ArticleInternational journal of radiation biology2022
Sex-specific lung cancer risk among radiation workers in the million-person study and patients TB-Fluoroscopy.
Article in International journal of radiation biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Significance of the Response: Beyond the Mechanics of DNA Damage and Repair-Physiological, Genetic, and Systemic Aspects of Radiosensitivity in Higher Organisms.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- A Million Person Study Innovation: Evaluating Cognitive Impairment and other Morbidity Outcomes from Chronic Radiation Exposure Through Linkages with the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services Assessment and Claims Data.Radiation research · 2024Article
- A Historical Survey of Key Epidemiological Studies of Ionizing Radiation Exposure.Radiation research · 2024Review
- Lung cancer in females-sex-based differences from males in epidemiology, biology, and outcomes: a narrative review.Translational lung cancer research · 2024Review
- Radiotherapy for non-cancer diseases: benefits and long-term risks.International journal of radiation biology · 2024Review
- The epidemiology of lung cancer following radiation exposure.International journal of radiation biology · 2023Article
- A million persons, a million dreams: a vision for a national center of radiation epidemiology and biology.International journal of radiation biology · 2022Article
- A bespoke health risk assessment methodology for the radiation protection of astronauts.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2021Article
- The Likelihood of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes and Genetic Disease (Transgenerational Effects) from Exposure to Radioactive Fallout from the 1945 Trinity Atomic Bomb Test.Health physics · 2020Article
- Ionizing radiation induces epithelial-mesenchymal transition in human bronchial epithelial cells.Bioscience reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe study of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, exposed briefly to radiation, finds the risk of radiation-induced lung cancer to be nearly three times greater for women than for men. Because protection standards for astronauts are based on individual lifetime risk projections, this sex-specific difference limits the time women can spend in space. Populations exposed to chronic or fractionated radiation were evaluated to learn whether similar differences exist when exposures occur gradually over years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five occupational cohorts within the Million Person Study of Low-Dose Health Effects (MPS) and a Canadian Fluoroscopy Cohort Study (CFCS) of tuberculosis patients who underwent frequent chest fluoroscopic examinations are evaluated. Included are male and female workers at the Mound nuclear facility, nuclear power plants (NPP), and industrial radiographers (IR). Workers at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works and military participants at aboveground nuclear weapons tests provide information on the risk among males. Cox proportional hazards and Poisson regression models were used to estimate sex-specific radiation risks for lung cancer and to compare any differences.
resultsOverall, 15,065 lung cancers occurred among the 443,684 subjects studied: 50,111 women and 395,573 men. The mean cumulative dose to the lung was 166.3 mGy (range 6 to 1,055 mGy) with the highest among the TB-fluoroscopy patients (mean 1,055 mGy). Mean lung dose for women in the worker cohorts was generally 4 times lower than for men. Of the 12 estimates of radiation-related risk, only one, for male IRs, showed a significant elevation (ERR 0.09; 95% CI 0.02-0.16, at 100 mGy). In contrast, the dose response for male NPP workers was negative (ERR -0.05; 95% CI -0.10, 0.01, at 100 mGy). Combined, these two cohorts provided little evidence for a radiation effect among males (ERR 0.01; 95% CI -0.04, 0.06, at 100 mGy). There was no significant dose-response among females within any cohort. There was no difference in the sex-specific estimates of lung cancer risk.
conclusionsThere was little evidence that chronic or fractionated exposures increased the risk of lung cancer. There were no differences in the risks of lung cancer between men and women. However, the sex-specific analyses are limited because of small numbers of women and relatively low doses. A more definitive study is ongoing of medical radiation workers which include 85,000 women and 85,000 men (overall mean dose 82 mGy, max 1,140 mGy). Additional understanding will come from the ongoing follow-up of the CFCS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.