Faculty Bibliography

The atomic bomb and other studies have established with certainty that moderate-to-high doses of radiation cause many types of solid cancer and leukemia. Moving down the dose range to the vicinity of 100-200 mSv, the risks become fuzzy and then unknown at low doses on the order of 10-20 mSv. Nor have low-dose experimental studies provided definitive answers: some have suggested there may be adverse biological effects in the range of 5-50 mSv, while others support a "no risk" interpretation. Epidemiologic data contain intrinsic "noise" (variation by known and unknown factors related to genetics, lifestyle, other environmental exposures, sociodemographics, diagnostic accuracy, etc.) so are generally too insensitive to provide compelling answers in the low-dose range. However, there have been recent provocative reports regarding risk from relatively low-dose occupational and medical radiation exposures that warrant careful consideration. Summaries of the largest studies with low-dose or low dose-rate radiation exposure provide suggestive evidence of risk for solid cancer and stronger evidence for leukemia risk. Recently, interest in health endpoints other than cancer also has risen sharply, in particular the degree of cardiovascular and cataract risk following doses under 1 Sv. Data regarding cardiovascular disease are limited and fuzzy, with suggestions of inconsistencies, and the risk at low doses is essentially unknown. The evidence of cataract risk after low dose-rate exposures among those conducting interventional medical radiological procedures is becoming strong. The magnitude of radiation impacts on human health requires fuller documentation, especially for low-dose or low dose-rate exposures. From the epidemiologic vantage point, this will require longer observation of existing irradiated cohorts and development of new informative cohorts, improved accuracy in dose assessments, more attention to confounding variables, and more biosamples from irradiated groups to enable translational radiobiological studies. Introduction of Radiation Impacts on Human Health (Video 2:02, http://links.lww.com/HP/A35).

The acute and chronic effects of radiation on children have been and will continue to be of great social, public health, scientific, and clinical importance. The focus of interest on ionizing radiation and children has been clear for over half a century and ranges from the effects of fallout from nuclear weapons testing to exposures from accidents, natural radiation, and medical procedures. There is a loosely stated notion that "children are three to five times more sensitive to radiation than adults." Is this really true? In fact, children are at greater risk for some health effects, but not all. For a few sequelae, children may be more resistant than adults. Which are those effects? How and why do they occur? While there are clear instances of increased risk of some radiation-induced tumors in children compared to adults, there are other tumor types in which there appears to be little or no difference in risk by age at exposure and some in which published models that assume the same relative increase in risks for child compared to adult exposures apply to nearly all tumor types are not supported by the scientific data. The United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has a task group producing a comprehensive report on the subject. The factors to be considered include relevant radiation sources; developmental anatomy and physiology; dosimetry; and stochastic, deterministic, and hereditary effects.

An apparent association between radiation exposure and noncancer respiratory diseases (NCRD) in the Life Span Study (LSS) of atomic bomb survivors has been reported, but the biological validity of that observation is uncertain. This study investigated the possibility of radiation causation of noncancer respiratory diseases in detail by examining subtypes of noncancer respiratory diseases, temporal associations, and the potential for misdiagnosis and other confounding factors. A total of 5,515 NCRD diagnoses listed as the underlying cause of death on the death certificate were observed among the 86,611 LSS subjects with estimated weighted absorbed lung doses. Radiation dose-response analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazard regression for pneumonia/influenza, other acute respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. The linear excess relative risks (ERR) per gray (Gy) were 0.17 (95% CI 0.08, 0.27) for all NCRD and 0.20 (CI 0.09, 0.34) for pneumonia/influenza, which accounted for 63% of noncancer respiratory disease deaths. Adjustments for lifestyle and sociodemographic variations had almost no impact on the risk estimates. However, adjustments for indications of cancer and/or cardiovascular disease decreased the risk estimates, with ERR for total noncancer respiratory diseases declined by 35% from 0.17 to 0.11. Although it was impossible to fully adjust for the misdiagnosis of other diseases as noncancer respiratory diseases deaths in this study because of limitations of available data, nevertheless, the associations were reduced or eliminated by the adjustment that could be made. This helps demonstrates that the association between noncancer respiratory diseases and radiation exposure in previous reports could be in part be attributed to coincident cancer and/or cardiovascular diseases.

BACKGROUND: Women with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/BRCA2) mutations are at very high risk of developing breast cancer, including asynchronous contralateral breast cancer (CBC). BRCA1/BRCA2 genes help maintain genome stability and assist in DNA repair. We examined whether the risk of CBC associated with radiation treatment was higher among women with germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations than among non-carriers. METHODS: A population-based, nested case-control study was conducted within a cohort of 52,536 survivors of unilateral breast cancer (UBC). Cases were 603 women with CBC and controls were 1199 women with UBC individually matched on age at diagnosis, race, year of first diagnosis and cancer registry. All women were tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Radiation absorbed dose from the initial radiotherapy (RT) to the CBC location within the contralateral breast was reconstructed from measurements in a tissue-equivalent phantom and details available in the therapy records. FINDINGS: Among women treated with radiation, the mean radiation dose was 1.1Gy (range=0.02-6.2Gy). Risk of developing CBC was elevated among women who carried a deleterious BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (rate ratio, RR=4.5, confidence interval, CI=3.0-6.8), and also among those treated with RT (RR=1.2, CI=1.0-1.6). However, among mutation carriers, an incremental increase in risk associated with radiation dose was not statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: Multiplicative interaction of RT with mutation status would be reflected by a larger association of RT with CBC among carriers than among non-carriers, but this was not apparent. Accordingly, there was no clear indication that carriers of deleterious BRCA/BRCA2 mutations were more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than non-carriers. These findings are reassuring and have important clinical implications for treatment decisions and the clinical management of patients harbouring deleterious BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. FUNDING: All work associated with this study was supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute [R01CA097397, U01CA083178].

