Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018. Vol. 63. No. 3. P. 19–27

RADIATION EPIDEMIOLOGY

DOI: 10.12737/article_5b168903913783.42898182

Problems of Identifying Dose – Effect Dependence for Radiation Carcinogenesis

V.F. Demin¹, A.P. Biryukov², M.V. Zabelin³, V.Yu. Soloviev²

1. National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ; 2. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia; 3. Federal Medical Biological Agency of Russia, Moscow, Russia

V.F. Demin– Leading Researcher, Dr. Sc. Tech., PhD Phys.-Math., Assoc. Prof.; A.P. Biryukov– Head of Dep., Dr. Sс. Med., Prof.; M.V. Zabelin – Dr. Sc. Med., Prof.; V.Yu. Soloviev – Senior Researcher, Head of Lab., Dr. Sc. Biol., PhD Tech.

Abstract

Purpose: Analysis of actual unresolved problems in the field of radiation epidemiology associated with establishing the dose–effect relationship (DER).

Material and methods: The problem of establishing DER for ionizing radiation (IR) for the prognostic risk assessment based on the results of the performed biological and epidemiological studies is considered. The main characteristics of the cohorts, on which the epidemiological study (ES) was conducted, were analyzed. An algorithm is proposed for analyzing the statistical power of a real cohort in the plane with parameters accumulated dose – cohort strength, adjusted for the average duration of the cohort monitoring.

Results: It is shown that among all the analyzed cohorts the following ones respond the criterion of lifetime detection of radiation solid cancers with the 95 % confidence: the victims of the atomic bombing of Japanese cities (LSS), personnel of the Mayak Plant, members of the Branch Medical Dosimetric Register (BMDR). Limitation of the observation period to 30 year dramatically reduces the statistical power of the ES observed effects.

Overcoming of existing problems and improvement of quantitative presentation of the DER for IR can be achieved by a joint analysis of the results of already performed ES and (or) possible future ES. In this regard, it is very promising to carry out ES on the cohort of the Mayak personnel or BMDR as a whole.

Conclusion: When planning new ESs and joint analyzes, the purpose of which is to improve our knowledge of DER in the required form and quality, one should proceed from the following provisions:

– it is necessary to set the task for ES and, accordingly, for the construction of the DER model as a function of an age of exposure and an age of the oncological disease for a single exposure, taking into account the strict mathematical relationship between such dependencies of DER for single and extended impacts;

– at the initial stage of the ES it is necessary, with the proposed algorithm, to verify the possibility of a statistical justification of the expected ES results.

Averaged DER over the age of exposure is little suitable for predictive and comparative risk assessment.

Key words: radiation epidemiology, dose, radiation risk, cohort, morbidity, mortality, solid cancer, leukemia, statistical power

