Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To examined the impact of reproductive factors on the relationship between radiation treatment (RT) for a first breast cancer and risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). METHODS:The Women's Environmental Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology (WECARE) Study is a multi-center, population-based case-control study where cases are women with asynchronous CBC (N = 1521) and controls are women with unilateral breast cancer (N = 2211). Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using conditional logistic regression to assess the independent and joint effects of RT (ever/never and location-specific stray radiation dose to the contralateral breast [0, >0-<1Gy, ≥1Gy]) and reproductive factors (e.g., parity). RESULTS:Nulliparous women treated with RT (≥1Gy dose) were at increased risk of CBC compared with nulliparous women not treated with RT, although this relationship did not reach statistical significance (RR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.87, 2.07). Women treated with RT who had an interval pregnancy (i.e., pregnancy after first diagnosis and before second diagnosis [in cases]/reference date [in controls]) had an increased risk of CBC compared with those who had an interval pregnancy with no RT (RR = 4.60, 95% CI 1.16, 18.28). This was most apparent for women with higher radiation doses to the contralateral breast. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Among young female survivors of breast cancer, we found some evidence suggesting that having an interval pregnancy could increase a woman's risk of CBC following RT for a first breast cancer. While sampling variability precludes strong interpretations, these findings suggest a role for pregnancy and hormonal factors in radiation-associated CBC.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Radiation therapy for breast cancer is associated with increased risk of a second primary contralateral breast cancer, but the genetic factors modifying this association are not well understood. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine whether a genetic risk score comprising single nucleotide polymorphisms in the nonhomologous end-joining DNA repair pathway is associated with radiation-associated contralateral breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This case-control study included a case group of women with contralateral breast cancer that was diagnosed at least 1 year after a first primary breast cancer who were individually matched to a control group of women with unilateral breast cancer. Inclusion criteria were receiving a first invasive breast cancer diagnosis prior to age 55 years between 1985 and 2008. Women were recruited through 8 population-based cancer registries in the United States, Canada, and Denmark as part of the Women's Environment, Cancer, and Radiation Epidemiology Studies I (November 2000 to August 2004) and II (March 2010 to December 2012). Data analysis was conducted from July 2017 to August 2019. Exposures/UNASSIGNED:Stray radiation dose to the contralateral breast during radiation therapy for the first breast cancer. A novel genetic risk score comprised of genetic variants in the nonhomologous end-joining DNA repair pathway was considered the potential effect modifier, dichotomized as high risk if the score was above the median of 74 and low risk if the score was at or below the median. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The main outcome was risk of contralateral breast cancer associated with stray radiation dose stratified by genetic risk score, age, and latency. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 5953 women were approached for study participation, and 3732 women (62.7%) agreed to participate. The median (range) age at first diagnosis was 46 (23-54) years. After 5 years of latency or more, among women who received the first diagnosis when they were younger than 40 years, exposure to 1.0 Gy (to convert to rad, multiply by 100) or more of stray radiation was associated with a 2-fold increased risk of contralateral breast cancer compared with women who were not exposed (rate ratio, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.6]). The risk was higher among women with a genetic risk score above the median (rate ratio, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.1-8.1]), and there was no association among women with a genetic risk score below the median (rate ratio, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.5-3.7]). Among younger women with a high genetic risk score, the attributable increased risk for contralateral breast cancer associated with stray radiation dose was 28%. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:This study found an increased risk of contralateral breast cancer that was attributable to stray radiation exposure among women with a high genetic risk score and who received a first breast cancer diagnosis when they were younger than 40 years after 5 years or more of latency. This genetic risk score may help guide treatment and surveillance for women with breast cancer.

