Mortality from solid cancers other than lung, liver, and bone in relation to external dose among plutonium and non-plutonium workers in the Mayak Worker Cohort

What about the workers? An update

Epidemiological studies of nuclear industry workers are of substantial importance to understanding the risk of cancer consequent to low-level exposure to radiation, and these studies should provide vital evidence for the construction of the international system of radiological protection. Recent studies involve large numbers of workers and include health outcomes for workers who accumulated moderate (and even high) doses over prolonged periods while employed during the earlier years of the nuclear industry. The interpretation of the findings of these recent studies has proved to be disappointingly difficult. There are puzzling patterns of results involving the period of first employment and monitoring for radionuclide intakes, depending on the particular study examined. Explaining these patterns is crucial for a reliable understanding of results in terms of occupational radiation exposure. In this paper, an updated review of nuclear worker studies is presented in the context of these patterns of results, making use of the latest relevant results. It is apparent that the strikingly raised risks for mortality from solid cancers for workers hired in later years reported from the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS) is effectively confined to workers at five nuclear facilities in the USA, and that the notable variation of risks in INWORKS between workers monitored or not for radionuclide intakes is driven by UK workers. These are the areas where effort must be concentrated before a confident derivation of radiation risk estimates can be obtained from these nuclear worker studies.

A Historical Survey of Key Epidemiological Studies of Ionizing Radiation Exposure

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.

Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of protracted low dose, low dose rate exposure to ionising radiation on the risk of cancer.

DESIGN

Multinational cohort study.

SETTING

Cohorts of workers in the nuclear industry in France, the UK, and the US included in a major update to the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS).

PARTICIPANTS

309 932 workers with individual monitoring data for external exposure to ionising radiation and a total follow-up of 10.7 million person years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Estimates of excess relative rate per gray (Gy) of radiation dose for mortality from cancer.

RESULTS

The study included 103 553 deaths, of which 28 089 were due to solid cancers. The estimated rate of mortality due to solid cancer increased with cumulative dose by 52% (90% confidence interval 27% to 77%) per Gy, lagged by 10 years. Restricting the analysis to the low cumulative dose range (0-100 mGy) approximately doubled the estimate of association (and increased the width of its confidence interval), as did restricting the analysis to workers hired in the more recent years of operations when estimates of occupational external penetrating radiation dose were recorded more accurately. Exclusion of deaths from lung cancer and pleural cancer had a modest effect on the estimated magnitude of association, providing indirect evidence that the association was not substantially confounded by smoking or occupational exposure to asbestos.

CONCLUSIONS

This major update to INWORKS provides a direct estimate of the association between protracted low dose exposure to ionising radiation and solid cancer mortality based on some of the world's most informative cohorts of radiation workers. The summary estimate of excess relative rate solid cancer mortality per Gy is larger than estimates currently informing radiation protection, and some evidence suggests a steeper slope for the dose-response association in the low dose range than over the full dose range. These results can help to strengthen radiation protection, especially for low dose exposures that are of primary interest in contemporary medical, occupational, and environmental settings.

Radiation dose rate effects: what is new and what is needed?

Despite decades of research to understand the biological effects of ionising radiation, there is still much uncertainty over the role of dose rate. Motivated by a virtual workshop on the "Effects of spatial and temporal variation in dose delivery" organised in November 2020 by the Multidisciplinary Low Dose Initiative (MELODI), here, we review studies to date exploring dose rate effects, highlighting significant findings, recent advances and to provide perspective and recommendations for requirements and direction of future work. A comprehensive range of studies is considered, including molecular, cellular, animal, and human studies, with a focus on low linear-energy-transfer radiation exposure. Limits and advantages of each type of study are discussed, and a focus is made on future research needs.

