Search

The probability that an observed cancer was caused by radiation exposure is usually estimated using cancer rates and risk models from radioepidemiological cohorts and is called assigned share (AS). This definition implicitly assumes that an ongoing carcinogenic process is unaffected by the studied radiation exposure. However, there is strong evidence that radiation can also accelerate an existing clonal development towards cancer. In this work, we define different association measures that an observed cancer was newly induced, accelerated, or retarded. The measures were quantified exemplarily by Monte Carlo simulations that track the development of individual cells. Three biologically based two-stage clonal expansion (TSCE) models were applied. In the first model, radiation initiates cancer development, while in the other two, radiation has a promoting effect, i.e. radiation accelerates the clonal expansion of pre-cancerous cells. The parameters of the TSCE models were derived from breast cancer data from the atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For exposure at age 30, all three models resulted in similar estimates of AS at age 60. For the initiation model, estimates of association were nearly identical to AS. However, for the promotion models, the cancerous clonal development was frequently accelerated towards younger ages, resulting in associations substantially higher than AS. This work shows that the association between a given cancer and exposure in an affected person depends on the underlying biological mechanism and can be substantially larger than the AS derived from classic radioepidemiology., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

ProZES is a software tool for estimating the probability that a given cancer was caused by preceding exposure to ionising radiation. ProZES calculates this probability, the assigned share, for solid cancers and hematopoietic malignant diseases, in cases of exposures to low-LET radiation, and for lung cancer in cases of exposure to radon. User-specified inputs include birth year, sex, type of diagnosed cancer, age at diagnosis, radiation exposure history and characteristics, and smoking behaviour for lung cancer. Cancer risk models are an essential part of ProZES. Linking disease and exposure to radiation involves several methodological aspects, and assessment of uncertainties received particular attention. ProZES systematically uses the principle of multi-model inference. Models of radiation risk were either newly developed or critically re-evaluated for ProZES, including dedicated models for frequent types of cancer and, for less common diseases, models for groups of functionally similar cancer sites. The low-LET models originate mostly from the study of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Risks predicted by these models are adjusted to be applicable to the population of Germany and to different time periods. Adjustment factors for low dose rates and for a reduced risk during the minimum latency time between exposure and cancer are also applied. The development of the methodology and software was initiated and supported by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) taking up advice by the German Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK, Strahlenschutzkommission). These provide the scientific basis to support decision making on compensation claims regarding malignancies following occupational exposure to radiation in Germany.

Recent analyses of the Canadian fluoroscopy cohort study reported significantly increased radiation risks of mortality from ischemic heart diseases (IHD) with a linear dose-response adjusted for dose fractionation. This cohort includes 63,707 tuberculosis patients from Canada who were exposed to low-to-moderate dose fractionated X-rays in 1930s-1950s and were followed-up for death from non-cancer causes during 1950-1987. In the current analysis, we scrutinized the assumption of linearity by analyzing a series of radio-biologically motivated nonlinear dose-response models to get a better understanding of the impact of radiation damage on IHD. The models were weighted according to their quality of fit and were then mathematically superposed applying the multi-model inference (MMI) technique. Our results indicated an essentially linear dose-response relationship for IHD mortality at low and medium doses and a supra-linear relationship at higher doses (> 1.5 Gy). At 5 Gy, the estimated radiation risks were fivefold higher compared to the linear no-threshold (LNT) model. This is the largest study of patients exposed to fractionated low-to-moderate doses of radiation. Our analyses confirm previously reported significantly increased radiation risks of IHD from doses similar to those from diagnostic radiation procedures.

Current radiological emergency response recommendations have been provided by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in comprehensive Safety Standards. These standards provide dose-based guidance for decision making (e.g., on sheltering or relocation) via generic criteria in terms of effective dose in the range from 20 mSv per year, during transition from emergency to existing exposure situation, to 100 mSv, acute or annual, in the urgent phase of a nuclear accident. The purpose of this paper was to examine how such dose reference levels directly translate into radiation-related risks of the main stochastic detrimental health effects (cancer). Methodologies, provided by the World Health Organization after the Fukushima accident, for calculating the lifetime and 20 year cancer risks and for attributing relevant organ doses from effective doses, have been applied here for this purpose with new software, designed to be available for use immediately after a nuclear accident. A new feature in this software is a comprehensive accounting for uncertainty via simulation technique, so that the risks may now be presented with realistic confidence intervals. The types of cancer risks considered here are time-integrated over lifetime and the first 20 years after exposure for all solid cancers and either the most radiation-sensitive types of cancer, i.e., leukaemia and female breast cancer, or the most radiation-relevant type of cancer occurring early in life, i.e., thyroid. It is demonstrated here how reference dose levels translate differently into specific cancer risk levels (with varying confidence interval sizes), depending on age at exposure, gender, time-frame at-risk and type of cancer considered. This demonstration applies German population data and considers external exposures. Further work is required to comprehensively extend this methodology to internal exposures that are likely to be important in the early stages of a nuclear accident. A discussion is provided here on the potential for such risk-based information to be used by decision makers, in the urgent and transition phases of nuclear emergencies, to identify protective measures (e.g., sheltering, evacuation) in a differential way (i.e., for particularly susceptible sub-groups of a population).