REFERENCES

1. Rakhmanin YuA, Demin VF, Ivanov SI. General approach to the assessment, comparison and normalization of the risk to human health from various sources of harm. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2006;(4):5-8. Russian.
2. Demin VF, Zakharchenko IE. The risk of exposure to ionizing radiation and other harmful factors on human health: assessment methods and practical application. Radiat Biology. Radioecology. 2012;52(1):77-89. Russian.
3. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIRVII). Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2005. 710 p.
4. Shigematsu I. The 2000 Sievert Lecture – Lessons from Atomic Bomb Survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Health Phys. 2000;79(3):234-41.
5. EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S. Population. April 2011, U.S. EPA, Washington DC; 2011. 164 p.
6. Gonzales AG. The Sievert Lecture. Int. Radiat. Prot. Assotiat. 11th Int. Congress. Madrid, Spain; 2004 May 23–28. Available from: http://irpa11.irpa.net/pdfs/pps0-2.pdf.
7. UNSCEAR 2006 Report. Vol. I. Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Annex A: Epidemiological Studies of Radiation and Cancer. UN, New York; 2008. 310 p.
8. Cancer in Russia in 2013 (morbidity and mortality). Ed. by AD Kaprin, VV Starinskij, GV Petrova. Herzen Moscow Scientific Oncological Institute; 2015. Available from: www.oncology.ru/service/statistics/malignant_tumors/2013.pdf. Russian.
9. Soloviev VYu. Mathematical methods and models in emergency dosimetry, radiation medicine and radiation epidemiology. Мoscow: State Research Center - Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency; 2016. 120 p. Russian.
10. Cardis E, Wijheid M, Blettner M, et al. Cancer Risk Following Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation – a Retrospective Cohort Study in 15 Countries. Brit Med J. 2005;331:77-80.
11. Freser P, Carpenter L, Maconochie E, et al. Cancer Mortality and Morbidity in Employees of the United Kindom Atomic Energy Authority, 1946–1986. Brit J Cancer. 1993:615-24.
12. Howe G, Zablotska LB, Fix JJ. Analysis of the Mortality Experience among U.S. Nuclear Power Workers after Chronic Low-Dose Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. Radiat Res. 2004;(162):517-26.
13. Cardis E, Gilbert E, Carpenter L, et al. Effects of Low Doses and Low Dose Rates of External Ionizing Radiation: Cancer Mortality among Nuclear Industry Workers in Three Countries. Radiat Res. 1995;142:724-32.
14. Gorskij AI, Maksyutov MA, Tumanov KA, et al. Analysis of mortality of liquidators of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident according to the data of the National Radiation and Epidemiological Register for the observation period 1992–2010. Radiation and Risk. 2013;22(2):35-51. Russian.
15. Ilyin LA, Kiselev MF, Panfilov AP, et al. Medical Dosimetric Registry of Russian atomic industry employees: current status and perspectives. Int J Low Radiation. 2006;2(3/4):207-17.
16. Ilyin LA, Ivanov AA, Kochetkov OA, et al. Technogenic Exposure and Human Safety. Ed. by LA Ilyin. Moscow: IzdAT; 2006. 303 p. Russian.
17. Richardson DB, Cardis E, Daniel RD, et al. Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS). Brit Med J. 2015:351. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h5359.
18. Koshurnikova NA, Shilnikova NS, Okatenko PV, et al. Cohort characteristics of Mayak Plant personnel. Med Radiol Radiat Safety. 1998;43(6):43-57. Russian.
19. Shilnikova NS, Preston DA, Koshurnikova NA, Okatenko PV. Comparative analysis of leukemia in the cohorts of Mayak workers and among those exposed to radiation in the atomic explosion in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In: Chronic radiation exposure: risk of long-term effects. Moscow: IzdAT. 1996;2:115-20. Russian.
20. Tukov AR, Shafranski IL, Biryukov AP, Prokhorova ON. The branch register of exposed persons in the Chernobyl accident. Med Radiol Radiat Safety. 2016;61(3):62-7. Russian.
21. Soloviev VYu, Semenov VG, Kravchenko MV, Koshurnikova NA. The method of analyzing the information of medical dosimetry registers for estimating the yield of cancer-related mortality potentially induced by radiation. Med Radiol Radiat Safety. 2004;49(1):45-52. Russian.
22. Soloviev VYu, Semenov VG, Koshurnikova NA, et. al. “Early” Leukemia Effect in Prolonged Exposure with High Doses. Int J Low Radiation. 2006;2(3/4):275-84.
23. Soloviev VYu, Semenov VG, Koshurnikova NA. “Early” leukemia effect in prolonged exposure with high doses. Radiat Biology Radioecology. 2007;47(6):701-6. Russian.
24. Demin VF, Zhukovski MV, Kiselev SM. Method of human health risk assessment of radon exposure. Gygiena and Sanitaria. 2014;(5):64-9. Russian.

For citation: Demin VF, Biryukov AP, Zabelin MV, Soloviev VYu. Problems of Identifying Dose – Effect Dependence for Radiation Carcinogenesis. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63(3):19-27. Russian. DOI: 10.12737/article_5b168903913783.42898182

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)