There have been some concerns about the influence of medical X rays in dose-response analysis of atomic bomb radiation on health outcomes. Among atomic bomb survivors in the Life Span Study, the association between atomic bomb radiation dose and exposures to medical X rays was investigated using questionnaire data collected by a mail survey conducted between 2007-2011, soliciting information on the history of computed tomography (CT) scans, gastrointestinal fluoroscopy, angiography and radiotherapy. Among 12,670 participants, 76% received at least one CT scan; 77%, a fluoroscopic examination; 23%, an angiographic examination; and 8%, radiotherapy. Descriptive and multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that medical X rays were administered in greater frequencies among those who were exposed to an atomic bomb radiation dose of 1.0 Gy or higher, compared to those exposed to lower doses. This is possibly explained by a greater frequency in major chronic diseases such as cancer in the ≥1.0 Gy group. The frequency of medical X rays in the groups exposed to 0.005-0.1 Gy or 0.1-1.0 Gy did not differ significantly from those exposed to <0.005 Gy. An analysis of finer dose groups under 1 Gy likewise showed no differences in frequencies of medical X rays. Thus, no evidence of material confounding of atomic bomb effects was found. Among those exposed to atomic bomb doses <1 Gy, doses were not associated with medical radiation exposures. The significant association of doses ≥1 Gy with medical radiation exposures likely produces no substantive bias in radiation effect estimates because diagnostic medical X-ray doses are much lower than the atomic bomb doses. Further information on actual medical X-ray doses and on the validity of self-reports of X-ray procedures would strengthen this conclusion.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Commentary 27 examines recent epidemiologic data primarily from low-dose or low dose-rate studies of low linear-energy-transfer radiation and cancer to assess whether they support the linear no-threshold model as used in radiation protection. The commentary provides a critical review of low-dose or low dose-rate studies, most published within the last 10 y, that are applicable to current occupational, environmental, and medical radiation exposures. The strengths and weaknesses of the epidemiologic methods, dosimetry assessments, and statistical modeling of 29 epidemiologic studies of total solid cancer, leukemia, breast cancer, and thyroid cancer, as well as heritable effects and a few nonmalignant conditions, were evaluated. An appraisal of the degree to which the low-dose or low dose-rate studies supported a linear no-threshold model for radiation protection or on the contrary, demonstrated sufficient evidence that the linear no-threshold model is inappropriate for the purposes of radiation protection was also included. The review found that many, though not all, studies of solid cancer supported the continued use of the linear no-threshold model in radiation protection. Evaluations of the principal studies of leukemia and low-dose or low dose-rate radiation exposure also lent support for the linear no-threshold model as used in protection. Ischemic heart disease, a major type of cardiovascular disease, was examined briefly, but the results of recent studies were considered too weak or inconsistent to allow firm conclusions regarding support of the linear no-threshold model. It is acknowledged that the possible risks from very low doses of low linear-energy-transfer radiation are small and uncertain and that it may never be possible to prove or disprove the validity of the linear no-threshold assumption by epidemiologic means. Nonetheless, the preponderance of recent epidemiologic data on solid cancer is supportive of the continued use of the linear no-threshold model for the purposes of radiation protection. This conclusion is in accord with judgments by other national and international scientific committees, based on somewhat older data. Currently, no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes than the linear no-threshold model.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (MCW) was the earliest uranium processing facility in the United States, and in 1942 produced the uranium oxide used for the first sustained and controlled nuclear fission chain-reaction at the University of Chicago. A second follow-up through 2012 was conducted of 2514 White male workers employed 1942-1966 at the MCW for dose-response analyses for selected causes of death. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Organ/tissue-specific dose reconstruction included both external (12,686 MCW film badge records, 210 other facility film badge records, and 31,297 occupational chest x-rays) and internal sources of uranium and radium (39,451 urine bioassays, 2341 breath radon measurements, and 6846 ambient radon measurements). Dust measurements from pitchblende facilitated quantitative risk estimates for non-radiogenic effects on the lung and kidney. Vital status was determined from multiple sources including the National Death Index and the Social Security Administration. Cox regression models were used for dose response analyses. RESULTS:of 1.01 (1.00-1.02). CONCLUSIONS:A positive radiation dose response was observed for malignant and non-malignant kidney disease, and a negative dose response for malignant and non-malignant lung disease. Cumulative measures of dust were significantly associated with malignant and non-malignant lung disease and suggested for malignant and non-malignant kidney disease. Small numbers preclude definitive interpretations which will await the combination with similar studies of early uranium processing workers.