Cytogenetic follow-up studies on humans with internal and external exposure to ionizing radiation

Cells exposed to ionizing radiation have a wide spectrum of DNA lesions that include DNA single-strand breaks, DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), oxidative base damage and DNA-protein crosslinks. Among them, DSB is the most critical lesion, which when mis-repaired leads to unstable and stable chromosome aberrations. Currently, chromosome aberration analysis is the preferred method for biological monitoring of radiation-exposed humans. Stable chromosome aberrations, such as inversions and balanced translocations, persist in the peripheral blood lymphocytes of radiation-exposed humans for several years and, therefore, are potentially useful tools to prognosticate the health risks of radiation exposure, particularly in the hematopoietic system. In this review, we summarize the cytogenetic follow-up studies performed by REAC/TS (Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training site, Oak Ridge, USA) on humans exposed to internal and external radiation. In the light of our observations as well as the data existing in the literature, this review attempts to highlight the importance of follow-up studies for predicting the extent of genomic instability and its impact on delayed health risks in radiation-exposed victims.

Overview of epidemiological studies of nuclear workers: opportunities, expectations, and limitations. JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION : OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION 2021;41:1075-1092. [PMID: 34161930 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/ac0df4]

Epidemiological studies of those exposed occupationally to ionising radiation offer an important opportunity to directly check the assumptions underlying the international system of radiological protection against low-level radiation exposures. Recent nuclear worker studies, notably the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS) and studies of the Mayak workforce in Russia, provide powerful investigations of a wide range of cumulative photon doses received at a low dose-rate over protracted periods, and broadly confirm radiation-related excess risks of leukaemia and solid cancers at around the levels predicted by standard risk models derived mainly from the experience of the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors acutely exposed principally to gamma radiation. However, the slope of the dose-response for solid cancers expressed in terms of the excess relative risk per unit dose, ERR/Gy, differs between INWORKS and Mayak, such that when compared with the slope derived from the atomic-bomb survivors, INWORKS does not provide obvious support for the use in radiological protection of a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor greater than one whereas the Mayak workforce apparently does. This difference could be a chance effect, but it could also point to potential problems with these worker studies. Of particular concern is the adequacy of recorded doses received in the early years of operations at older nuclear installations, such as the potential for 'missed' photon doses. A further issue is how baseline cancer rates may influence radiation-related excess risks. There is scope for a considerable increase in the statistical power of worker studies, with longer follow-up capturing more deaths and incident cases of cancer, and further workforces being included in collaborative studies, but the difficulties posed by dosimetry questions should not be ignored and need to be the subject of detailed scrutiny.

Detection of Embedded Low-level Radioactive Shrapnel after the Explosion of a Radiological Dispersal Device in Radiological Emergency Imaging

Concern about the threat of a terrorist attack with a Radiological Dispersal Device has increased considerably over the last few years, and this comes along with an immense challenge, especially regarding medical treatment of combined injuries with incorporated radioactive fragments. In such scenarios, the identification and surgical exploration of radioactive fragments is a major issue to prevent further radiation-induced effects like wound healing disorders, onset of acute radiation syndrome, and as a late-effect cancer. However, in a usual emergency setting, it is unclear how this task can be achieved. Within this study, we evaluated the feasibility of different radiological methods to identify and locate an incorporated radioactive fragment. We placed two different Cs sources and several non-radioactive fragments representing sham control samples within a human spine phantom. Standard emergency imaging procedures were performed, including plane radiography and different CT scans (64 row, 384 row dual energy, 320 row without iterative metal artifact reduction), respectively. Eight radiologists were blinded toward the results and asked to identify the radioactive fragments within the provided images. For both sources, correct identification was rather low (15.63%). Furthermore, none of the questioned radiologists (N = 0) stated that they were able to identify the radioactive shrapnel distinctly. Positive predictive value was accordingly low (15.63%). Most participants recommended a scintigraphy-based technique for identification (26.67%) rather than radiographic procedures (6.67%). Identification and location of incorporated small radioactive fragments with low energies by standard radiological procedures prior to surgical exploration is not promising. Nevertheless, procedures that can achieve this aim are needed direly in the case of a terrorist attack with a radiological dispersal device and should be available in an emergency department.

Issues in Interpreting Epidemiologic Studies of Populations Exposed to Low-Dose, High-Energy Photon Radiation

This article addresses issues relevant to interpreting findings from 26 epidemiologic studies of persons exposed to low-dose radiation. We review the extensive data from both epidemiologic studies of persons exposed at moderate or high doses and from radiobiology that together have firmly established radiation as carcinogenic. We then discuss the use of the linear relative risk model that has been used to describe data from both low- and moderate- or high-dose studies. We consider the effects of dose measurement errors; these can reduce statistical power and lead to underestimation of risks but are very unlikely to bring about a spurious dose response. We estimate statistical power for the low-dose studies under the assumption that true risks of radiation-related cancers are those expected from studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Finally, we discuss the interpretation of confidence intervals and statistical tests and the applicability of the Bradford Hill principles for a causal relationship.

