiologic procedures declined during a 36-year period. However, consistently higher and more variable doses were associated with the performance of nuclear medicine procedures, particularly cardiac nuclear medicine and PET procedures. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mettler and Guiberteau in this issue.

Role of DNA Repair Variants and Diagnostic Radiology Exams in Differentiated Thyroid Cancer Risk: A Pooled Analysis of Two Case-Control Studies

BACKGROUND

Given the increased use and diversity of diagnostic procedures, it is important to understand genetic susceptibility to radiation-induced thyroid cancer.

METHODS

On the basis of self-declared diagnostic radiology examination records in addition to existing literature, we estimated the radiation dose delivered to the thyroid gland from diagnostic procedures during childhood and adulthood in two case-control studies conducted in France. A total of 1,071 differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) cases and 1,188 controls from the combined studies were genotyped using a custom-made Illumina OncoArray DNA chip. We focused our analysis on variants in genes involved in DNA damage response and repair pathways, representing a total of 5,817 SNPs in 571 genes. We estimated the OR per milli-Gray (OR/mGy) of the radiation dose delivered to the thyroid gland using conditional logistic regression. We then used an unconditional logistic regression model to assess the association between DNA repair gene variants and DTC risk. We performed a meta-analysis of the two studies.

RESULTS

The OR/mGy was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.03). We found significant associations between DTC and rs7164173 in CHD2 (P = 5.79 × 10-5), rs6067822 in NFATc2 (P = 9.26 × 10-5), rs1059394 and rs699517 both in ENOSF1/THYS, rs12702628 in RPA3, and an interaction between rs7068306 in MGMT and thyroid radiation doses (P = 3.40 × 10-4).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a role for variants in CDH2, NFATc2, ENOSF1/THYS, RPA3, and MGMT in DTC risk.

IMPACT

CDH2, NFATc2, ENOSF1/THYS, and RPA3 have not previously been shown to be associated with DTC risk.

Occupational radiation exposure and cancer incidence in a cohort of diagnostic medical radiation workers in South Korea

Objectives

We investigated the association between protracted low-dose ionising radiation and the risk of cancer in medical radiation workers, the largest group of workers with occupational radiation exposures.

Methods

Data of all South Korean diagnostic medical radiation workers enrolled at the National Dose Registry during 1996–2011 were merged with the death and cancer incidence data until 31 December 2017. SIRs, relative risks and excess relative risks (ERRs) for cancer were calculated to quantify the radiation dose–response relationship using Poisson regression models.

Results

A total of 3392 first primary cancer cases were identified among 93 920 diagnostic medical radiation workers. The mean cumulative badge dose in the cohort was 7.20 mSv. The ERRs for solid cancer with a 5-year lag and haematopoietic cancers with a 2-year lag for all workers were 0.15 per 100 mGy (95% CI −0.20 to 0.51) and 0.09 per 100 mGy (95% CI −2.02 to 2.20), respectively. The ERRs for cancers did not significantly vary by job title, different lag years or after excluding thyroid and lung cancers. Sensitivity analyses restricted to workers employed for at least 1 year, or who were employed in or after 1996, or who had exposure to a cumulative badge dose of 1 mSv or more showed similar results.

Conclusions

Occupational radiation doses were not significantly associated with cancer incidence among South Korean diagnostic medical radiation workers. However, cautious interpretation of ERRs is needed due to the limitations of short follow-up and low cumulative radiation doses.

Radiation-related genomic profile of papillary thyroid carcinoma after the Chernobyl accident

The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident increased papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) incidence in surrounding regions, particularly for radioactive iodine (¹³¹I)-exposed children. We analyzed genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenomic characteristics of 440 PTCs from Ukraine (from 359 individuals with estimated childhood ¹³¹I exposure and 81 unexposed children born after 1986). PTCs displayed radiation dose-dependent enrichment of fusion drivers, nearly all in the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, and increases in small deletions and simple/balanced structural variants that were clonal and bore hallmarks of nonhomologous end-joining repair. Radiation-related genomic alterations were more pronounced for individuals who were younger at exposure. Transcriptomic and epigenomic features were strongly associated with driver events but not radiation dose. Our results point to DNA double-strand breaks as early carcinogenic events that subsequently enable PTC growth after environmental radiation exposure.

Multicentric study of patients receiving 50 or 100 mSv in a single day through CT imaging-frequency determination and imaging protocols involved

OBJECTIVES

To assess the magnitude and characterization of CT imaging protocols of patients receiving 50 or 100 mSv in a single day.

METHODS

In this multicentric retrospective study covering up to 279 hospitals from January 2015 to December 2019, the effective dose (E) as estimated by dose management system from dose length product of patients was filtered and grouped into per-day dose bands (≤ 20, > 20-50, > 50-70, > 70-100, > 100-200, > 200 mSv). Information on patient's age and imaging protocol was noted. The data were analyzed to determine the frequency of occurrence in each dose band. Top 20 CT imaging protocols that led to patients with a dose of ≥ 50 mSv in a single acquisition were identified and their relative frequency was estimated.

