陳真
發佈日期: 2016.05.16
發佈時間:
下午 6:07
謝謝軻明提供這篇研究。
Lancet 是英國一本著名醫學期刊。我怕有些人可能看不懂英文或看不習慣英文或是看不懂其中一些專業概念，本想做個簡單摘要，不過想想還是算了，算我怕了。我就把它剪下來，想看的自己看。只能剪文字，表格或圖片無法顯現。
這研究的暴露劑量是很低的，差不多只是所謂 ""安全"" 標準的十分之一。它的結論是這樣寫的：
""血癌和低劑量輻射之間的正相關性，本研究提供了一個強烈證據。本研究再次確認一個有關輻射防護的重要原則，亦即應儘可能減少輻射暴露--特別是在病患方面，輻射之接觸，須確保利應大於弊之原則。""
其實巴勒網這版面上的討論根本都還沒有到這個層級來，我們只是在講一些再淺顯也不過的常識。常識自然是根本無須多說的，我們之所以說它，只是因為怎麼會有人做出違反常識的絕對宣稱。
在台灣，特別是近幾年來，反核成為一種政治正確，一種流行，一種根本不必用到大腦的立場，甚至變成一種思想忠貞檢查。每次看到市面上一些人或一些團體，充滿驕傲地張貼或懸掛一些反核標語，我就覺得很想吐，低級又低能，因為時下流行的反核人士們經常發神經胡說八道，把核能給妖魔化得一文不值。
但是，即便是擁核的一方，也不用擁到同樣胡說八道的地步來。當然，如果硬要那樣瞎掰，我也不知道還能說什麼，只能建議那就買一台x光機回家給全家人玩；因為，依照其所謂 ""安全"" 標準，每天照x光連續照50年也不會超標。
這事就這樣了，拜託各位 ""安全輻射"" 人士別再來這裏講一些傻話。你應該要聽懂人家究竟是在說什麼，而不是當成一種什麼立場在捍衛似的。
陳真
=====================
The Lancet Haematology
Volume 2, No. 7, e276–e281, July 2015
Ionising radiation and risk of death from leukaemia and lymphoma in radiation-monitored workers (INWORKS): an international cohort study
Dr Klervi Leuraud, PhDcorrespondenceemail, David B Richardson, PhD, Prof Elisabeth Cardis, PhD, Robert D Daniels, PhD, Michael Gillies, MSc, Jacqueline A O'Hagan, HNC, Ghassan B Hamra, PhD, Richard Haylock, PhD, Dominique Laurier, PhD, Monika Moissonnier, BSc, Mary K Schubauer-Berigan, PhD, Isabelle Thierry-Chef, PhD, Ausrele Kesminiene, MD
Published Online: 21 June 2015
Open AccessArticle has an altmetric score of 653
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00094-0 |
Open access funded by Cancer Research UK
Klervi Leuraud discusses a study reporting on the risk of developing leukaemia and lymphoma in workers monitored for radiation exposure.
There is much uncertainty about the risks of leukaemia and lymphoma after repeated or protracted low-dose radiation exposure typical of occupational, environmental, and diagnostic medical settings. We quantified associations between protracted low-dose radiation exposures and leukaemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma mortality among radiation-monitored adults employed in France, the UK, and the USA.
Methods
We assembled a cohort of 308 297 radiation-monitored workers employed for at least 1 year by the Atomic Energy Commission, AREVA Nuclear Cycle, or the National Electricity Company in France, the Departments of Energy and Defence in the USA, and nuclear industry employers included in the National Registry for Radiation Workers in the UK. The cohort was followed up for a total of 8·22 million person-years. We ascertained deaths caused by leukaemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. We used Poisson regression to quantify associations between estimated red bone marrow absorbed dose and leukaemia and lymphoma mortality.
Findings
Doses were accrued at very low rates (mean 1·1 mGy per year, SD 2·6). The excess relative risk of leukaemia mortality (excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia) was 2·96 per Gy (90% CI 1·17–5·21; lagged 2 years), most notably because of an association between radiation dose and mortality from chronic myeloid leukaemia (excess relative risk per Gy 10·45, 90% CI 4·48–19·65).
Interpretation
This study provides strong evidence of positive associations between protracted low-dose radiation exposure and leukaemia.