Dose limits for occupational exposure to ionising radiation and genotoxic carcinogens: a German perspective

This paper summarises the view of the German Commission on Radiological Protection ("Strahlenschutzkommission", SSK) on the rationale behind the currently valid dose limits and dose constraints for workers recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The paper includes a discussion of the reasoning behind current dose limits followed by a discussion of the detriment used by ICRP as a measure for stochastic health effects. Studies on radiation-induced cancer are reviewed because this endpoint represents the most important contribution to detriment. Recent findings on radiation-induced circulatory disease that are currently not included in detriment calculation are also reviewed. It appeared that for detriment calculations the contribution of circulatory diseases plays only a secondary role, although the uncertainties involved in their risk estimates are considerable. These discussions are complemented by a review of the procedures currently in use in Germany, or in discussion elsewhere, to define limits for genotoxic carcinogens. To put these concepts in perspective, actual occupational radiation exposures are exemplified with data from Germany, for the year 2012, and regulations in Germany are compared to the recommendations issued by ICRP. Conclusions include, among others, considerations on radiation protection concepts currently in use and recommendations of the SSK on the limitation of annual effective dose and effective dose cumulated over a whole working life.

Recent Epidemiologic Studies and the Linear No-Threshold Model For Radiation Protection-Considerations Regarding NCRP Commentary 27

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Commentary 27 examines recent epidemiologic data primarily from low-dose or low dose-rate studies of low linear-energy-transfer radiation and cancer to assess whether they support the linear no-threshold model as used in radiation protection. The commentary provides a critical review of low-dose or low dose-rate studies, most published within the last 10 y, that are applicable to current occupational, environmental, and medical radiation exposures. The strengths and weaknesses of the epidemiologic methods, dosimetry assessments, and statistical modeling of 29 epidemiologic studies of total solid cancer, leukemia, breast cancer, and thyroid cancer, as well as heritable effects and a few nonmalignant conditions, were evaluated. An appraisal of the degree to which the low-dose or low dose-rate studies supported a linear no-threshold model for radiation protection or on the contrary, demonstrated sufficient evidence that the linear no-threshold model is inappropriate for the purposes of radiation protection was also included. The review found that many, though not all, studies of solid cancer supported the continued use of the linear no-threshold model in radiation protection. Evaluations of the principal studies of leukemia and low-dose or low dose-rate radiation exposure also lent support for the linear no-threshold model as used in protection. Ischemic heart disease, a major type of cardiovascular disease, was examined briefly, but the results of recent studies were considered too weak or inconsistent to allow firm conclusions regarding support of the linear no-threshold model. It is acknowledged that the possible risks from very low doses of low linear-energy-transfer radiation are small and uncertain and that it may never be possible to prove or disprove the validity of the linear no-threshold assumption by epidemiologic means. Nonetheless, the preponderance of recent epidemiologic data on solid cancer is supportive of the continued use of the linear no-threshold model for the purposes of radiation protection. This conclusion is in accord with judgments by other national and international scientific committees, based on somewhat older data. Currently, no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes than the linear no-threshold model.

Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear nonthreshold model and radiation protection