RESULTS

A total of approx. 4.3 million (4,283,738) CT exams were performed in approx. 3.9 million (3,880,524) patient-days indicating 9.41% had more than one CT exam in a single day. There were 31,058 (0.8%) patient-days with ≥ 50 mSv and 1191 (0.03%) with ≥ 100 mSv. Nearly 1/3^rd patient-days reaching ≥ 50 mSv were of patients aged 50 years or younger. The top 20 CT imaging protocols that led to ≥ 50 mSv in a single day belonged to the body region (chest or abdomen and pelvis) and nearly one-third were angiographic studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In the first study of its kind, we report that patients with 50 mSv+ in a single day or a single exam are not rare. The information on imaging protocols leading to such doses and their frequency has been provided to help develop dose management strategies.

KEY POINTS

• Our study of 4,283,738 CT exams performed in 3,880,524 patient-days indicates 0.8% with 50 mSv+ and 0.03% with 100 mSv+ in a single day. • A total of 9.41% underwent more than one CT exam in a single day; nearly 1/3^rd of those with 50 mSv+ were ≤ 50 years of age. • Identified top 20 CT imaging protocols that led to 50 mSv+ doses in a single exam. All belong to chest or abdomen and pelvis and nearly 1/3^rd were angiographic studies.

Risk of cancer associated with low-dose radiation exposure: comparison of results between the INWORKS nuclear workers study and the A-bomb survivors study

The Life Span Study (LSS) of Japanese atomic bomb survivors has served as the primary basis for estimates of radiation-related disease risks that inform radiation protection standards. The long-term follow-up of radiation-monitored nuclear workers provides estimates of radiation-cancer associations that complement findings from the LSS. Here, a comparison of radiation-cancer mortality risk estimates derived from the LSS and INWORKS, a large international nuclear worker study, is presented. Restrictions were made, so that the two study populations were similar with respect to ages and periods of exposure, leading to selection of 45,625 A-bomb survivors and 259,350 nuclear workers. For solid cancer, excess relative rates (ERR) per gray (Gy) were 0.28 (90% CI 0.18; 0.38) in the LSS, and 0.29 (90% CI 0.07; 0.53) in INWORKS. A joint analysis of the data allowed for a formal assessment of heterogeneity of the ERR per Gy across the two studies (P = 0.909), with minimal evidence of curvature or of a modifying effect of attained age, age at exposure, or sex in either study. There was evidence in both cohorts of modification of the excess absolute risk (EAR) of solid cancer by attained age, with a trend of increasing EAR per Gy with attained age. For leukemia, under a simple linear model, the ERR per Gy was 2.75 (90% CI 1.73; 4.21) in the LSS and 3.15 (90% CI 1.12; 5.72) in INWORKS, with evidence of curvature in the association across the range of dose observed in the LSS but not in INWORKS; the EAR per Gy was 3.54 (90% CI 2.30; 5.05) in the LSS and 2.03 (90% CI 0.36; 4.07) in INWORKS. These findings from different study populations may help understanding of radiation risks, with INWORKS contributing information derived from cohorts of workers with protracted low dose-rate exposures.

Risk of Bias Assessments and Evidence Syntheses for Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Environmental and Occupational Exposures: Strengths and Limitations

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, risk of bias tools are used to evaluate epidemiologic studies as part of evidence synthesis (evidence integration), often involving meta-analyses. Some of these tools consider hypothetical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as gold standards.

METHODS

We review the strengths and limitations of risk of bias assessments, in particular, for reviews of observational studies of environmental exposures, and we also comment more generally on methods of evidence synthesis.

RESULTS

Although RCTs may provide a useful starting point to think about bias, they do not provide a gold standard for environmental studies. Observational studies should not be considered inherently biased vs. a hypothetical RCT. Rather than a checklist approach when evaluating individual studies using risk of bias tools, we call for identifying and quantifying possible biases, their direction, and their impacts on parameter estimates. As is recognized in many guidelines, evidence synthesis requires a broader approach than simply evaluating risk of bias in individual studies followed by synthesis of studies judged unbiased, or with studies given more weight if judged less biased. It should include the use of classical considerations for judging causality in human studies, as well as triangulation and integration of animal and mechanistic data.

CONCLUSIONS

Bias assessments are important in evidence synthesis, but we argue they can and should be improved to address the concerns we raise here. Simplistic, mechanical approaches to risk of bias assessments, which may particularly occur when these tools are used by nonexperts, can result in erroneous conclusions and sometimes may be used to dismiss important evidence. Evidence synthesis requires a broad approach that goes beyond assessing bias in individual human studies and then including a narrow range of human studies judged to be unbiased in evidence synthesis. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6980.