Funding
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, AREVA, Electricité de France, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, US Department of Energy, US Department of Health and Human Services, University of North Carolina, Public Health England.
Introduction
Although exposure to high-dose ionising radiation is rare outside of radiotherapy, repeated or protracted low-dose exposure has become increasingly common over the past 25 years.1 Occupational and environmental sources of radiation exposure are important; however, the largest contributor to this trend is medical radiation exposure. In 1982, the average yearly dose of ionising radiation from medical exposures was about 0·5 mGy per person in the USA; by 2006, it had increased to 3·0 mGy.2 A similar pattern exists in other high-income countries: use of diagnostic procedures involving radiation in the UK more than doubled over that period3 and more than tripled in Australia.4 Because ionising radiation is a carcinogen,5 its use in medical practice must be balanced against the risks associated with patient exposure.6
The primary basis for estimating cancer risks from ionising radiation exposures are epidemiological studies of Japanese survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945.7 Within a few years of the bombings there was evidence of an excess of leukaemia, predominantly myeloid subtypes, among the survivors.8, 9, 10, 11, 12 These findings helped to establish that ionising radiation causes leukaemia.13 However, this evidence mostly relates to acute high-dose exposure. The risks associated with protracted or repeated low-dose exposures are more relevant to the public and health practitioners.
The International Nuclear WORKers Study (INWORKS) was done to strengthen the scientific basis for protecting people from low-dose protracted or intermittent radiation exposure. It included workers from France,14 the UK,15 and the USA16 who have been monitored for external exposure to radiation with personal dosimeters and followed up for up to 60 years after exposure. Here, we report data for leukaemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma mortality among participants of INWORKS.
Evidence before this study
Ionising radiation causes leukaemia. The primary quantitative basis for radiation protection standards comes from studies of populations exposed to acute, high doses of ionising radiation. Although previous studies of nuclear workers addressed leukaemia radiogenicity, questions remain about the size of the risk from protracted radiation exposure in occupational settings.
Added value of this study
We report a positive dose–response relationship between cumulative, external, protracted, low-dose exposure to ionising radiation, and subsequent death caused by leukeamia (excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia). The risk coefficient per unit dose was consistent with those derived from analyses of other populations exposed to higher radiation doses and dose rates.
Implications of all the available evidence
The present study provides strong evidence of a positive association between radiation exposure and leukaemia even for low-dose exposure. This finding shows the importance of adherence to the basic principles of radiation protection—to optimise protection to reduce exposures as much as reasonably achievable and—in the case of patient exposure—to justify that the exposure does more good than harm.
Methods
Study design and participants
The INWORKS cohort consists of nuclear workers from three of the major partners included in the previously published 15-country study of cancer among workers in the nuclear industry:17 France,14 the UK,15 and the USA.16 Less than 20% of deaths from leukaemia were contributed by the other 12 countries.18 These cohorts have been updated since the 15-country study. INWORKS includes fewer partners than the earlier 15-country study because of the limited resources and the consequent need for efficiency in project coordination.
The study includes workers employed by the French Atomic Energy Commission, AREVA Nuclear Cycle, and Electricité de France, workers employed by the British Atomic Weapons Establishment, British Nuclear Fuels, the UK Atomic Energy Authority, British Energy Generation, the UK Ministry of Defence, and other organisations providing data to the National Registry for Radiation Workers, and workers employed by the US Department of Energy's Hanford Site, Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Workers who were employed in the nuclear industry for less than 1 year were excluded. In France, workers were given the opportunity to refuse participation, which is required by the French Data Protection Authority; however, none did. In the USA, worker information was taken from existing records, with no direct contact with any participants; because there is minimal risk to participants, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health institutional review board waived requirements for informed consent. UK workers can refuse to participate in the National Registry for Radiation Workers and associated studies; less than 1% did.
