A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiationCitation formats

Standard

A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation. / Kendall, Gerald M; Little, Mark P; Wakeford, Richard.

In: International Journal of Radiation Biology, Vol. 97, No. 6, 03.06.2021, p. 769-781.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Kendall, GM, Little, MP & Wakeford, R 2021, 'A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation', International Journal of Radiation Biology, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 769-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2020.1867926

APA

Kendall, G. M., Little, M. P., & Wakeford, R. (2021). A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 97(6), 769-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2020.1867926

Vancouver

Kendall GM, Little MP, Wakeford R. A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 2021 Jun 3;97(6):769-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2020.1867926

Author

Kendall, Gerald M ; Little, Mark P ; Wakeford, Richard. / A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation. In: International Journal of Radiation Biology. 2021 ; Vol. 97, No. 6. pp. 769-781.

Bibtex

@article{f7f1c8e60d614bc88d10dd248a5581de,
title = "A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation",
abstract = "PURPOSE: The projected existence and magnitude of carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiation at low doses and low-dose rates is perhaps the most important issue in radiation protection today. Studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation have the potential to throw direct light on this question, into a dose range below a few tens of mSv. This paper describes the studies that have been undertaken and their context, discusses some problems that arise and summarizes the present position.CONCLUSIONS: Many such studies have been undertaken, but most were too small to have a realistic chance of detecting the small effects expected from such low doses, based on risk projections from higher exposures. Case-control or cohort studies are to be preferred methodologically to ecological studies but can be prone to problems of registration/participation bias. Interview-based studies of the requisite size would be prohibitively expensive and would undoubtedly also run into problems of participation bias. Register-based studies can be very large and are free of participation bias. However, they need to estimate the radiation exposure of study subjects using models rather than individual measurements in the homes of those concerned. At present, no firm conclusions can be drawn from the studies that have been published to date. Further data and perhaps pooled studies offer a way forward.",
keywords = "Background radiation, cancer, epidemiology",
author = "Kendall, {Gerald M} and Little, {Mark P} and Richard Wakeford",
note = "Funding Information: The Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics supported the work of MPL. We are grateful to numerous colleagues for their helpful discussions, most particularly to the authors of the earlier reviews that we cite. The two anonymous referees made helpful suggestions. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} Copyright {\textcopyright} 2021 Taylor & Francis Group LLC.",
year = "2021",
month = jun,
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/09553002.2020.1867926",
language = "English",
volume = "97",
pages = "769--781",
journal = "International Journal of Radiation Biology",
issn = "0955-3002",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation

AU - Kendall, Gerald M

AU - Little, Mark P

AU - Wakeford, Richard

N1 - Funding Information: The Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics supported the work of MPL. We are grateful to numerous colleagues for their helpful discussions, most particularly to the authors of the earlier reviews that we cite. The two anonymous referees made helpful suggestions. Publisher Copyright: © Copyright © 2021 Taylor & Francis Group LLC.

PY - 2021/6/3

Y1 - 2021/6/3

N2 - PURPOSE: The projected existence and magnitude of carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiation at low doses and low-dose rates is perhaps the most important issue in radiation protection today. Studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation have the potential to throw direct light on this question, into a dose range below a few tens of mSv. This paper describes the studies that have been undertaken and their context, discusses some problems that arise and summarizes the present position.CONCLUSIONS: Many such studies have been undertaken, but most were too small to have a realistic chance of detecting the small effects expected from such low doses, based on risk projections from higher exposures. Case-control or cohort studies are to be preferred methodologically to ecological studies but can be prone to problems of registration/participation bias. Interview-based studies of the requisite size would be prohibitively expensive and would undoubtedly also run into problems of participation bias. Register-based studies can be very large and are free of participation bias. However, they need to estimate the radiation exposure of study subjects using models rather than individual measurements in the homes of those concerned. At present, no firm conclusions can be drawn from the studies that have been published to date. Further data and perhaps pooled studies offer a way forward.

AB - PURPOSE: The projected existence and magnitude of carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiation at low doses and low-dose rates is perhaps the most important issue in radiation protection today. Studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation have the potential to throw direct light on this question, into a dose range below a few tens of mSv. This paper describes the studies that have been undertaken and their context, discusses some problems that arise and summarizes the present position.CONCLUSIONS: Many such studies have been undertaken, but most were too small to have a realistic chance of detecting the small effects expected from such low doses, based on risk projections from higher exposures. Case-control or cohort studies are to be preferred methodologically to ecological studies but can be prone to problems of registration/participation bias. Interview-based studies of the requisite size would be prohibitively expensive and would undoubtedly also run into problems of participation bias. Register-based studies can be very large and are free of participation bias. However, they need to estimate the radiation exposure of study subjects using models rather than individual measurements in the homes of those concerned. At present, no firm conclusions can be drawn from the studies that have been published to date. Further data and perhaps pooled studies offer a way forward.

KW - Background radiation

KW - cancer

KW - epidemiology

U2 - 10.1080/09553002.2020.1867926

DO - 10.1080/09553002.2020.1867926

M3 - Article

C2 - 33395329

VL - 97

SP - 769

EP - 781

JO - International Journal of Radiation Biology

JF - International Journal of Radiation Biology

SN - 0955-3002

IS - 6

ER -