Search

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. It has been known for some considerable time that radiation is associated with excess risk of CVD. A recent systematic review of radiation and CVD highlighted substantial inter-study heterogeneity in effect, possibly a result of confounding or modifications of radiation effect by non-radiation factors, in particular by the major lifestyle/environmental/medical risk factors and latent period. METHODS: We assessed effects of confounding by lifestyle/environmental/medical risk factors on radiation-associated CVD and investigated evidence for modifying effects of these variables on CVD radiation dose-response, using data assembled for a recent systematic review. RESULTS: There are 43 epidemiologic studies which are informative on effects of adjustment for confounding or risk modifying factors on radiation-associated CVD. Of these 22 were studies of groups exposed to substantial doses of medical radiation for therapy or diagnosis. The remaining 21 studies were of groups exposed at much lower levels of dose and/or dose rate. Only four studies suggest substantial effects of adjustment for lifestyle/environmental/medical risk factors on radiation risk of CVD; however, there were also substantial uncertainties in the estimates in all of these studies. There are fewer suggestions of effects that modify the radiation dose response; only two studies, both at lower levels of dose, report the most serious level of modifying effect. CONCLUSIONS: There are still large uncertainties about confounding factors or lifestyle/environmental/medical variables that may influence radiation-associated CVD, although indications are that there are not many studies in which there are substantial confounding effects of these risk factors.

Genicular artery embolization (GAE) is an emerging, minimally invasive therapy to address the global burden of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and the unmet needs for medically refractory disease. Although total knee arthroplasty has been a standard intervention for severe cases, GAE is developing into a promising alternative, particularly for patients ineligible for or unwilling to undergo surgery. GAE targets the inflammatory cascade underlying OA pathophysiology by arresting neoangiogenesis and preventing pathological neoinnervation, offering potential pain relief. Although early studies have established safety and short-term effectiveness, ensuing studies are needed to validate long-term safety, durability, and comparative effectiveness and to optimize patient selection, embolic agent selection, and administration techniques. Standardized reporting guidelines are therefore essential to enhance transparency and reproducibility across clinical trials, facilitating data aggregation and comparison. This Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR)–endorsed reporting standards consensus document provides a framework to harmonize future research efforts and to improve the interpretation of outcomes. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although childhood exposure to radioactive iodine-131 (I-131) is an established risk factor for thyroid cancer, evidence for an association with thyroid nodules is less clear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between childhood I-131 exposure and prevalence of ultrasound-detected thyroid nodules overall and by nodule histology/cytology (neoplastic/suspicious/non-neoplastic), size (<10 mm/≥10 mm), and number (single/multiple). Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of radiation dose (mean = 0.53 gray, range: 0.0003–31 gray) and screen-detected thyroid nodules conducted in 1998–2000 (median population age 21.5 years) in a cohort of 13,243 residents of Ukraine who were under 18 years at the time of the Chornobyl accident on April 26, 1986. Excess odds ratios per gray (excess odds ratio [EOR]/Gy) and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using logistic regression. Results: Among 13,078 eligible individuals, we identified 358 (2.7%) with at least one thyroid nodule. Significantly increased dose–response associations were found for all nodules and nodule groups with doses <5 Gy except individuals with non-neoplastic nodules. Among individuals with doses <5 Gy, the EOR/Gy for neoplastic nodules (5.35; CI: 2.19–15.5) was significantly higher than for non-neoplastic nodules (0.24; CI: 0.07–0.74), but the EOR/Gy did not vary by nodule size or number. Conclusions: Childhood exposure to I-131 is associated with an increased risk of thyroid nodules detected 12–14 years following exposure, and the risk for neoplastic nodules is higher than for non-neoplastic nodules. Analyses of incident thyroid nodules may help clarify dose–response patterns by nodule characteristics and provide insights into thyroid nodule etiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last two decades, there has been emerging evidence suggesting that ionizing radiation exposures could be associated with elevated risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly ischemic heart disease (IHD). Excess CVD risks have been observed in a number of exposed groups, with generally similar risk estimates both at low and high radiation doses and dose rates. In 2014, we reported for the first time significantly higher risks of IHD mortality when radiation doses were delivered over a protracted period of time (an inverse dose-fractionation