Background: Although high doses of ionizing radiation have long been linked to circulatory disease, evidence for an association at lower exposures remains controversial. However, recent analyses suggest excess relative risks at occupational exposure levels.Objectives: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize information on circulatory disease risks associated with moderate- and low-level whole-body ionizing radiation exposures.Methods: We conducted PubMed/ISI Thomson searches of peer-reviewed papers published since 1990 using the terms “radiation” AND “heart” AND “disease,” OR “radiation” AND “stroke,” OR “radiation” AND “circulatory” AND “disease.” Radiation exposures had to be whole-body, with a cumulative mean dose of < 0.5 Sv, or at a low dose rate (< 10 mSv/day). We estimated population risks of circulatory disease from low-level radiation exposure using excess relative risk estimates from this meta-analysis and current mortality rates for nine major developed countries.Results: Estimated excess population risks for all circulatory diseases combined ranged from 2.5%/Sv [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8, 4.2] for France to 8.5%/Sv (95% CI: 4.0, 13.0) for Russia.Conclusions: Our review supports an association between circulatory disease mortality and low and moderate doses of ionizing radiation. Our analysis was limited by heterogeneity among studies (particularly for noncardiac end points), the possibility of uncontrolled confounding in some occupational groups by lifestyle factors, and higher dose groups (> 0.5 Sv) generally driving the observed trends. If confirmed, our findings suggest that overall radiation-related mortality is about twice that currently estimated based on estimates for cancer end points alone (which range from 4.2% to 5.6%/Sv for these populations).
Non-DNA targeted effects of ionizing radiation, which include genomic instability, and a variety of bystander effects including abscopal effects and bystander mediated adaptive response, have raised concerns about the magnitude of low-dose radiation risk. Genomic instability, bystander effects and adaptive responses are powered by fundamental, but not clearly understood systems that maintain tissue homeostasis. Despite excellent research in this field by various groups, there are still gaps in our understanding of the likely mechanisms associated with non-DNA targeted effects, particularly with respect to systemic (human health) consequences at low and intermediate doses of ionizing radiation. Other outstanding questions include links between the different non-targeted responses and the variations in response observed between individuals and cell lines, possibly a function of genetic background. Furthermore, it is still not known what the initial target and early interactions in cells are that give rise to non-targeted responses in neighbouring or descendant cells. This paper provides a commentary on the current state of the field as a result of the Non-targeted effects of ionizing radiation (NOTE) Integrated Project funded by the European Union. Here we critically examine the evidence for non-targeted effects, discuss apparently contradictory results and consider implications for low-dose radiation health effects.
Inflammatory diseases are the result of complex and pathologically unbalanced multicellular interactions. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that further molecular pathways and cellular components contribute to the anti-inflammatory effect of LD-RT. This review discusses data and models revealing aspects of the mechanisms underlying the anti-inflammation induced by low doses of X-irradiation and may serve as a basis for systematic analyses, necessary to optimize LD-RT in clinical practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.