Significance of radiation exposure from work-related chest X-rays for epidemiological studies of radiation workers

Strengths and Weaknesses of Dosimetry Used in Studies of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure and Cancer

BACKGROUND

A monograph systematically evaluating recent evidence on the dose-response relationship between low-dose ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risk required a critical appraisal of dosimetry methods in 26 potentially informative studies.

METHODS

The relevant literature included studies published in 2006-2017. Studies comprised case-control and cohort designs examining populations predominantly exposed to sparsely ionizing radiation, mostly from external sources, resulting in average doses of no more than 100 mGy. At least two dosimetrists reviewed each study and appraised the strengths and weaknesses of the dosimetry systems used, including assessment of sources and effects of dose estimation error. An overarching concern was whether dose error might cause the spurious appearance of a dose-response where none was present.

RESULTS

The review included 8 environmental, 4 medical, and 14 occupational studies that varied in properties relative to evaluation criteria. Treatment of dose estimation error also varied among studies, although few conducted a comprehensive evaluation. Six studies appeared to have known or suspected biases in dose estimates. The potential for these biases to cause a spurious dose-response association was constrained to three case-control studies that relied extensively on information gathered in interviews conducted after case ascertainment.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential for spurious dose-response associations from dose information appeared limited to case-control studies vulnerable to recall errors that may be differential by case status. Otherwise, risk estimates appeared reasonably free of a substantial bias from dose estimation error. Future studies would benefit from a comprehensive evaluation of dose estimation errors, including methods accounting for their potential effects on dose-response associations.

It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the primary federal agency responsible for promulgating regulations and policies to protect people and the environment from ionizing radiation. Currently, the USEPA uses the linear no-threshold (LNT) model to estimate cancer risks and determine cleanup levels in radiologically contaminated environments. The LNT model implies that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation; however, adverse effects from low dose, low-dose rate (LDDR) exposures are not detectable. This article (1) provides the scientific basis for discontinuing use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments, (2) shows that there is no scientific consensus for using the LNT model, (3) identifies USEPA reliance on outdated scientific information, and (4) identifies regulatory reliance on incomplete evaluations of recent data contradicting the LNT. It is the time to reconsider the use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments. Incorporating the latest science into the regulatory process for risk assessment will (1) ensure science remains the foundation for decision making, (2) reduce unnecessary burdens of costly cleanups, (3) educate the public on the real effects of LDDR radiation exposures, and (4) harmonize government policies with the rest of the radiation scientific community.

Dosimetry is Key to Good Epidemiology: Workers at Mallinckrodt Chemical Works had Seven Different Source Exposures

Mallinckrodt Chemical Works was the earliest uranium processing facility in the Manhattan Project, beginning in 1942. Even then, concern existed about possible health effects resulting from exposure to radiation and pitchblende dust. This concern was well founded as the facility processed Belgian Congo pitchblende ore that was up to 60% pure uranium with high U content and up to 100 mg of radium per ton. Workers were exposed to external gamma radiation plus internal radiation from inhalation and ingestion of pitchblende dust (uranium, radium, and silica). Multiple sources of exposure were available for organ dose reconstruction to a degree unique for an epidemiologic study. Personal film badge measures available from 1945 captured external exposures. Additional external exposure included 15,518 occupational medical x-rays and 210 radiation exposure records from other facilities outside of Mallinckrodt employment. Organ dose calculations considered organ-specific coefficients that account for photon energy and job-specific orientation of workers to the radiation source during processing. Intakes of uranium and radium were based on 39,451 uranium urine bioassays and 2,341 breath radon measurements, and International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 68 biokinetic models were used to estimate organ-specific radiation absorbed dose. Estimates of exposure to airborne radon and its short-lived progeny were based on radon measurements in work areas where radium-containing materials were handled or stored, together with estimated exposure times in these areas based on job titles. Dose estimates for radon and its short-lived progeny were based on models and methods recently recommended in ICRP Publication 137. This comprehensive dosimetric approach follows methods outlined by the National Council on Radiation Protection Scientific Committee 6-9 for the Million Worker Study. Annual doses were calculated for six organs: lung, brain, heart, kidney, colon and red bone marrow. Evaluation and adjustment for individual cumulative measures of pitchblende dust inhalation were made for lung and kidney diseases.

Impact of considering non-occupational radiation exposure on the association between occupational dose and solid cancer among French nuclear workers

OBJECTIVES

The French nuclear worker cohort allows for the assessment of cancer risk associated with occupational radiation exposure, but workers are also exposed to medical and environmental radiation which can be of the same order of magnitude. This study aims to examine the impact of non-occupational radiation exposures on the dose-risk analysis between occupational radiation exposure and cancer mortality.

METHODS

The cohort included workers employed before 1995 for at least one year by CEA, AREVA NC or EDF and badge-monitored for external radiation exposure. Monitoring results were used to calculate occupational individual doses. Scenarios of work-related X-ray and environmental exposures were simulated. Poisson regression was used to quantify associations between occupational exposure and cancer mortality adjusting for non-occupational radiation exposure.