Procedures
Participants were followed up for a total of 8·22 million person-years to ascertain vital status up to 2004 in France, 2001 in the UK, and 2005 in the USA. Underlying cause of death was abstracted from death certificates and generally coded according to the revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) in effect at the time of death. We assessed leukaemia other than chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL; ICD9 codes 204–208 excluding 204.1 and 204.9), acute myeloid leukaemia (ICD9 codes 205.0, 206.0, 207.0, and 207.2), chronic myeloid leukaemia (ICD9 code 205.1), acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ICD9 code 204.0), and CLL (ICD9 code 204.1). We assessed lymphoma deaths separately for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ICD9 codes 200, 202, 273.3), Hodgkin's lymphoma (ICD9 code 201), and multiple myeloma (ICD9 code 203). The appendix (p 2)) shows an exhaustive list of ICD codes.
Data for monitoring exposure to ionising radiation were available from dose registry, government, and company records, providing individual yearly estimates of whole-body exposure to external penetrating radiation (primarily γ rays). Red bone marrow absorbed doses expressed in Gy were derived by dividing recorded external penetrating radiation dose estimates by the appropriate organ dose conversion factor.19, 20 In this report, dose indicates absorbed dose to red bone marrow expressed in Gy. Because most external exposures were to high-energy photons, with a radiation weighting factor of 1·0, absorbed dose in Gy could be expressed in terms of equivalent dose in Sieverts.
Statistical analysis
Participants entered the study either 1 year after the date of first employment or on the date of first dosimetric monitoring, whichever was later. In France, the national death registry recorded information on individual causes of death only since 1968; therefore, French workers entered follow-up on Jan 1, 1968, or later. Participants remained in the study until the earliest of date of death, date lost to follow-up, or end of follow-up. We estimated relative risk (RR) by a model of the form RR=1 + βd, generally used in studies of radiation effects,21 where d is the dose and β is an estimate of the excess relative risk (ERR; RR – 1) per unit dose; we derived likelihood-based CIs. All models were stratified by country, sex, calendar period (<1946, 1946–50…1996–2000, ≥2001), and age (<35, 35–39…70–74, ≥75); these potential confounders were selected a priori from a set of measured covariates. We also fitted linear-quadratic and pure-quadratic functions of dose and selected a model with Akaike information criterion.22
To allow for an induction and latency period between exposure to radiation and death, cumulative doses were lagged by 2 years for analyses of leukaemia mortality and by 10 years for analyses of lymphoma and multiple myeloma. These lag assumptions were chosen a priori. In sensitivity analyses we assessed a 10-year lag for analyses of leukaemia mortality and a 2-year lag for analyses of lymphoma and multiple myeloma, fitted models to restricted ranges of dose, and excluded workers with substantial doses from neutrons (ie, workers with recorded cumulative neutron doses exceeding 10% of the total equivalent dose for external radiation). To provide empirical support for the absence of confounding by socioeconomic status, we report supplementary analyses adjusted for socioeconomic status (based on job title: managers and engineers, administrative staff, skilled workers, unskilled workers, uncertain); and, to address concern about potential confounding by internal contamination, we report analyses adjusted for known or suspected internal radiation exposure. We did the analyses excluding one country at a time to assess the effect of a single country on overall results. Because the objective of most contemporary radiation epidemiological studies is to investigate the potential for an increased cancer risk in relation to radiation exposure, one-sided p values and corresponding 90% CIs are usually presented; we follow that convention here by reporting 90% CIs. All models were fitted with EPICURE software.23
Role of the funding source
The funders had no role in study design, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. AREVA and Électricité de France provided historical occupational data and individual monitoring data for part of the French cohort. KL, DBR, and MM had full access to all the data in the study. KL and DBR had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Results
We assembled a cohort of 308 297 radiation-monitored workers. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the study population. Mean follow-up was 27 years (SD 12) and nearly 22% of the workers were deceased at the end of follow-up. Mean cumulative dose was 16 mGy. The median was 2·1 mGy (IQR 0·3–11·7), with a tenth percentile of 0·0 mGy and a 90th percentile of 40·8 mGy (appendix p 1). The mean yearly dose was 1·1 mGy (SD 2·6).
Table 1
Characteristics of individuals included in INWORKS
Table Thumbnail. Opens Table in new tab.
Data are n (%) unless stated otherwise.
