Content uploaded by Tetiana Bogdanova
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tetiana Bogdanova on Aug 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Age Distribution of Childhood Thyroid Cancer
Patients in Ukraine After Chernobyl and in Fukushima
After the TEPCO-Fukushima Daiichi NPP Accident
Mykola D. Tronko,
1
Vladimir A. Saenko,
2
Victor M. Shpak,
1
Tetiana I. Bogdanova,
1
Shinichi Suzuki,
3
and Shunichi Yamashita
2,4,5
Dear Editor:
The epidemic of thyroid cancer among children exposed to
radiation is a worldwide known health consequence of the
Chernobyl accident, which took place on April 26, 1986. In
Ukraine, a sharp increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer
was observed since 1990, and had been preceded by a so-
called period of latency during which no significant raise in
baseline incidence was registered (1). Current interpretation
of the cases in young patients detected during the period
of latency in Chernobyl areas is that they were not due to
radiation.
A large-scale nuclear accident occurred at the TEPCO-
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power plant in Mach 2011. In
response to the disaster, Fukushima Prefecture launched the
Fukushima Health Management Survey to investigate long-
term low-dose radiation health effects. The Thyroid Ultra-
sound Examination Program, a component of the Survey,
was started in October 2011 aiming at performing ultra-
sound examination of the neck in some 360,000 Fukushima
Prefecture residents aged up to 18 years in March 2011. As
of February 2014, the Program covered nearly 80% of the
target population and reported 75 cases suspicious for ma-
lignancy or malignant (2). Note that these findings were
obtained using highly sensitive ultrasound equipment in the
course of an unprecedented mass screening, which un-
avoidably increases incidence rate (3); the screening is be-
ing performed for the first time in this geographic area, and
in a screening-naı
¨ve population. Thirty-four patients have
received surgery; pathological diagnoses include one be-
nign tumor, one suspicious for poorly differentiated thyroid
carcinoma, and 32 papillary thyroid carcinomas. Such a
high prevalence has not been anticipated, and is widely
discussed by the specialists and the public, sometimes ex-
pressing concerns about possible relationship to radiation
exposure.
In bF1
Figure 1, we plotted the distribution of thyroid cancer
patients aged up to 18 years at accident by their age at
exposure diagnosed in Ukraine during the period of latency
and first years after it (1), and of those diagnosed in Fu-
kushima (2). There is a striking similarity between the
profiles of patients diagnosed during the period of latency
after Chernobyl in Ukraine and currently in Fukushima. In
contrast, patients diagnosed in Ukraine after the period of
latency, when radiation-induced tumors started to manifest,
display principally a different age pattern. A large number
of individuals exposed below five years of age, who are
at the highest risk for radiation-induced thyroid cancer,
have been seen. No such patients have been diagnosed in
Fukushima so far.
In our opinion, if thyroid cancers in Fukushima were due
to radiation, more cases in exposed preschool-age children
would have been expected. In addition, thyroid doses in
Fukushima are markedly lower than those in Chernobyl
areas (4). Further analysis will be necessary with respect to
the thyroid cancer cases that may appear in the coming
years, once the period of latency has passed. Particular at-
tention should be paid to thyroid dose reconstruction, age at
exposure and diagnosis, tumor morphology (the solid
growth pattern was frequently observed in childhood pap-
illary thyroid carcinomas that developed after the short
period of latency in Chernobyl), and whether there will be a
‘‘harvesting effect,’’ which is a spike in cases after intro-
duction of screening.
1
State Institution ‘‘VP Komisarenko Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolism of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of
Ukraine,’’ Kiev, Ukraine.
Departments of
2
Health Risk Control and
4
Radiation Medical Sciences, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki,
Japan.
3
Department of Thyroid and Endocrinology;
5
Radiation Medical Science Center for the Fukushima Health Management Survey;
Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan.
THYROID
Volume 24, Number 10, 2014
ªMary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2014.0198
1
THY-2014-0198-ver9-Tronko_1P
Type: letter
THY-2014-0198-ver9-Tronko_1P.3d 08/07/14 4:14pm Page 1
Acknowledgments
This publication was supported by research grant 25257508
from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Tronko M, Shpak V, Bogdanova T, Saenko V, Yamashita S
2014 Epidemiology of thyroid cancer in Ukraine after
Chernobyl. In: Tronko M, Bogdanova T, Saenko V, Thomas
GA, Likhtarov I, Yamashita S (eds) Thyroid Cancer in
Ukraine after Chernobyl. Dosimetry, Epidemiology, Pa-
thology, Molecular Biology. IN–TEX, Nagasaki, Japan, pp
39–64.
2. Thyroid Ultrasound Examination, Fukushima Health Man-
agement Survey. Available at: www.fmu.ac.jp/radiationhealth/
results/media/14-2_ThyroidUE.pdf (accessed April 21, 2014).
3. Jacob P, Kaiser JC, Ulanovsky A 2014 Ultrasonography
survey and thyroid cancer in the Fukushima Prefecture.
Radiat Environ Biophys 53:391–401.
4. UNSCEAR 2014 Sources, effects and risks of ionizing ra-
diation. Volume I: Scientific Annex A. Levels and effects of
radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011
great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami. UNSCEAR 2013
Report. United Nations, New York.
Address correspondence to:
Vladimir Saenko, PhD
Department of Health Risk Control
Nagasaki University Graduate School
of Biomedical Sciences
1-12-4 Sakamoto
Nagasaki 852-8523
Japan
E-mail: saenko@nagasaki-u.ac.jp
FIG. 1. Distribution of thyroid cancer patients by age at
exposure diagnosed during the period of latency (1986–
1989) and after it (1990–1993) in Ukraine, and patients with
verified or suspicious thyroid cancer in Fukushima diag-
nosed during 2011–2013. Numbers above the bars corre-
spond to the number of patients of a given age at exposure.
Note that comparison of the absolute number of cases be-
tween the two regions of radiological accidents would be
inappropriate because of differences in population size and
screening protocols, in particular a more systematic ap-
proach, higher population coverage, and advanced ultra-
sound equipment in Fukushima.
2 TRONKO ET AL.
THY-2014-0198-ver9-Tronko_1P.3d 08/07/14 4:14pm Page 2