RESULTS

The mean cumulative dose of external occupational radiation was 18.4 mSv among 59 004 workers. Depending on the hypotheses made, the mean cumulative work-related X-ray dose varied between 3.1 and 9.2 mSv and the mean cumulative environmental dose was around 130 mSv. The unadjusted excess relative rate of cancer per Sievert (ERR/Sv) was 0.34 (90% CI -0.44 to 1.24). Adjusting for environmental radiation exposure did not substantially modify this risk coefficient, but it was attenuated by medical exposure (ERR/Sv point estimate between 0.15 and 0.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Occupational radiation risk estimates were lower when adjusted for work-related X-ray exposures. Environmental exposures had a very slight impact on the occupational exposure risk estimates. In any scenario of non-occupational exposure considered, a positive but insignificant excess cancer risk associated with occupational exposure was observed.

Scientific issues in radiation dose reconstruction

Stakeholders have raised numerous issues regarding the scientific basis of radiation dose reconstruction for compensation. These issues can be grouped into three broad categories: data issues, dosimetry issues, and compensation issues. Data issues include demographic data of the worker, changes in site operations over time (both production and exposure control), characterization of episodic vs. chronic exposures, and the use of coworker data. Dosimetry issues include methods for assessment of ambient exposures, missed dose, unmonitored dose, and medical x-ray dose incurred as a condition of employment. Specific issues related to external dose include the sensitivity, angular and energy dependence of personal monitors, exposure geometries, and the accompanying uncertainties. Those related to internal dose include sensitivity of bioassay methods, uncertainties in biokinetic models, appropriate dose coefficients, and modeling uncertainties. Compensation issues include uncertainties in the risk models and use of the 99th percentile of the distribution of probability of causation for awarding compensation. A review of the scientific literature and analysis of each of these issues distinguishes factors that play a major role in the compensation decision from those that do not.

Bone marrow dose estimates from work-related medical x-ray examinations given between 1943 and 1966 for personnel from five U.S. nuclear facilities

Inclusion of dose from work-related medical x-ray examinations with occupational external dose in an epidemiological study may reduce misclassification of exposures and provide more accurate assessment of leukemia risk from occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. In a multi-site leukemia case-control study, annual bone marrow doses due to work-related x-ray examinations given between 1943 and 1966 were estimated for cases and controls employed at five nuclear facilities. Only active bone marrow dose from photofluorographic chest and routine lumbar spine x rays were included. Bone marrow dose assigned for a single exposure ranged from 1.0 to 1.4 mGy. Mean and median cumulative bone marrow doses for each of the five sites from work-related x-ray examinations ranged from 2.0 to 14 mGy and 2.1 to 8.8 mGy, respectively. Results suggest that bone marrow dose from work-related photofluorographic and lumbar spine x-ray examinations given during the time period of this study may be significant compared to occupational bone marrow dose.

Radiation exposure from work-related medical X-rays at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

BACKGROUND

Previous analyses suggest that worker radiation dose may be significantly increased by routine occupational X-ray examinations. Medical exposures are investigated for 570 civilian workers employed at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) at Kittery, Maine. The research objective was to determine the radiation exposure contribution of work-related chest X-rays (WRX) relative to conventional workplace radiation sources.

METHODS

Methods were developed to estimate absorbed doses to the active (hematopoietic) bone marrow from X-ray examinations and workplace exposures using data extracted from worker dosimetry records (8,468) and health records (2,453). Dose distributions were examined for radiation and non-radiation workers.

RESULTS

Photofluorographic chest examinations resulted in 82% of the dose from medical sources. Radiation workers received 26% of their collective dose from WRX and received 66% more WRX exposure than non-radiation workers.

CONCLUSIONS

WRX can result in a significant fraction of the total dose, especially for radiation workers who were more likely to be subjected to routine medical monitoring. Omission of WRX from the total dose is a likely source of bias that can lead to dose category misclassification and may skew the epidemiologic dose-response assessment for cancers induced by the workplace.

Plutonium-related work and cause-specific mortality at the United States Department of Energy Hanford Site

BACKGROUND

Health effects of working with plutonium remain unclear. Plutonium workers at the United States Department of Energy (US-DOE) Hanford Site in Washington State, USA were evaluated for increased risks of cancer and non-cancer mortality.

METHODS

Periods of employment in jobs with routine or non-routine potential for plutonium exposure were identified for 26,389 workers hired between 1944 and 1978. Life table regression was used to examine associations of length of employment in plutonium jobs with confirmed plutonium deposition and with cause specific mortality through 1994.

RESULTS

Incidence of confirmed internal plutonium deposition in all plutonium workers was 15.4 times greater than in other Hanford jobs. Plutonium workers had low death rates compared to other workers, particularly for cancer causes. Mortality for several causes was positively associated with length of employment in routine plutonium jobs, especially for employment at older ages. At ages 50 and above, death rates for non-external causes of death, all cancers, cancers of tissues where plutonium deposits, and lung cancer, increased 2.0 +/- 1.1%, 2.6 +/- 2.0%, 4.9 +/- 3.3%, and 7.1 +/- 3.4% (+/-SE) per year of employment in routine plutonium jobs, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Workers employed in jobs with routine potential for plutonium exposure have low mortality rates compared to other Hanford workers even with adjustment for demographic, socioeconomic, and employment factors. This may be due, in part, to medical screening. Associations between duration of employment in jobs with routine potential for plutonium exposure and mortality may indicate occupational exposure effects.