We recorded 531 deaths caused by leukaemia excluding CLL, 814 caused by lymphoma, and 293 caused by multiple myeloma. 281 (53%) of 531 deaths caused by leukaemia excluding CLL occurred in people who had accrued less than 5 mGy (appendix p 3). The RR of death caused by leukaemia excluding CLL by categories of cumulative dose showed a substantial risk for cumulative dose above 200 mGy (appendix p 3). The estimated ERR of mortality caused by leukaemia excluding CLL was 2·96 per Gy (90% CI 1·17–5·21; table 2). The trend in the ERR of leukaemia excluding CLL with dose was well described by a simple linear function of cumulative dose; inclusion of a higher order polynomial function (ie, a linear-quadratic or pure-quadratic function of dose) did not substantially improve the model fit (the Akaike information criterion was lowest for the pure-quadratic model but only differed by 0·3 from that of the linear model; data not shown). The ERR of leukaemia excluding CLL was not attenuated when restricted to doses of less than 300 mGy or less than 100 mGy (figure); however, 90% CIs were much wider when based on data for the restricted dose range.
Table 2
ERR per Gy of cumulative red bone marrow dose for causes of death
Table Thumbnail. Opens Table in new tab.
ERR estimated with a linear model stratified by country, calendar period, sex, and age. NE lower CI bound could not be estimated because it was on the boundary of the parameter space (−1/maximum dose). 14 deaths were assigned ICD9 code 204.9 (lymphoid leukaemia, unspecified) and one death was assigned ICD9 code 202.9 (other and unspecified malignant neoplasms of lymphoid, haemopoietic, and related tissue) were excluded from the cause-specific analyses.
*2-year lagged cumulative dose.
†10-year lagged cumulative dose. ERR=excess relative risk. CLL=chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. NE=not estimable.
Thumbnail image of Figure. Opens large image
Figure
Relative risk of leukaemia excluding chronic lymphocytic leukaemia associated with 2-year lagged cumulative red bone marrow dose
The lines are the fitted linear dose–response model and the shading represents the 90% CIs.
We assessed the associations between cumulative dose and subtypes of leukaemia. We detected positive associations for chronic myeloid leukaemia, acute myeloid leukaemia, and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia; the association was largest for chronic myeloid leukaemia (table 2). Associations also were positive but highly imprecise for Hodgkin's lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma with CIs that spanned zero (table 2). The association between radiation dose and CLL mortality was negative (table 2).
Alternative lag assumptions resulted in little change in the ERR per Gy (appendix p 4). When adjusting the ERR model for socioeconomic status, the ERR per Gy was practically unchanged for leukaemia excluding CLL and for chronic myeloid leukaemia (appendix p 5).
Similarly, adjustment for internal radiation contamination had little effect (appendix p 5). We assessed the effect of excluding people who had recorded neutron exposures; we showed a positive association for leukaemia excluding CLL (ERR per Gy 4·19, 90% CI 1·42–7·80, 453 deaths) and chronic myeloid leukaemia (ERR per Gy 9·55, 90% CI 2·39–21·7, 79 deaths). To assess whether any single country substantially affected the results, we assessed radiation-mortality associations excluding one country at a time (appendix p 6). The estimated ERR per Gy for leukaemia excluding CLL was 2·95 (90% CI 1·13–5·24) when excluding France, 2·32 (0·03–5·33) when excluding the UK, and 3·68 (1·09–7·29) when excluding the USA (appendix p 6). For multiple myeloma and Hodgkin's lymphoma, the associations could not be estimated when excluding the USA, but the multiple myeloma was positive when excluding the UK (ERR per Gy 3·32 [90% CI 0·27–7·64]).
Discussion
We showed a positive association between cumulative dose of ionising radiation and death caused by leukaemia (excluding CLL) among adults who were typically exposed to low doses. The association was greatest for chronic myeloid leukaemia, with positive but imprecise dose–response for deaths caused by acute myeloid leukaemia, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, Hodgkin's lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.
The estimated association between cumulative radiation dose with a 2-year exposure lag assumption and death caused by leukaemia excluding CLL was similar in size and precision to the linear dose–response estimate for male atomic bomb survivors exposed between the ages of 20 and 60 years (ERR at 1 Sv 2·63, 90% CI 1·50–4·27).14 Although based on a substantially lower dose distribution than in analyses of atomic bomb survivors, typically with very low doses accrued over a long period, the similar size of the associations supports contemporary estimates of risk of leukaemia after adult exposure to radiation. This is notable because our estimates were not extrapolated from data for acute exposures.
