A global burden assessment of lung cancer attributed to residential radon exposure during 1990–2019

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the spatial and temporal trends of lung cancer burden attributable to residential radon exposure at the global, regional, and national levels. Based on the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2019, we collected the age‐standardized mortality rate (ASMR) and age‐standardized disability‐adjusted life rate (ASDR) of lung cancer attributable to residential radon exposure from 1990 to 2019. The Joinpoint model was used to calculate the annual average percentage change (AAPC) to evaluate the trend of ASMR and ASDR from 1990 to 2019. The locally weighted regression (LOESS) was used to estimate the relationship of the socio‐demographic index (SDI) with ASMR and ASDR. In 2019, the global ASMR and ASDR for lung cancer attributable to residential radon exposure were 1.03 (95% CI: 0.20, 2.00) and 22.66 (95% CI: 4.49, 43.94) per 100 000 population, which were 15.6% and 23.0% lower than in 1990, respectively. According to the estimation, we found the lung cancer burden attributable to residential radon exposure declined significantly in high and high‐middle SDI regions, but substantially increased in middle and low‐middle SDI regions from 1990 to 2019. Across age and sex, the highest burden of lung cancer attributable to residential radon exposure was found in males and elderly groups. In conclusion, the global burden of lung cancer attributable to residential radon exposure showed a declining trend from 1990 to 2019, but a relatively large increase was found in the middle SDI regions. In 2019, the burden of lung cancer attributable to residential radon exposure remained high, particularly in males, the elderly, and high‐middle SDI regions compared with other groups.

Epidemiological trend of lung cancer burden caused by residential radon exposure in China from 1990 to 2019

“…The results of this study indicated that the burden of LC caused by residential radon exposure in China steadily increased over the past 30 years. According to relevant literature reports, the overall burden of LC worldwide and the burden of LC attributed to residential radon exposure have both decreased over the past three decades (Diseases and Injuries, 2020; Shan et al ., 2022). In 2019, the ASMR and ASDR for LC attributed to residential radon exposure decreased by 15.6% and 23.0%, respectively, globally (Shan et al ., 2022).…”

“…According to relevant literature reports, the overall burden of LC worldwide and the burden of LC attributed to residential radon exposure have both decreased over the past three decades (Diseases and Injuries, 2020; Shan et al ., 2022). In 2019, the ASMR and ASDR for LC attributed to residential radon exposure decreased by 15.6% and 23.0%, respectively, globally (Shan et al ., 2022). This is in opposite to the findings of this study regarding the disease burden of LC caused by residential radon exposure in China.…”

“…Kurkela et al reported LC incidence due to residential radon exposure in Finland in 2017 (Kurkela et al, 2023). The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) has documented the mortality burden of LC attributable to residential radon exposure globally for the period of 1990-2019 (Shan et al, 2022). However, there is currently no epidemiological research on residential radon exposure and LC specific to China.…”

Harm from Residential Indoor Air Contaminants

“…To assess the validity of our estimates of harm and to contextualize them, we compare them with independent estimates of chronic health impacts (in DALYs) from the inhalation of airborne contaminants in dwellings. Three studies conducted in the United States of America ,, applied the IND-DALY and/or ID-DALY methods, and three global/European studies ,, followed a comparative risk assessment approach using the population attributable fraction. A more detailed comparison can be found in Supporting Figure A.…”

“…This change is not solely attributed to our methodology because it is similar to those followed in previous studies of harm in dwell-ings. 8,12,18,19,24,114 Formaldehyde, radon, and ozone have data from both epidemiology and toxicology studies. However, PM 2.5 , PM 10−2.5 , and nitrogen dioxide are characterized only by epidemiological data.…”