Epidemiological Studies of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation and Cancer: Summary Bias Assessment and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ionizing radiation is an established carcinogen, but risks from low-dose exposures are controversial. Since the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII review of the epidemiological data in 2006, many subsequent publications have reported excess cancer risks from low-dose exposures. Our aim was to systematically review these studies to assess the magnitude of the risk and whether the positive findings could be explained by biases.

METHODS

Eligible studies had mean cumulative doses of less than 100 mGy, individualized dose estimates, risk estimates, and confidence intervals (CI) for the dose-response and were published in 2006-2017. We summarized the evidence for bias (dose error, confounding, outcome ascertainment) and its likely direction for each study. We tested whether the median excess relative risk (ERR) per unit dose equals zero and assessed the impact of excluding positive studies with potential bias away from the null. We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the ERR and assess consistency across studies for all solid cancers and leukemia.

RESULTS

Of the 26 eligible studies, 8 concerned environmental, 4 medical, and 14 occupational exposure. For solid cancers, 16 of 22 studies reported positive ERRs per unit dose, and we rejected the hypothesis that the median ERR equals zero (P = .03). After exclusion of 4 positive studies with potential positive bias, 12 of 18 studies reported positive ERRs per unit dose (P  = .12). For leukemia, 17 of 20 studies were positive, and we rejected the hypothesis that the median ERR per unit dose equals zero (P  = .001), also after exclusion of 5 positive studies with potential positive bias (P  = .02). For adulthood exposure, the meta-ERR at 100 mGy was 0.029 (95% CI = 0.011 to 0.047) for solid cancers and 0.16 (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.25) for leukemia. For childhood exposure, the meta-ERR at 100 mGy for leukemia was 2.84 (95% CI = 0.37 to 5.32); there were only two eligible studies of all solid cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic assessments in this monograph showed that these new epidemiological studies are characterized by several limitations, but only a few positive studies were potentially biased away from the null. After exclusion of these studies, the majority of studies still reported positive risk estimates. We therefore conclude that these new epidemiological studies directly support excess cancer risks from low-dose ionizing radiation. Furthermore, the magnitude of the cancer risks from these low-dose radiation exposures was statistically compatible with the radiation dose-related cancer risks of the atomic bomb survivors.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Dosimetry Used in Studies of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure and Cancer

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.

Outcome Assessment in Epidemiological Studies of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risks: Sources, Level of Ascertainment, and Misclassification

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.

Evaluation of Confounding and Selection Bias in Epidemiological Studies of Populations Exposed to Low-Dose, High-Energy Photon Radiation

BACKGROUND

Low-dose, penetrating photon radiation exposure is ubiquitous, yet our understanding of cancer risk at low doses and dose rates derives mainly from high-dose studies. Although a large number of low-dose cancer studies have been recently published, concern exists about the potential for confounding to distort findings. The aim of this study was to describe and assess the likely impact of confounding and selection bias within the context of a systematic review.

METHODS

We summarized confounding control methods for 26 studies published from 2006 to 2017 by exposure setting (environmental, medical, or occupational) and identified confounders of potential concern. We used information from these and related studies to assess evidence for confounding and selection bias. For factors in which direct or indirect evidence of confounding was lacking for certain studies, we used a theoretical adjustment to determine whether uncontrolled confounding was likely to have affected the results.

RESULTS

For medical studies of childhood cancers, confounding by indication (CBI) was the main concern. Lifestyle-related factors were of primary concern for environmental and medical studies of adult cancers and for occupational studies. For occupational studies, other workplace exposures and healthy worker survivor bias were additionally of interest. For most of these factors, however, review of the direct and indirect evidence suggested that confounding was minimal. One study showed evidence of selection bias, and three occupational studies did not adjust for lifestyle or healthy worker survivor bias correlates. Theoretical adjustment for three factors (smoking and asbestos in occupational studies and CBI in childhood cancer studies) demonstrated that these were unlikely to explain positive study findings due to the rarity of exposure (eg, CBI) or the relatively weak association with the outcome (eg, smoking or asbestos and all cancers).

CONCLUSION

Confounding and selection bias are unlikely to explain the findings from most low-dose radiation epidemiology studies.

Issues in Interpreting Epidemiologic Studies of Populations Exposed to Low-Dose, High-Energy Photon Radiation

This article addresses issues relevant to interpreting findings from 26 epidemiologic studies of persons exposed to low-dose radiation. We review the extensive data from both epidemiologic studies of persons exposed at moderate or high doses and from radiobiology that together have firmly established radiation as carcinogenic. We then discuss the use of the linear relative risk model that has been used to describe data from both low- and moderate- or high-dose studies. We consider the effects of dose measurement errors; these can reduce statistical power and lead to underestimation of risks but are very unlikely to bring about a spurious dose response. We estimate statistical power for the low-dose studies under the assumption that true risks of radiation-related cancers are those expected from studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Finally, we discuss the interpretation of confidence intervals and statistical tests and the applicability of the Bradford Hill principles for a causal relationship.