In previous analyses of cancer among workers in 15 countries,18 the association between mortality for leukaemia excluding CLL and cumulative radiation dose with a 2-year exposure lag assumption (ERR per Sv 1·93, 90% CI <0–7·14) was smaller and much less precise than the estimate we obtained in our pooled analysis of three countries. The gain in precision is a result of the larger number of deaths from leukaemia excluding CLL in INWORKS (n=531) compared to the earlier study (n=196), because of longer follow-up (mean follow-up in INWORKS was 27 years vs 13 years in the 15-country study17) and the enlargement of the French, UK, and US cohorts compared with previous analyses.14, 15, 16 Moreover, the 15-country study excluded people with potential exposures from neutron and internal contamination. In our study, we included 127 deaths caused by leukaemia excluding CLL for workers with potential exposure to neutron and internal contamination. Similarly, the risk estimate for non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the INWORKS study was more precise than the estimate reported in the 15-country study,24 again because the present study included more deaths (248 in the 15-country study, 710 in the present study). The CIs do not overlap for estimated associations between radiation dose and death caused by acute and chronic myeloid leukaemia; a formal test of heterogeneity in associations by leukaemia subtype would require a joint modelling approach and was not used here.
We did not find any effect of a single country on the estimated association for leukaemia excluding CLL. For multiple myeloma, the association was significantly positive when only the UK data were excluded, suggesting a possible heterogeneity in the risk pattern between the three cohorts. Schubauer-Berigan and colleagues16 reported a significant increased risk of multiple myeloma mortality associated with dose in their analysis of the USA cohort (ERR per 10 mSv 3·9, 90% CI 0·6–9·6), whereas no significant dose-related excess was detected in the third analysis of the UK National Registry for Radiation Workers (although a significant excess risk was recorded in an analysis of incidence).15 Multiple myeloma has a potentially long period of development of up to 20 years. The older age at the end of follow-up in the USA cohort might explain the heterogeneity.
We tried to reduce uncertainties in dose estimates that could bias dose–response analyses.20 Nevertheless, occupational radiation dose estimates are prone to measurement error; consequently, exposure misclassification is an unavoidable study limitation. Outcome misclassification is also a potential concern in studies that rely on death certificates for classification of leukaemia and lymphoma by subtype. This concern is well known for CLL, for which incidence studies seem more appropriate.25, 26, 27, 28 Poor sensitivity and imperfect specificity of death certificates might reduce statistical precision and induce bias in analyses of subtypes. However, death certificate information remains a valuable resource for this type of cohort investigation.
There are few potential confounders of the associations under study. For example, smoking causes myeloid leukaemia;29, 30 however, the size of this association is relatively small31 and therefore would require large differences in smoking across levels of cumulative dose to cause substantial confounding of the radiation–leukaemia association. Moreover, adjusting risk analyses by socioeconomic status would reduce substantial confounding by smoking.32 Adjustment for socioeconomic status resulted in little change in the risk estimate for leukaemia excluding CLL. Exposure of nuclear workers to other causes of leukaemia such as benzene29, 30 cannot be excluded as a potential source of bias, even though benzene was not widely used in the nuclear industry. In a previous analysis of US nuclear workers, Schubauer-Berigan and coworkers33 reported weak evidence of confounding by benzene exposure when analysing leukaemia risk associated with external radiation exposure. Benzene exposure could not be assessed for the INWORKS study. Internal exposures to radionuclides—notably uranium and plutonium—occurred at the study sites, and we did not evaluate doses from these intakes. However, our sensitivity analyses showed that internal contamination might have little effect on the relation between external radiation exposure and leukaemia risk. These results are consistent with the conclusions of Shilnikova and colleagues,34 who reported no indication of any effect of internal contamination on leukaemia mortality among nuclear workers, whereas the risk of leukaemia was positively associated with external γ-ray exposure.
Medical workers are also exposed to low doses of external γ-rays or x-rays. No study has provided estimates of leukaemia risk for medical workers because accurate historical dosimetry data are not available for these populations.35 Liu and colleagues36 estimated mortality in a cohort of 90 268 USA radiological technologists. They reported that the leukaemia risk was doubled for technologists who had worked for more than 30 years compared with those who had worked for less than 10 years, but the cohort did not provide any information about doses received by the workers.
