Derivation of low-dose extrapolation factors from analysis of curvature in the cancer incidence dose response in Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

PURPOSES To assess the degree of overestimation in low-dose cancer risk when models linear in dose are fitted to cancer data. MATERIALS AND METHODS Examination of the quadratic and the linear coefficients (in dose) in the Japanese atomic bomb survivor cancer incidence data, based on follow-up to 1987 and taking separate account of random errors in DS86 neutron and DS86 gamma dose estimates and systematic errors in Hiroshima DS86 neutron dose estimates. RESULTS When the 0-4Gy dose range is used, the low-dose extrapolation factor for all solid tumours, assessing the degree to which low-dose cancer risks are overestimated by fitting a model linear in dose, is 1.06 (95% CI 0.78, 1.62) and so is not significantly different from 1; the associated ratio of the quadratic to the linear coefficients is 0.06 Sv(-1) (95% CI -0.22, 0.67). The best estimate of the low-dose extrapolation factor for leukaemia is 2.47 (95% CI 1.24, > 1,000). The ratio of the quadratic to the linear coefficients is 1.81 Sv(-1) (95% CI 0.21, > 1,000). When various types and groupings of solid tumours are considered there is not generally any strong evidence for upward curvature; for only two out of the six solid tumour groupings are there indications of appreciable upward curvature in the dose response, and in no instance is this statistically significant. Consideration of a lower dose range (0-2Gy rather than 0-4 Gy) results in the low-dose extrapolation factor for solid tumours increasing to 1.21 (95% CI 0.81, 2.45), with corresponding increases for solid tumour subtypes; the corresponding quantity for leukaemia decreases to 1.73 (95% CI 0.79, 147.67). Three out of the six solid tumour subtypes now show appreciable upward curvature. If there is additional adjustment of the Hiroshima neutron dose estimates over the 0-2 Gy dose range, the low-dose extrapolation factor for all solid tumours increases still further, to 1.43 (95% CI 0.97, 2.72), whereas for leukaemia this quantity is further reduced, to 1.58 (95% CI 0.90, 10.58). CONCLUSIONS There is marked upward curvature in the dose response for leukaemia. For solid tumours there is little indication of upward curvature in the dose response over the 0-4 Gy dose range, although over the 0-2 Gy dose range and after adjustment of Hiroshima DS86 neutron dose estimates the upward curvature is more pronounced. Uncertainties in the likely adjustments to the Hiroshima DS86 neutron dose estimates imply that these findings should be treated with caution.

[1]  W. Rühm,et al.  Accelerator mass spectrometry of 63Ni at the Munich Tandem Laboratory for estimating fast neutron fluences from the Hiroshima atomic bomb. , 2000, Health physics.

[2]  C R Muirhead,et al.  Risks of leukemia in Japanese atomic bomb survivors, in women treated for cervical cancer, and in patients treated for ankylosing spondylitis. , 1999, Radiation research.

[3]  M. Little,et al.  Comparison of breast cancer incidence in the Massachusetts tuberculosis fluoroscopy cohort and in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. , 1999, Radiation research.

[4]  C. Muirhead,et al.  Describing time and age variations in the risk of radiation-induced solid tumour incidence in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors using generalized relative and absolute risk models. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  W. Rühm,et al.  The dosimetry system DS86 and the neutron discrepancy in Hiroshima – historical review, present status, and future options , 1998, Radiation and environmental biophysics.

[6]  C R Muirhead,et al.  Curvature in the cancer mortality dose response in Japanese atomic bomb survivors: absence of evidence of threshold. , 1998, International journal of radiation biology.

[7]  M. Little Estimates of neutron relative biological effectiveness derived from the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. , 1997, International journal of radiation biology.

[8]  C. Muirhead,et al.  Curvilinearity in the dose-response curve for cancer in Japanese atomic bomb survivors. , 1997, Environmental health perspectives.

[9]  E. Nekolla,et al.  Neutron versus Á-ray risk estimates , 1997 .

[10]  M. Little,et al.  The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer incidence in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. , 1997, International Journal of Radiation Biology.

[11]  T. Straume,et al.  New Analytical Capability may Provide Solution to the Neutron Dosimetry Problem in Hiroshima , 1996 .

[12]  T. Straume Risk Implications of the Neutron Discrepancy in the Hiroshima DS86 Dosimetry System , 1996 .

[13]  D A Pierce,et al.  Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 12, Part I. Cancer: 1950-1990. , 1996, Radiation research.

[14]  G R Howe,et al.  Breast cancer mortality between 1950 and 1987 after exposure to fractionated moderate-dose-rate ionizing radiation in the Canadian fluoroscopy cohort study and a comparison with breast cancer mortality in the atomic bomb survivors study. , 1995, Radiation research.

[15]  C R Muirhead,et al.  Evidence for curvilinearity in the cancer incidence dose-response in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. , 1996, International journal of radiation biology.

[16]  M. Hoshi,et al.  Thermoluminescence dosimetry of the Hiroshima atomic-bomb gamma rays between 1.59 km and 1.63 km from the hypocenter. , 1995, Health physics.

[17]  J. Kuha,et al.  Corrections for exposure measurement error in logistic regression models with an application to nutritional data. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  T. Straume,et al.  Neutrons confirmed in Nagasaki and at the Army Pulsed Radiation Facility: implications for Hiroshima. , 1994, Radiation research.

[19]  H. Dohy,et al.  Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part III. Leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma, 1950-1987. , 1994, Radiation research.

[20]  D. Preston,et al.  Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part II: Solid tumors, 1958-1987. , 1994, Radiation research.

[21]  S. Richardson,et al.  Conditional independence models for epidemiological studies with covariate measurement error. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  S Richardson,et al.  A Bayesian approach to measurement error problems in epidemiology using conditional independence models. , 1993, American journal of epidemiology.

[23]  M. Hoshi,et al.  Residual 152Eu and 60Co activities induced by neutrons from the Hiroshima atomic bomb. , 1993, Health physics.

[24]  W. A. Woolson,et al.  Neutron discrepancies in the DS86 Hiroshima dosimetry system. , 1992, Health physics.

[25]  D. Pierce,et al.  The shape of the cancer mortality dose-response curve for the A-bomb survivors. , 1991, Radiation research.

[26]  Icrp 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection , 1991 .

[27]  D. Pierce,et al.  Allowing for random errors in radiation dose estimates for the atomic bomb survivor data. , 1990, Radiation research.

[28]  B Rosner,et al.  Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for systematic within-person measurement error. , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[29]  放射線影響研究所,et al.  US-Japan joint reassessment of atomic bomb radiation dosimetry in Hiroshima and Nagasaki , 1987 .

[30]  E. Gilbert Some effects of random dose measurement errors on analyses of atomic bomb survivor data. , 1984, Radiation research.

[31]  D. Papworth,et al.  Dose-response models for the radiation-induction of skin tumours in mice. , 1983, International journal of radiation biology and related studies in physics, chemistry, and medicine.