ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2025
Sex-specific radiation-associated lung cancer mortality risks as impacted by smoking among US radiological technologists.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Summary of radiation effects on incidence of solid cancers in the Life Span Study of atomic bomb survivors: 1958-2009.Carcinogenesis · 2025Article
- Examining bias due to method of follow-up for cancer incidence in a large U.S. cohort: Self-report versus registry linkage.Annals of epidemiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Life Span Study of Japanese atomic bomb survivors estimated greater risks of radiation-associated lung cancer among females than males, with direct implications for occupational radiation safety policy. To evaluate replicability of these findings in radiation workers, we assessed sex-specific radiation-associated risks of lung cancer mortality in a large cohort of US radiological technologists.
methodsUsing data from 4 questionnaires (1983-2013), we reconstructed lifetime smoking history for 83 715 female and 26 650 male technologists. We estimated individual lung occupational radiation doses using badge dose and questionnaire data. We used Poisson regression to investigate joint radiation-smoking effects on sex-averaged and sex-specific lung cancer mortality risk.
resultsFor 1243 female and 607 male technologists who died from lung cancer, median cumulative lung dose was 16.2 mGy (non-cases: 7.7 mGy) and 24.5 mGy (non-cases: 10.1 mGy), respectively. Excess risk of lung cancer increased with increasing radiation dose. However, smoking modified this effect: the radiation effect at 100 mGy increased until 16 cigarettes/day, after which it declined. Excess relative risk (ERR) per 100 mGy was greater among males (never smoking additive ERR = 1.98; 95% CI = 0.34 to 6.25) than females (never smoking additive ERR = 0.40; 95% CI = -0.02 to 1.21); sex differences persisted up to ∼40 cigarettes/day.
conclusionsOur results indicated radiation-associated risks of lung cancer mortality were stronger in males than females, in contrast to the Life Span Study. However, both studies found radiation-associated risks were highest in workers with light-to-moderate smoking intensity. Altogether, these findings reinforce the importance of rigorous radiation protection measures for all radiation workers, regardless of sex, alongside interventions to support smoking cessation.
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.