The recently published NCRP Commentary No. 27 evaluated the new information from epidemiologic studies as to their degree of support for applying the linear nonthreshold (LNT) model of carcinogenic effects for radiation protection purposes [1]. The aim was to determine whether recent epidemiologic studies of low-LET radiation, particularly those at low doses and/or low dose rates (LD/LDR), broadly support the LNT model of carcinogenic risk or, on the contrary, demonstrate sufficient evidence that the LNT model is inappropriate for the purposes of radiation protection. An updated review was needed because a considerable number of reports of radiation epidemiologic studies based on new or updated data have been published since other major reviews were conducted by national and international scientific committees. The Commentary provides a critical review of the LD/LDR studies that are most directly applicable to current occupational, environmental and medical radiation exposure circumstances. This Memorandum summarizes several of the more important LD/LDR studies that incorporate radiation dose responses for solid cancer and leukaemia that were reviewed in Commentary No. 27. In addition, an overview is provided of radiation studies of breast and thyroid cancers, and cancer after childhood exposures. Non-cancers are briefly touched upon such as ischemic heart disease, cataracts, and heritable genetic effects. To assess the applicability and utility of the LNT model for radiation protection, the Commentary evaluated 29 epidemiologic studies or groups of studies, primarily of total solid cancer, in terms of strengths and weaknesses in their epidemiologic methods, dosimetry approaches, and statistical modeling, and the degree to which they supported a LNT model for continued use in radiation protection. Recommendations for how to make epidemiologic radiation studies more informative are outlined. The NCRP Committee recognizes that the risks from LD/LDR are small and uncertain. The Committee judged that the available epidemiologic data were broadly supportive of the LNT model and that at this time no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes.

Purpose The Women's Environmental Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology (WECARE) study demonstrated the importance of breast cancer family history on contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, even for noncarriers of deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations. With the completion of WECARE II, updated risk estimates are reported. Additional analyses that exclude women negative for deleterious mutations in ATM, CHEK2*1100delC, and PALB2 were performed. Patients and Methods The WECARE Study is a population-based case-control study that compared 1,521 CBC cases with 2,212 individually matched unilateral breast cancer (UBC) controls. Participants were younger than age 55 years when diagnosed with a first invasive breast cancer between 1985 and 2008. Women were interviewed about breast cancer risk factors, including family history. A subset of women was screened for deleterious mutations in BRCA1/2, ATM, CHEK2*1100delC, and PALB2. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated using multivariable conditional logistic regression. Cumulative absolute risks (ARs) were estimated by combining RRs from the WECARE Study and population-based SEER*Stat cancer incidence data. Results Women with any first-degree relative with breast cancer had a 10-year AR of 8.1% for CBC (95% CI, 6.7% to 9.8%). Risks also were increased if the relative was diagnosed at an age younger than 40 years (10-year AR, 13.5%; 95% CI, 8.8% to 20.8%) or with CBC (10-year AR, 14.1%; 95% CI, 9.5% to 20.7%). These risks are comparable with those seen in BRCA1/2 deleterious mutation carriers (10-year AR, 18.4%; 95% CI, 16.0% to 21.3%). In the subset of women who tested negative for deleterious mutations in BRCA1/2, ATM, CHEK2*1100delC, and PALB2, estimates were unchanged. Adjustment for known breast cancer single-nucleotide polymorphisms did not affect estimates. Conclusion Breast cancer family history confers a high CBC risk, even after excluding women with deleterious mutations. Clinicians are urged to use detailed family histories to guide treatment and future screening decisions for young women with breast cancer.