Cancer risks in a population with prolonged low dose-rate γ-radiation exposure in radiocontaminated buildings, 1983 – 2002

Hwang, Su‐Lun; Guo, How‐Ran; Hsieh, Wanhua Annie; Hwang, Jing‐Shiang; Lee, S. D.; Tang, Jen-Ruey; Chen, C. C.; Chang, T. C.; Wang, J. D.; Chang, Wushou P.

doi:10.1080/09553000601085980

Cited by 51 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Detailed dose estimation performed for this population group indicates the average excess radiation dose received by the residents from the contamination was ~0.048 Gy (Hwang et al, 2006). This radiation dose is similar to the average of the doses received by the two lowest dose cohorts in the atomic bomb survivor study (0-0.005 Gy and 0.005-0.1 Gy) .…”

Section: Linear No-threshold Model Vs Radiation Hormesismentioning

confidence: 63%

“…tion hormesis, then this procedure would introduce a negative bias in the baseline cancer rate, since the lower cancer rates at low doses (extrapolated to zero dose) would effectively be used as the baseline cancer rate during the fitting process. Many retrospective human studies have shown reduced cancer rates in the cohorts subjected to low dose radiation in comparison to the cohorts not subjected to such radiation (Hwang et al, 2006;Cohen, 2007;Vaiserman, 2010;Thompson, 2011). Let us now discuss the publication (Hwang et al, 2006) in some detail, as it reports the effect of accidental whole body low dose radiation on cancer rate in a large population group.…”

Section: Linear No-threshold Model Vs Radiation Hormesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This radiation dose is similar to the average of the doses received by the two lowest dose cohorts in the atomic bomb survivor study (0-0.005 Gy and 0.005-0.1 Gy) . The cancer incidence for the residents has been monitored and the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of solid cancers for the period up to 2002 has been determined to be 0.7 (with 95% CI of 0.6-0.9), based on the 82 observed and 109.5 expected solid cancers (see Table III of the publication) (Hwang et al, 2006), indicating the irradiated residents had a significantly reduced rate of solid cancers. A significant reduction in all cancers was also reported, with the SIR of 0.8 (95% CI of 0.7-1.0).…”

Section: Linear No-threshold Model Vs Radiation Hormesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Linear No-Threshold Model vs. Radiation Hormesis

Doss¹

2013

Dose-Response

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ᮀ The atomic bomb survivor cancer mortality data have been used in the past to justify the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for estimating the carcinogenic effects of low dose radiation. An analysis of the recently updated atomic bomb survivor cancer mortality dose-response data shows that the data no longer support the LNT model but are consistent with a radiation hormesis model when a correction is applied for a likely bias in the baseline cancer mortality rate. If the validity of the phenomenon of radiation hormesis is confirmed in prospective human pilot studies, and is applied to the wider population, it could result in a considerable reduction in cancers. The idea of using radiation hormesis to prevent cancers was proposed more than three decades ago, but was never investigated in humans to determine its validity because of the dominance of the LNT model and the consequent carcinogenic concerns regarding low dose radiation. Since cancer continues to be a major health problem and the age-adjusted cancer mortality rates have declined by only ~10% in the past 45 years, it may be prudent to investigate radiation hormesis as an alternative approach to reduce cancers. Prompt action is urged.

show abstract

Section: Linear No-threshold Model Vs Radiation Hormesismentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Linear No-threshold Model Vs Radiation Hormesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Linear No-threshold Model Vs Radiation Hormesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Linear No-Threshold Model vs. Radiation Hormesis

Doss¹

2013

Dose-Response

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Taiwan, the risks of cancers in 7,271 persons received prolonged low dose-rate and low dose for about 10 years due to reside in the buildings containing 60 Co-contaminated steels have been estimated. The risks of leukemia and thyroid cancer were increased in the population under 30 years of age at exposure (Hwang et al, 2006). CAD is diagnosed by electrocardiography (ECG), echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS), coronary angiography (CA), cardiac ventriculography (CV), computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTCA), and treated via percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (Lucas et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer Risk from Medical Radiation Procedures for Coronary Artery Disease: A Nationwide Population-based Cohort Study

Hung

Hwang²

2013

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess the risk of cancer incidence after medical radiation exposure for coronary artery disease (CAD), a retrospective cohort study was conducted based on Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Patients with CAD were identified according to the International Classification of Diseases code, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM), and their records of medical radiation procedures were collected from 1997 to 2010. A total of 18,697 subjects with radiation exposure from cardiac imaging or therapeutic procedures for CAD were enrolled, and 19,109 subjects receiving cardiac diagnostic procedures without radiation were adopted as the control group. The distributions of age and gender were similar between the two populations. Cancer risks were evaluated by age-adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) and association with cumulative exposure were further evaluated with relative risks by Poisson regression analysis. A total of 954 and 885 subjects with various types of cancers in both cohorts after following up for over 10 years were found, with incidences of 409.8 and 388.0 per 100,000 person-years, respectively. The risk of breast cancer (aIRR=1.85, 95% confidence interval: 1.14-3.00) was significantly elevated in the exposed female subjects, but no significant cancer risk was found in the exposed males. In addition, cancer risks of the breast and lung were increased with the exposure level. The study suggests that radiation exposure from cardiac imaging or therapeutic procedures for CAD may be associated with the increased risk of breast and lung cancers in CAD patients.Keywords: Coronary artery disease (CAD) -cardiac imaging -cancer risk -incidence rate ratio (IRR)

show abstract

“…An analysis of the reported cancer incidence among the residents of apartments in Taiwan who were subjected to LDR from contaminated building materials (Hwang et al, 2006;Hwang et al, 2008) has shown a reduced overall cancer incidence in the radiated cohort in comparison to an age-matched control group (Doss, 2013).…”

Section: Recent Data Negate Carcinogenic Concerns Regarding Low Dose mentioning

confidence: 99%

Low Dose Radiation Adaptive Protection to Control Neurodegenerative Diseases

Doss¹

2013

Dose-Response

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ᮀ Concerns have been expressed recently regarding the observed increased DNA damage from activities such as thinking and exercise. Such concerns have arisen from an incomplete accounting of the full effects of the increased oxidative damage. When the effects of the induced adaptive protective responses such as increased antioxidants and DNA repair enzymes are taken into consideration, there would be less endogenous DNA damage during the subsequent period of enhanced defenses, resulting in improved health from the thinking and exercise activities. Low dose radiation (LDR), which causes oxidative stress and increased DNA damage, upregulates adaptive protection systems that may decrease diseases in an analogous manner. Though there are ongoing debates regarding LDR's carcinogenicity, with two recent advisory committee reports coming to opposite conclusions, data published since the time of the reports have overwhelmingly ruled out its carcinogenicity, paving the way for consideration of its potential use for disease reduction. LDR adaptive protection is a promising approach to control neurodegenerative diseases, for which there are no methods of prevention or cure. Preparation of a compelling ethics case would pave the way for LDR clinical studies and progress in dealing with neurodegenerative diseases.

show abstract

Cancer risks in a population with prolonged low dose-rate γ-radiation exposure in radiocontaminated buildings, 1983 – 2002

Cited by 51 publications

References 33 publications

Linear No-Threshold Model vs. Radiation Hormesis

Linear No-Threshold Model vs. Radiation Hormesis

Cancer Risk from Medical Radiation Procedures for Coronary Artery Disease: A Nationwide Population-based Cohort Study

Low Dose Radiation Adaptive Protection to Control Neurodegenerative Diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About