Extrapolating radiation-induced cancer risks from low doses to very low doses.

Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University Medical Center, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Health physics (Impact Factor: 0.92). 11/2009; 97(5):505-9. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3181ad7f04
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There is strong evidence that ionizing radiation increases cancer risks at high doses (e.g., >or=1 Gy), and persuasive, if controversial, epidemiological evidence that cancer risks are increased at low doses ( approximately 10 mGy). Discussed here are the issues related to extrapolating radiation risks from low radiation doses to very low doses (<or=1 mGy) - for which purpose we are forced to rely on radiobiological evidence and biophysical arguments. At high doses, cells are typically hit by many tracks of radiation, while at low doses most cells are typically hit by a single track of radiation; at very low doses proportionately fewer cells are hit, again only by a single track of radiation. Thus, in comparing low doses to very low doses, the damage to hit cells remains essentially the same (a single radiation track passing through a cell), but what changes is the number of cells that are subjected to this same damage, which decreases linearly as the dose decreases. This is the argument for a linear no-threshold (LNT) model. It is important to emphasize that this LNT argument only applies to the extrapolation from low doses to very low doses, not from high to low doses. Of course there are caveats to this argument, such as the potential effects of phenomena such as inter-cellular communication and immunosurveillance, and the possibility of different radiobiological processes at very low doses, compared to low doses. However, there is little conclusive experimental evidence about the significance of these phenomena at very low doses, and comparative mechanistic studies at high doses vs. low doses will not be informative in this context. At present, we do not know whether such radiobiological phenomena would produce small or large perturbations, or even whether they would increase or decrease cancer risks at very low doses, compared with the prediction of a linear extrapolation from low doses.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To calculate and compare the doses of ionizing radiation delivered to the organs by computed tomography (CT) and stereoradiography (SR) during measurements of lower limb torsion and anteversion. A Rando anthropomorphic phantom (Alderson RANDO phantom, Alderson Research Laboratories Inc., Stanford, Conn) was used for the dose measurements. The doses were delivered by a Somatom 16-slice CT-scanner (Siemens, Erlangen) and an EOS stereoradiography unit (EOS-Imaging, Paris) according to the manufacturers' acquisition protocols. Doses to the surface and deeper layers were calculated with thermoluminiscent GR207P dosimeters. Dose uncertainties were evaluated and assessed at 6% at k=2 (that is, two standard deviations). The absorbed doses for the principal organs assessed were as follows: for the ovaries, 0.1mGy to the right ovary and 0.5mGy to the left ovary with SR versus1.3mGy and 1.1mGy with CT, respectively; testes, 0.3mGy on the right and 0.4mGy on the left with SR versus 8.5mGy and 8.4mGy with CT; knees, 0.4mGy to the right knee and 0.8mGy to the left knee with SR versus 11mGy and 10.4mGy with CT; ankles, 0.5mGy to the right ankle and 0.8mGy to the left with SR versus 15mGy with CT. The SR system delivered substantially lower doses of ionizing radiation doses than CT to all the organs studied: CT doses were 4.1 times higher to the ovaries, 24 times higher for the testicles, and 13-30 times higher for the knees and ankles. The use of the SR system to study the torsion of lower limbs makes it possible to reduce the amount of medical irradiation that patients accumulate.
    European journal of radiology 11/2013; · 2.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare the summing method (A) with the complement method (B) for calculating the cumulative lifetime-attributable-risk (LARtot) of tumor incidence and mortality of multiple CT exposures. Method A defines LARtot as the summation of the risk of each separate exposure. Method B was defined as the complement of the probability of inducing no cancer in N separate exposures. The risk of each separate exposure was estimated using dose, gender, and age at exposure (BEIR VII phase 2). Both methods were compared in a simulation and applied to a database of 11,884 patients exposed to multiple CTs. The relative difference between the methods was defined as ΔP%. Simulation confirmed that Method A always overestimates LARtot. ΔP% was proportional to the dose per exposure and the number of exposures. The differences between Methods A and B were small. Average LARtot of tumor incidence was 0.140% (Method A) and 0.139% (Method B) with maxima of 5.70% and 5.56%, respectively. Average LARtot of mortality was 0.085% for both methods, with maxima of 2.20% and 2.18%, respectively. ΔP% was highest (2.43%) for a female patient (3-y old) exposed to eight recurrent scans and a cumulative dose of 144 mSv. Although Method B is more accurate, both methods can be used to estimate the cumulative risk of multiple CT exposures. These results have to be interpreted, however, in the perspective of the uncertainties in the cancer risk model, which have been estimated at a factor of 2 or 3.
    Health physics 04/2014; 106(4):475-83. · 0.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Children with sickle cell disease (SCD) are repeatedly exposed to diagnostic radiation. We identified 938 children with SCD who had 9,246 radiographic tests. Mean number of tests/patient was 9.9 (95% CI: 8.9-10.9) over 8,817 patient-years. Mean rate was 1.5 tests/year (95% CI: 1.3-1.6). On average, a child with SCD will have 26.7 (95% CI: 24.1-29.3) radiographic tests by 18 years of age, and 5% will have ≥100 tests. Six percent have ≥3 CT scans, which may be associated with an increased risk of cancer. Strong consideration should be given to limiting the exposure of children with SCD to radiation. Pediatr Blood Cancer © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Pediatric Blood & Cancer 01/2014; · 2.35 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from