The problem of expressing cumulative detrimental effect of radiation exposure is revisited. All conventionally used and computationally complex lifetime or time-integrated risks are based on current population and health statistical data, with unknown future secular trends, that are projected far into the future. It is shown that application of conventionally used lifetime or time-integrated attributable risks (LAR, AR) should be limited to exposures under 1 Gy. More general quantities, such as excess lifetime risk (ELR) and, to a lesser extent, risk of exposure-induced death (REID), are free of dose constraints, but are even more computationally complex than LAR and AR and rely on the unknown total radiation effect on demographic and health statistical data. Appropriate assessment of time-integrated risk of a specific outcome following high-dose (more than 1 Gy) exposure requires consideration of competing risks for other radiation-attributed outcomes and the resulting ELR estimate has an essentially non-linear dose response. Limitations caused by basing conventionally applied time-integrated risks on current population and health statistical data are that they are: (a) not well suited for risk estimates for atypical groups of exposed persons not readily represented by the general population; and (b) not optimal for risk projections decades into the future due to large uncertainties in developments of the future secular trends in the population-specific disease rates. Alternative disease-specific quantities, baseline and attributable survival fractions, based on reduction of survival chances are considered here and are shown to be very useful in circumventing most aspects of these limitations. Another main quantity, named as radiation-attributed decrease of survival (RADS), is recommended here to represent cumulative radiation risk conditional on survival until a certain age. RADS, historically known in statistical literature as "cumulative risk", is only based on the radiation-attributed hazard and is insensitive to competing risks. Therefore, RADS is eminently suitable for risk projections in emergency situations and for estimating radiation risks for persons exposed after therapeutic or interventional medical applications of radiation or in other highly atypical groups of exposed persons, such as astronauts.

Exposure-lag-response associations shed light on the duration of pathogenesis for radiation-induced diseases. To investigate such relations for lung cancer mortality in the German uranium miners of the Wismut company, we apply distributed lag non-linear models (DLNMs) which offer a flexible description of the lagged risk response to protracted radon exposure. Exposure-lag functions are implemented with B-Splines in Cox models of proportional hazards. The DLNM approach yielded good agreement of exposure-lag-response surfaces for the German cohort and for the previously studied cohort of American Colorado miners. For both cohorts, a minimum lag of about 2 year for the onset of risk after first exposure explained the data well, but possibly with large uncertainty. Risk estimates from DLNMs were directly compared with estimates from both standard radio-epidemiological models and biologically based mechanistic models. For age > 45 year, all models predict decreasing estimates of the Excess Relative Risk (ERR). However, at younger age, marked differences appear as DLNMs exhibit ERR peaks, which are not detected by the other models. After comparing exposure-responses for biological processes in mechanistic risk models with exposure-responses for hazard ratios in DLNMs, we propose a typical period of 15 year for radon-related lung carcinogenesis. The period covers the onset of radiation-induced inflammation of lung tissue until cancer death. The DLNM framework provides a view on age-risk patterns supplemental to the standard radio-epidemiological approach and to biologically based modeling.

The scientific community faces important discussions on the validity of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation-associated cardiovascular diseases at low and moderate doses. In the present study, mortalities from cerebrovascular diseases (CeVD) and heart diseases from the latest data on atomic bomb survivors were analyzed. The analysis was performed with several radio-biologically motivated linear and nonlinear dose-response models. For each detrimental health outcome one set of models was identified that all fitted the data about equally well. This set was used for multi-model inference (MMI), a statistical method of superposing different models to allow risk estimates to be based on several plausible dose-response models rather than just relying on a single model of choice. MMI provides a more accurate determination of the dose response and a more comprehensive characterization of uncertainties. It was found that for CeVD, the dose-response curve from MMI is located below the linear no-threshold model at low and medium doses (0-1.4 Gy). At higher doses MMI predicts a higher risk compared to the LNT model. A sublinear dose-response was also found for heart diseases (0-3 Gy). The analyses provide no conclusive answer to the question whether there is a radiation risk below 0.75 Gy for CeVD and 2.6 Gy for heart diseases. MMI suggests that the dose-response curves for CeVD and heart diseases in the Lifespan Study are sublinear at low and moderate doses. This has relevance for radiotherapy treatment planning and for international radiation protection practices in general.

Thyroid cancer is one of the major health concerns after the accident in the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station (NPS). Currently, ultrasonography surveys are being performed for persons residing in the Fukushima Prefecture at the time of the accident with an age of up to 18 years. Here, the expected thyroid cancer prevalence in the Fukushima Prefecture is assessed based on an ultrasonography survey of Ukrainians, who were exposed at an age of up to 18 years to (131)I released during the Chernobyl NPS accident, and on differences in equipment and study protocol in the two surveys. Radiation risk of thyroid cancer incidence among survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and preliminary estimates of thyroid dose due to the Fukushima accident were used for the prediction of baseline and radiation-related thyroid cancer risks. We estimate a prevalence of thyroid cancer of 0.027 % (95 % CI 0.010 %; 0.050 %) for the first screening campaign in the Fukushima Prefecture. Compared with the incidence rate in Japan in 2007, the ultrasonography survey is predicted to increase baseline thyroid cancer incidence by a factor of 7.4 (95 % CI 0.95; 17.3). Under the condition of continued screening, thyroid cancer during the first fifty years after the accident is predicted to be detected for about 2 % of the screened population. The prediction of radiation-related thyroid cancer in the most exposed fraction (a few ten thousand persons) of the screened population of the Fukushima Prefecture has a large uncertainty with the best estimates of the average risk of 0.1-0.3 %, depending on average dose.