Cancer mortality among atomic bomb survivors exposed as children. (The Best Paper Award in 2012 received from the Japanese Society for Hygiene)

Department of School Health Sciences, Aichi University of Education, Kariya, Japan.
Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 10/2011; 17(3):228-34. DOI: 10.1007/s12199-011-0246-6
Source: PubMed


To compare cancer mortality among A-bomb survivors exposed as children with cancer mortality among an unexposed control group (the entire population of Japan, JPCG).
The subjects were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bomb survivor groups (0-14 years of age in 1945) reported in life span study report 12 (follow-up years were from 1950 to 1990), and a control group consisting of the JPCG. We estimated the expected number of deaths due to all causes and cancers of various causes among the exposed survivors who died in the follow-up interval, if they had died with the same mortality as the JPCG (0-14 years of age in 1945). We calculated the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of A-bomb survivors in comparison with the JPCG.
SMRs were significantly higher in exposed boys overall for all deaths, all cancers, leukemia, and liver cancer, and for exposed girls overall for all cancers, solid cancers, liver cancer, and breast cancer. In boys, SMRs were significantly higher for all deaths and liver cancer even in those exposed to very low doses, and for all cancers, solid cancers, and liver cancer in those exposed to low doses. In girls, SMRs were significantly higher for liver cancer and uterine cancer in those exposed to low doses, and for leukemia, solid cancers, stomach cancer, and breast cancer in those exposed to high doses.
We calculated the SMRs for the A-bomb survivors versus JPCG in childhood and compared them with a true non-exposed group. A notable result was that SMRs in boys exposed to low doses were significantly higher for solid cancer.

Download full-text


Available from: Masaru Miyao, Oct 05, 2015
39 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Effective prevention and early diagnostic strategies are the most important public health interventions in gastric cancer, which remains a common malignancy worldwide. Preventive strategies require identification and understanding of environmental risk factors that lead to carcinogenesis. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is the primary carcinogen as this ancient bacterium has a complex ability to interact with its human host. Smoking and salt are strong independent risk factors for gastric cancer whereas alcohol is only a risk when it is heavily consumed. Red meat and high fat increase the risk of gastric cancer however fresh fruits, vegetables (allium family) and certain micronutrients (selenium, vitamin C) reduce the risk, with evidence lacking for fish, coffee and tea. Foods that inhibit H. pylori viability, colonization and infection may reduce cancer risk. Obesity is increasingly recognized as a contributory factor in gastric cardia carcinogenesis. Therefore, modest daily physical activities can be protective against cancer. Foundry workers are at risk for developing gastric cancer with dust iron being an important cause. Other risk factors include Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), possibly JC virus and radiation but the effects of these are likely to remain small.
    Archives of Iranian medicine 06/2013; 16(6):358-365. · 1.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The environment is an underutilized pathway to breast cancer prevention. Current research approaches and funding streams related to breast cancer and the environment are unequal to the task at hand. We undertook the California Breast Cancer Prevention Initiatives, a four-year comprehensive effort to set a research agenda related to breast cancer, the environment, disparities and prevention. We identified 20 topics for Concept Proposals reflecting a life-course approach and the complex etiology of breast cancer; considering the environment as chemical, physical and socially constructed exposures that are experienced concurrently: at home, in the community and at work; and addressing how we should be modifying the world around us to promote a less carcinogenic environment. Redirecting breast cancer research towards prevention-oriented discovery could significantly reduce the incidence and associated disparities of the disease among future generations.
    Reproductive Toxicology 09/2014; 54. DOI:10.1016/j.reprotox.2014.09.008 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reproduction is doubtlessly one of the main biological meanings of life. It is therefore not surprising that various aspects of reproduction impact on breast cancer risk. Various developmental levels may become targets of breast tumorigenesis. This review follows the chronologic sequence of events in the life of a female at risk, starting with the intrauterine development. Furthermore, the influence of both contraceptive measures and fertility treatment on breast cancer development is dealt with, as well as various pregnancy-associated factors, events, and perinatal outcomes. Finally, the contribution of breast feeding to a reduced breast cancer risk is discussed.
    Breast Care 12/2014; 9(6):398-405. DOI:10.1159/000369570 · 0.63 Impact Factor