The information for the present discussion on the uncertainties associated with estimation of radiation risks and probability of disease causation was assembled for the recently published NCRP Report No. 171 on this topic. This memorandum provides a timely overview of the topic, given that quantitative uncertainty analysis is the state of the art in health risk assessment and given its potential importance to developments in radiation protection. Over the past decade the increasing volume of epidemiology data and the supporting radiobiology findings have aided in the reduction of uncertainty in the risk estimates derived. However, it is equally apparent that there remain significant uncertainties related to dose assessment, low dose and low dose-rate extrapolation approaches (e.g. the selection of an appropriate dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor), the biological effectiveness where considerations of the health effects of high-LET and lower-energy low-LET radiations are required and the transfer of risks from a population for which health effects data are available to one for which such data are not available. The impact of radiation on human health has focused in recent years on cancer, although there has been a decided increase in the data for noncancer effects together with more reliable estimates of the risk following radiation exposure, even at relatively low doses (notably for cataracts and cardiovascular disease). New approaches for the estimation of hereditary risk have been developed with the use of human data whenever feasible, although the current estimates of heritable radiation effects still are based on mouse data because of an absence of effects in human studies. Uncertainties associated with estimation of these different types of health effects are discussed in a qualitative and semi-quantitative manner as appropriate. The way forward would seem to require additional epidemiological studies, especially studies of low dose and low dose-rate occupational and perhaps environmental exposures and for exposures to x rays and high-LET radiations used in medicine. The development of models for more reliably combining the epidemiology data with experimental laboratory animal and cellular data can enhance the overall risk assessment approach by providing biologically refined data to strengthen the estimation of effects at low doses as opposed to the sole use of mathematical models of epidemiological data that are primarily driven by medium/high doses. NASA's approach to radiation protection for astronauts, although a unique occupational group, indicates the possible applicability of estimates of risk and their uncertainty in a broader context for developing recommendations on: (1) dose limits for occupational exposure and exposure of members of the public; (2) criteria to limit exposures of workers and members of the public to radon and its short-lived decay products; and (3) the dosimetric quantity (effective dose) used in radiation protection.

PURPOSE: Indirect evidence from experimental and epidemiological studies suggests that prolactin may be involved in ovarian cancer development. However, the relationship between circulating prolactin levels and risk of ovarian cancer is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study of 230 cases and 432 individually matched controls within three prospective cohorts to evaluate whether pre-diagnostic circulating prolactin is associated with subsequent risk of ovarian cancer. We also assessed whether lifestyle and reproductive factors are associated with circulating prolactin among controls. RESULTS: Prolactin levels were significantly lower among post- versus pre-menopausal women, parous versus nulliparous women, and past versus never users of oral contraceptives in our cross-sectional analysis of controls. In our nested case-control study, we observed a non-significant positive association between circulating prolactin and ovarian cancer risk (OR(Q4vsQ1) 1.56, 95 % CI 0.94, 2.63, p trend 0.15). Our findings were similar in multivariate-adjusted models and in the subgroup of women who donated blood >/=5 years prior to diagnosis. We observed a significant positive association between prolactin and risk for the subgroup of women with BMI >/=25 kg/m(2) (OR(Q4vsQ1) 3.10, 95 % CI 1.39, 6.90), but not for women with BMI <25 kg/m(2) (OR(Q4vsQ1) 0.81, 95 % CI 0.40, 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that prolactin may be associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer, particularly in overweight/obese women. Factors associated with reduced risk of ovarian cancer, such as parity and use of oral contraceptives, were associated with lower prolactin levels, which suggests that modulation of prolactin may be a mechanism underlying their association with risk.

A marked increase in leukemia risks was the first and most striking late effect of radiation exposure seen among the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors. This article presents analyses of radiation effects on leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma incidence in the Life Span Study cohort of atomic bomb survivors updated 14 years since the last comprehensive report on these malignancies. These analyses make use of tumor- and leukemia-registry based incidence data on 113,011 cohort members with 3.6 million person-years of follow-up from late 1950 through the end of 2001. In addition to a detailed analysis of the excess risk for all leukemias other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia or adult T-cell leukemia (neither of which appear to be radiation-related), we present results for the major hematopoietic malignancy types: acute lymphoblastic leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, adult T-cell leukemia, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Poisson regression methods were used to characterize the shape of the radiation dose-response relationship and, to the extent the data allowed, to investigate variation in the excess risks with gender, attained age, exposure age and time since exposure. In contrast to the previous report that focused on describing excess absolute rates, we considered both excess absolute rate (EAR) and excess relative risk (ERR) models and found that ERR models can often provide equivalent and sometimes more parsimonious descriptions of the excess risk than EAR models. The leukemia results indicated that there was a nonlinear dose response for leukemias other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia or adult T-cell leukemia, which varied markedly with time and age at exposure, with much of the evidence for this nonlinearity arising from the acute myeloid leukemia risks. Although the leukemia excess risks generally declined with attained age or time since exposure, there was evidence that the radiation-associated excess leukemia risks, especially for acute myeloid leukemia, had persisted throughout the follow-up period out to 55 years after the bombings. As in earlier analyses, there was a weak suggestion of a radiation dose response for non-Hodgkin lymphoma among men, with no indication of such an effect among women. There was no evidence of radiation-associated excess risks for either Hodgkin lymphoma or multiple myeloma.