effect) in the Canadian Fluoroscopy Cohort Study. Here we review the current evidence on the dose-fractionation effect of radiation exposure, discuss potential implication for radiation protection policies and suggest further directions for research in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The discovery of X-rays was followed by a variety of attempts to treat infectious diseases and various other non-cancer diseases with ionizing radiation, in addition to cancer. There has been a recent resurgence of interest in the use of such radiotherapy for non-cancer diseases. Non-cancer diseases for which use of radiotherapy has currently been proposed include refractory ventricular tachycardia, neurodegenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer's disease and dementia), and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia, all with ongoing clinical studies that deliver radiation doses of 0.5–25 Gy in a single fraction or in multiple daily fractions. In addition to such non-cancer effects, historical indications predominantly used in some countries (e.g. Germany) include osteoarthritis and degenerative diseases of the bones and joints. This narrative review gives an overview of the biological rationale and ongoing preclinical and clinical studies for radiotherapy proposed for various non-cancer diseases, discusses the plausibility of the proposed biological rationale, and considers the long-term radiation risks of cancer and non-cancer diseases. A growing body of evidence has suggested that radiation represents a double-edged sword, not only for cancer, but also for non-cancer diseases. At present, clinical evidence has shown some beneficial effects of radiotherapy for ventricular tachycardia, but there is little or no such evidence of radiotherapy for other newly proposed non-cancer diseases (e.g. Alzheimer's disease, COVID-19 pneumonia). Patients with ventricular tachycardia and COVID-19 pneumonia have thus far been treated with radiotherapy when they are an urgent life threat with no efficient alternative treatment, but some survivors may encounter a paradoxical situation where patients were rescued by radiotherapy but then get harmed by radiotherapy. Further studies are needed to justify the clinical use of radiotherapy for non-cancer diseases, and optimize dose to diseased tissue while minimizing dose to healthy tissue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ionizing radiation is one of the known risk factors for cataract development, however, there is still debate regarding the level of risk after low dose exposures. One of the largest sources of radiation exposure to the lens of the eye is diagnostic CT scans. The aim of this study was to examine whether ionizing radiation associated with head CT scans increases cataract risk in residents of Ontario, Canada. Data were collected from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2015 (22 years) from anonymized Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) medical records for over 16 million subjects. A lens dose was estimated for each CT scan using the National Cancer Institute dosimetry system for CT (NCICT) program combined with Canada-specific CTDIvol data. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed with cataract extraction surgery as the primary outcome and lens dose as the main variable of interest, with inclusion of various medical and demographic covariates. Lag periods of 3, 5 and 7 years were incorporated. When lens dose was treated as a continuous variable, hazard ratios (per 100 mGy) ranged from 0.82 (0.80–0.84) to 1.10 (1.09–1.11) depending on the lag period. As a secondary analysis, when individuals were binned based on their total cumulative dose, no significant dose response pattern was observed in the low dose region. Overall, within the bounds of this study, the data do not support an increased risk of vision impairing cataracts after diagnostic head CT scan radiation exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractPurposeConclusionsEpidemiological studies of stochastic radiation health effects such as cancer, meant to estimate risks of the adverse effects as a function of radiation dose, depend largely on estimates of the radiation doses received by the exposed group under study. Those estimates are based on dosimetry that always has uncertainty, which often can be quite substantial. Studies that do not incorporate statistical methods to correct for dosimetric uncertainty may produce biased estimates of risk and incorrect confidence bounds on those estimates. This paper reviews commonly used statistical methods to correct radiation risk regressions for dosimetric uncertainty, with emphasis on some newer methods. We begin by describing the types of dose uncertainty that may occur, including those in which an uncertain value is shared by part or all of a cohort, and then demonstrate how these sources of uncertainty arise in radiation dosimetry. We briefly describe the effects of different types of dosimetric uncertainty on risk estimates, followed by a description of each method of adjusting for the uncertainty.Each of the method has strengths and weaknesses, and some methods have limited applicability. We describe the types of uncertainty to which each method can be applied and its pros and cons. Finally, we provide summary recommendations and touch briefly on suggestions for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]