In summary, this study provides strong evidence of an association between protracted low dose radiation exposure and leukaemia mortality. At present, radiation protection systems are based on a model derived from acute exposures, and assumes that the risk of leukaemia per unit dose progressively diminishes at lower doses and dose rates.37 Our results provide direct estimates of risk per unit of protracted dose in ranges typical of environmental, diagnostic medical, and occupational exposure.
Contributors
DBR and AK had the idea for the study. DBR, AK, EC, RDD, MG, JAO'H, GBH, RH, KL, DL, MKS-B, and IT-C designed the study. KL and DL worked on provision of the French data, MKS-B and RDD worked on provision of the US data, MG, JAO'H, and RH worked on provision of the UK data. MM managed, processed, and analysed the data. IT-C analysed and assessed dosimetry data. KL did the statistical analysis. KL and DBR wrote the initial draft of the report, which was revised and approved by all authors.
Declaration of interests
We declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
This work was partly funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( 5R03 0H010056-02 ) and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (GA No 2012-02-21-01 ). The construction of the French cohort was realised by the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, with partial funding from AREVA and Electricité de France. The Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire thanks all people from the French Atomic Energy Commission, AREVA, and Electricité de France who cooperated in the elaboration of the French cohort. For the US contribution, funding was provided by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, by the US Department of Energy through an agreement with the US Department of Health and Human Services, and through a grant received by the University of North Carolina from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ( R03 OH-010056 ). The construction of the UK cohort was undertaken by Public Health England who operate the UK's National Registry for Radiation Workers. Public Health England thank all of the organisations and individuals participating in the National Registry for Radiation Workers for their cooperation, and the National Registry for Radiation Workers steering group for their continued support. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Klervi Leuraud discusses a study reporting on the risk of developing leukaemia and lymphoma in workers monitored for radiation exposure.
References
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Vol I. Annex A: Medical radiation exposures. United Nations, New York; 2010
Mettler, FA Jr, Thomadsen, BR, Bhargavan, M et al. Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. in 2006: preliminary results. Health Phys. 2008; 95: 502–507
Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. COMARE's 16th report: review of radiation dose issues from the use of CT in the UK. London, 2014.
Brady, Z, Cain, TM, and Johnston, PN. Paediatric CT imaging trends in Australia. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2011; 55: 132–142
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (23)
IARC. in: A review of human carcinogens. Vol 100D. International Agency for Research on Cancer Press, Lyon; 2012
View in Article
Pearce, MS, Salotti, JA, Little, MP et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2012; 380: 499–505
View in Article | Summary | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (814)
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2010 Report to the General Assembly. Summary of low-dose radiation effects on health. United Nations, New York; 2011
View in Article
Folley, JH, Borges, W, and Yamawaki, T. Incidence of leukemia in survivors of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. Am J Med. 1952; 13: 311–321
View in Article | Summary | Full Text PDF | PubMed
Preston, DL, Shimizu, Y, Pierce, DA, Suyama, A, and Mabuchi, K. Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: Solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950–1997. Radiat Res. 2003; 160: 381–407
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (180)
Richardson, D, Sugiyama, H, Nishi, N et al. Ionizing radiation and leukemia mortality among Japanese atomic bomb survivors, 1950-2000. Radiat Res. 2009; 172: 368–382
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (49)
Hsu, WL, Preston, DL, Soda, M et al. The incidence of leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma among atomic bomb survivors: 1950-2001. Radiat Res. 2013; 179: 361–382
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (58)
Ozasa, K, Shimizu, Y, Suyama, A et al. Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, report 14, 1950–2003: an overview of cancer and noncancer diseases. Radiat Res. 2012; 177: 229–243
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (43)
IARC. in: Ionizing radiation, part 1: x- and gamma-radiation, and neutrons. Vol 75. International Agency for Research on Cancer Press, Lyon; 2000
View in Article
Metz-Flamant, C, Laurent, O, Samson, E et al. Mortality associated with chronic external radiation exposure in the French combined cohort of nuclear workers. Occup Environ Med. 2013; 70: 630–638
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (17)
Muirhead, CR, O'Hagan, JA, Haylock, RGE et al. Mortality and cancer incidence following occupational radiation exposure: third analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. Br J Cancer. 2009; 100: 206–212
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (179)
Schubauer-Berigan, MK, Daniels, RD, Bertke, SJ, Tseng, C-Y, and Richardson, DB. Cancer mortality through 2005 among a pooled cohort of U.S. nuclear workers exposed to external ionizing radiation. Radiat Res. 2015; (published online May 26. DOI:10.1667.RR13988.1)
View in Article
Vrijheid, M, Cardis, E, Blettner, M et al. The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: design, epidemiological methods and descriptive results. Radiat Res. 2007; 167: 361–379
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (67)
Cardis, E, Vrijheid, M, Blettner, M et al. Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation - retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ. 2005; 331: 77–80
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (307)
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Conversion coefficients for radiological protection quantities for external radiation exposures. ICRP Publication 116. Ann ICRP. 2010; 40: 1–257
View in Article
Thierry-Chef, I, Richardson, DB, Daniels, RD et al. Dose estimation for a study of nuclear workers in France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America: methods for the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS). Radiat Res. 2015;
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1667/RR14006.1
(published online May 26.)
