Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: We examined the degree of over- and under-reporting of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) among female breast cancer survivors comparing self-reports to diagnostic codes from the Danish National Patient Register (NPR). METHODS: The study comprised 357 Danish breast cancer patients from the WECARE study who completed a telephone interview concerning CVDs. Disease diagnoses for these women were obtained from the NPR. Agreement was calculated as the number of diagnoses that were both self-reported and in the NPR divided by (1) number of self-reported diagnoses (over-reporting) or (2) number of diagnoses in the NPR (under-reporting). RESULTS: In total, 68 women reported 96 specific cardiovascular outcomes of which 56 (58%) were found in the NPR. Ninety cardiovascular diagnoses were found in the NPR of which 56 (62%) were specifically reported at the interview. There was 80% agreement as to the occurrence of a cardiovascular diagnosis overall. Of 289 women reporting no CVD, 273 (94%) had no diagnoses in the NPR. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer survivors seem to report absence of CVD accurately, but they both over-report and under-report specific cardiovascular diagnoses. Using a broader definition of CVDs improves the agreement between self-reported and NPR data. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Determining how cancer treatments affect the risk of cardiovascular morbidities is essential, and the development of high-quality methods for collecting such data is critical. While self-reported data are adequate for assessing the presence of any CVD condition, medical record review will yield higher quality data on specific CVD conditions.

For over four decades, a linear nonthreshold (LNT) model has been used for radiation protection purposes. In the United States of America, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) established Scientific Committee 1-25 in 2015 to prepare a commentary to review recent epidemiologic data from studies with low doses or low dose rates and from the Life Span Study of atomic-bomb survivors to determine whether these epidemiologic studies broadly support the LNT model. In May 2018, NCRP published Commentary No. 27 "Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear nonthreshold model and radiation protection", noting that the ongoing development of science requires a constant reassessment of prior and emerging evidence to assure that the approach to radiation protection is optimal, even if not necessarily perfect. Based on the current epidemiological data, NCRP concluded that the LNT model (perhaps with excess risk estimates reduced by a dose and dose rate effectiveness factor) should continue to be utilized for radiation protection purposes. The Commentary will be used to support the work of NCRP Council Committee 1 who are charged to develop current radiation protection guidance for the United States, ultimately updating and expanding the basic radiation protection recommendations of NCRP Report No. 116 published in 1993. This review provides an outline and summary of the key points of NCRP Commentary No. 27.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Studies of cancer survivors treated with older radiotherapy (RT) techniques (pre-1990s) strongly suggest that ionizing radiation to the chest increases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Our goal was to evaluate the impact of more modern cardiac shielding techniques of RT on the magnitude and timing of CHD risk by studying a cohort exposed to similar levels of cardiac irradiation years ago. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Between 2004 and 2008, we re-established a population-based, longitudinal cohort of 2,657 subjects exposed to irradiation for an enlarged thymus during infancy between 1926 and 1957 and 4,388 of their non-irradiated siblings. CHD events were assessed using a mailed survey and from causes of death listed in the National Death Index. We used Poisson regression methods to compare incidence rates by irradiation status and cardiac radiation dose. Results were adjusted for the CHD risk factors of attained-age, sex, diabetes, dyslipidemia hypertension and smoking. Results/UNASSIGNED:Median age at time of follow-up was 57.5 years (range 41.2 - 88.8 yrs) for irradiated and non-irradiated siblings. The mean estimated cardiac dose amongst the irradiated was 1.45 Gray (range 0.17 - 20.20 Gy), with 91% receiving <3.00 Gy. During a combined 339,924 person-years of follow-up, 213 myocardial infarctions (MI) and 350 CHD events (MI, bypass surgery and angioplasty) occurred. After adjustment for attained age, gender, and other CHD risk factors, the rate ratio for MI incidence in the irradiated group was 0.98 (95%CI, 0.74 - 1.30), and for any CHD event was 1.07 (95%CI, 0.86 - 1.32). Higher radiation doses were not associated with more MIs or CHD events in this dose range, in either the crude or the adjusted analyses. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Radiation to the heart during childhood of <3 Gy, the exposure in most of our cohort, does not increase the lifelong risk of CHD. Reducing cardiac radiation to this amount without increasing other cardiotoxic therapies may eliminate the increased CHD risk associated with radiotherapy for childhood cancer. By extension there is unlikely to be increased CHD risk from relatively higher dose imaging techniques, such as CT, because such techniques use much smaller radiation doses than received by our cohort.