The recently published NCRP Commentary No. 27 evaluated the new information from epidemiologic studies as to their degree of support for applying the linear nonthreshold (LNT) model of carcinogenic effects for radiation protection purposes (NCRP 2018 Implications of Recent Epidemiologic Studies for the Linear Nonthreshold Model and Radiation Protection, Commentary No. 27 (Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements)). The aim was to determine whether recent epidemiologic studies of low-LET radiation, particularly those at low doses and/or low dose rates (LD/LDR), broadly support the LNT model of carcinogenic risk or, on the contrary, demonstrate sufficient evidence that the LNT model is inappropriate for the purposes of radiation protection. An updated review was needed because a considerable number of reports of radiation epidemiologic studies based on new or updated data have been published since other major reviews were conducted by national and international scientific committees. The Commentary provides a critical review of the LD/LDR studies that are most directly applicable to current occupational, environmental and medical radiation exposure circumstances. This Memorandum summarises several of the more important LD/LDR studies that incorporate radiation dose responses for solid cancer and leukemia that were reviewed in Commentary No. 27. In addition, an overview is provided of radiation studies of breast and thyroid cancers, and cancer after childhood exposures. Non-cancers are briefly touched upon such as ischemic heart disease, cataracts, and heritable genetic effects. To assess the applicability and utility of the LNT model for radiation protection, the Commentary evaluated 29 epidemiologic studies or groups of studies, primarily of total solid cancer, in terms of strengths and weaknesses in their epidemiologic methods, dosimetry approaches, and statistical modelling, and the degree to which they supported a LNT model for continued use in radiation protection. Recommendations for how to make epidemiologic radiation studies more informative are outlined. The NCRP Committee recognises that the risks from LD/LDR exposures are small and uncertain. The Committee judged that the available epidemiologic data were broadly supportive of the LNT model and that at this time no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes.

Health Impacts of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: Current Scientific Debates and Regulatory Issues

Health impacts of low-dose ionizing radiation are significant in important fields such as X-ray imaging, radiation therapy, nuclear power, and others. However, all existing and potential applications are currently challenged by public concerns and regulatory restrictions. We aimed to assess the validity of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model of radiation damage, which is the basis of current regulation, and to assess the justification for this regulation. We have conducted an extensive search in PubMed. Special attention has been given to papers cited in comprehensive reviews of the United States (2006) and French (2005) Academies of Sciences and in the United Nations Scientific Committee on Atomic Radiation 2016 report. Epidemiological data provide essentially no evidence for detrimental health effects below 100 mSv, and several studies suggest beneficial (hormetic) effects. Equally significant, many studies with in vitro and in animal models demonstrate that several mechanisms initiated by low-dose radiation have beneficial effects. Overall, although probably not yet proven to be untrue, LNT has certainly not been proven to be true. At this point, taking into account the high price tag (in both economic and human terms) borne by the LNT-inspired regulation, there is little doubt that the present regulatory burden should be reduced.

Probability Distribution of Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor for use in Estimating Risks of Solid Cancers From Exposure to Low-Let Radiation

This paper presents an analysis to develop a subjective state-of-knowledge probability distribution of a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor for use in estimating risks of solid cancers from exposure to low linear energy transfer radiation (photons or electrons) whenever linear dose responses from acute and chronic exposure are assumed. A dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor represents an assumption that the risk of a solid cancer per Gy at low acute doses or low dose rates of low linear energy transfer radiation, RL, differs from the risk per Gy at higher acute doses, RH; RL is estimated as RH divided by a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor, where RH is estimated from analyses of dose responses in Japanese atomic-bomb survivors. A probability distribution to represent uncertainty in a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor for solid cancers was developed from analyses of epidemiologic data on risks of incidence or mortality from all solid cancers as a group or all cancers excluding leukemias, including (1) analyses of possible nonlinearities in dose responses in atomic-bomb survivors, which give estimates of a low-dose effectiveness factor, and (2) comparisons of risks in radiation workers or members of the public from chronic exposure to low linear energy transfer radiation at low dose rates with risks in atomic-bomb survivors, which give estimates of a dose-rate effectiveness factor. Probability distributions of uncertain low-dose effectiveness factors and dose-rate effectiveness factors for solid cancer incidence and mortality were combined using assumptions about the relative weight that should be assigned to each estimate to represent its relevance to estimation of a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor. The probability distribution of a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor for solid cancers developed in this study has a median (50th percentile) and 90% subjective confidence interval of 1.3 (0.47, 3.6). The harmonic mean is 1.1, which implies that the arithmetic mean of an uncertain estimate of the risk of a solid cancer per Gy at low acute doses or low dose rates of low linear energy transfer radiation is only about 10% less than the mean risk per Gy at higher acute doses. Data were also evaluated to define a low acute dose or low dose rate of low linear energy transfer radiation, i.e., a dose or dose rate below which a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor should be applied in estimating risks of solid cancers.

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.