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (4)
National Research Council Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. BEIR VII Phase 2. National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2007
View in Article
Burnham, KP and Anderson, DR. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Methods Res. 2004; 33: 261–304
View in Article | CrossRef | Scopus (2040)
Preston, DL, Lubin, JH, Pierce, DA, and McConney, ME. Epicure user's guide. Hirosoft International, Seattle; 1993
View in Article
Cardis, E, Vrijheid, M, Blettner, M et al. The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat Res. 2007; 167: 396–416
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (347)
Richardson, DB, Wing, S, Schroeder, J, Schmitz-Feuerhake, I, and Hoffmann, W. Ionizing radiation and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Environ Health Perspect. 2005; 113: 1–5
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (44)
Linet, MS, Schubauer-Berigan, MK, Weisenburger, DD et al. Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: An overview of aetiology in light of recent developments in classification and pathogenesis. Br J Haematol. 2007; 139: 672–686
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (43)
Silver, SR, Hiratzka, SL, Schubauer-Berigan, MK, and Daniels, RD. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia radiogenicity: a systematic review. Cancer Causes Control. 2007; 18: 1077–1093
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (10)
Vrijheid, M, Cardis, E, Ashmore, P et al. Ionizing radiation and risk of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the 15-country study of nuclear industry workers. Radiat Res. 2008; 170: 661–665
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (23)
Cogliano, VJ, Baan, R, Straif, K et al. Preventable exposures associated with human cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103: 1827–1839
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (107)
Eastmond, DA, Keshava, N, and Sonawane, B. Lymphohematopoietic cancers induced by chemicals and other agents and their implications for risk evaluation: an overview. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2014; 761: 40–64
View in Article | CrossRef | Scopus (3)
Vineis, P, Alavanja, M, Buffler, P et al. Tobacco and cancer: recent epidemiological evidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96: 99–106
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed
Richardson, DB, Laurier, D, Schubauer-Berigan, MK, Tchetgen, ET, and Cole, SR. Assessment and indirect adjustment for confounding by smoking in cohort studies using relative hazards models. Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 180: 933–940
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (4)
Schubauer-Berigan, MK, Daniels, RD, Fleming, DA et al. Risk of chronic myeloid and acute leukemia mortality after exposure to ionizing radiation among workers at four U.S. nuclear weapons facilities and a nuclear Naval Shipyard. Radiat Res. 2007; 167: 222–232
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (30)
Shilnikova, NS, Preston, DL, Ron, E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiat Res. 2003; 159: 787–798
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (93)
Linet, MS, Kim, KP, Miller, DL, Kleinerman, RA, Simon, SL, and De Gonzalez, AB. Historical review of occupational exposures and cancer risks in medical radiation workers. Radiat Res. 2010; 174: 793–808
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (48)
Liu, JJ, Freedman, DM, Little, MP et al. Work history and mortality risks in 90 268 US radiological technologists. Occup Environ Med. 2014; 71: 819–835
View in Article | CrossRef | PubMed | Scopus (4)
International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007; 37: 1–332
View in Article