Background: Women with unilateral breast cancer (UBC) are at risk of developing a subsequent contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Common variants are associated with breast cancer risk. Whether these influence CBC risk is unknown. Methods: Participants were breast cancer cases from the population-based Women's Environmental Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology (WECARE) Study. Sixty-seven established breast cancer risk loci were genotyped directly or by imputation in 1459 case subjects with CBC and 2126 UBC control subjects. An unweighted polygenic risk score (PRS) was created by summing the number of risk alleles for each directly genotyped single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), or for imputed loci, the imputed dosage. A weighted PRS was calculated similarly, but where each SNP's contribution was weighted by the published per-allele log odds ratio. Unweighted and weighted polygenic risk scores and CBC risk were modeled using conditional logistic regression. Cumulative CBC risk was estimated and benchmarked using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results population incidence rates. Results: Both unweighted and weighted PRS were statistically significantly associated with CBC risk. The adjusted risk ratio of CBC in women in the upper quartile of unweighted PRS compared with the lowest quartile was 1.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 2.00). The estimated 10-year cumulative risk for women in the upper quartile of the unweighted PRS was 7.4% (95% CI = 6.0% to 9.1%). For women in the upper quartile of the weighted PRS, the risk ratio for CBC was 1.75 (95% CI = 1.41 to 2.18) compared with women in the lowest quartile. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity by age, treatment (radiation therapy dose, tamoxifen, chemotherapy), estrogen receptor status of the first primary, histology of the first primary, length of at-risk period for CBC, or breast cancer family history. Conclusions: Common genomic variants associated with the development of first primary breast cancer are also associated with the development of CBC; the risk is strongest among those who carry more risk alleles.

PURPOSE: Estimated radiation risks used for radiation protection purposes have been based primarily on the Life Span Study (LSS) of atomic bomb survivors who received brief exposures at high dose rates, many with high doses. Information is needed regarding radiation risks from low dose-rate (LDR) exposures to low linear-energy-transfer (low-LET) radiation. We conducted a meta-analysis of LDR epidemiologic studies that provide dose-response estimates of total solid cancer risk in adulthood in comparison to corresponding LSS risks, in order to estimate a dose rate effectiveness factor (DREF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 22 LDR studies with dose-response risk estimates for solid cancer after minimizing information overlap. For each study, a parallel risk estimate was derived from the LSS risk model using matching values for sex, mean ages at first exposure and attained age, targeted cancer types, and accounting for type of dosimetric assessment. For each LDR study, a ratio of the excess relative risk per Gy (ERR Gy-1) to the matching LSS ERR risk estimate (LDR/LSS) was calculated, and a meta-analysis of the risk ratios was conducted. The reciprocal of the resultant risk ratio provided an estimate of the DREF. RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed a LDR/LSS risk ratio of 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14, 0.57) for the 19 studies of solid cancer mortality and 0.33 (95% CI 0.13, 0.54) when three cohorts with only incidence data also were added, implying a DREF with values around 3, but statistically compatible with 2. However, the analyses were highly dominated by the Mayak worker study. When the Mayak study was excluded the LDR/LSS risk ratios increased: 1.12 (95% CI 0.40, 1.84) for mortality and 0.54 (95% CI 0.09, 0.99) for mortality + incidence, implying a lower DREF in the range of 1-2. Meta-analyses that included only cohorts in which the mean dose was <100 mGy yielded a risk ratio of 1.06 (95% CI 0.30, 1.83) for solid cancer mortality and 0.58 (95% CI 0.10, 1.06) for mortality + incidence data. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of a best estimate for a value of the DREF depends on the appropriateness of including the Mayak study. This study indicates a range of uncertainty in the value of DREF between 1 and about 2 after protracted radiation exposure. The LDR data provide direct evidence regarding risk from exposures at low dose rates as an important complement to the LSS risk estimates used for radiation protection purposes.

Studies examining the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) have reported mixed findings. We previously showed that obese postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer have a fivefold higher risk of CBC compared with normal weight women. In the current analysis, we reexamined this relationship in the expanded Women's Environmental Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology (WECARE) Study, focusing on the impact of menopausal status and ER status of the first breast cancer. The WECARE Study is a population-based case-control study of young women with CBC (cases, N = 1386) and with unilateral breast cancer (controls, N = 2045). Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess the relationship between BMI and risk of CBC stratified by menopausal and ER status. Positive associations with obesity and weight gain were limited to women who became postmenopausal following their first primary breast cancer. Among those with an ER-negative first breast cancer, obesity (vs. normal weight) at first diagnosis was associated with an increased risk of CBC (RR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.02, 3.4). Also, weight gain of >/=10 kg after first diagnosis was associated with an almost twofold increased risk of CBC (RR = 1.9, 95% CI: 0.99, 3.8). These results suggest that women with an ER-negative first primary cancer who are obese at first primary diagnosis or who experience a large weight gain afterward may benefit from heightened surveillance. Future studies are needed to address the impact of weight loss interventions on risk of CBC.

In its 2012 report on tissue reactions, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) made several key assumptions regarding radiation risk to the lens of the eye, including that radiation-related minor opacities will progress to become vision-impairing cataracts, that protracted irradiation confers as much risk per unit dose as an acute exposure, and that there is a dose threshold for cataract effects at about 0.5Gy. The few studies available provide only limited support for the ICRP assumption that radiation-related minor opacities are predictive of vision-impairing cataracts; further longitudinal data are clearly needed. In keeping with the ICRP assumption, there is currently no compelling evidence for diminished cataractogenic effects at low dose rates, i.e., the data are compatible with a dose-rate effectiveness factor (DREF) of unity but the uncertainties are large enough that other values of DREF cannot be ruled out. Most available epidemiologic data suggest there is a dose threshold somewhere between several hundred mGy and one Gy for lens opacities. The new studies of medical and occupational exposures that have evaluated groups with low doses tend to confirm there is little or no excess risk at doses under 100mGy, while new studies of interventional cardiologist personnel who often have substantial doses to the lens of the eye have shown elevated opacity risks. Thus occupations that have high lens doses should receive remedial attention to prevent lens opacity risk.

Quantification of biological effects (cancer, other diseases, and cell damage) associated with exposure to ionising radiation has been a major issue for the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) since its foundation in 1928. While there is a wealth of information on the effects on human health for whole-body doses above approximately 100 mGy, the effects associated with doses below 100 mGy are still being investigated and debated intensively. The current radiological protection approach, proposed by ICRP for workers and the public, is largely based on risks obtained from high-dose and high-dose-rate studies, such as the Japanese Life Span Study on atomic bomb survivors. The risk coefficients obtained from these studies can be reduced by the dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) to account for the assumed lower effectiveness of low-dose and low-dose-rate exposures. The 2007 ICRP Recommendations continue to propose a value of 2 for DDREF, while other international organisations suggest either application of different values or abandonment of the factor. This paper summarises the current status of discussions, and highlights issues that are relevant to reassessing the magnitude and application of DDREF.

BACKGROUND: Large epidemiologic studies have the potential to make valuable contributions to the assessment of gene-environment interactions because they prospectively collected detailed exposure data. Some of these studies, however, have only serum or plasma samples as a low quantity source of DNA. METHODS: We examined whether DNA isolated from serum can be used to reliably and accurately genotype single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) using Sequenom multiplex SNP genotyping technology. We genotyped 81 SNPs using samples from 158 participants in the NYU Women's Health Study. Each participant had DNA from serum and at least one paired DNA sample isolated from a high quality source of DNA, i.e. clots and/or cell precipitates, for comparison. RESULTS: We observed that 60 of the 81 SNPs (74%) had high call frequencies (>/=95%) using DNA from serum, only slightly lower than the 85% of SNPs with high call frequencies in DNA from clots or cell precipitates. Of the 57 SNPs with high call frequencies for serum, clot, and cell precipitate DNA, 54 (95%) had highly concordant (>98%) genotype calls across all three sample types. High purity was not a critical factor to successful genotyping. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that this multiplex SNP genotyping method can be used reliably on DNA from serum in large-scale epidemiologic studies.