Skip to main content

Cancer risk estimates from the combined Japanese A-bomb and Hodgkin cohorts for doses relevant to radiotherapy

Radiation and Environmental Biophysics volume 47, pages 253–263 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Most information on the dose–response of radiation-induced cancer is derived from data on the A-bomb survivors who were exposed to γ-rays and neutrons. Since, for radiation protection purposes, the dose span of main interest is between 0 and 1 Gy, the analysis of the A-bomb survivors is usually focused on this range. However, estimates of cancer risk for doses above 1 Gy are becoming more important for radiotherapy patients and for long-term manned missions in space research. Therefore in this work, emphasis is placed on doses relevant for radiotherapy with respect to radiation-induced solid cancer. The analysis of the A-bomb survivor’s data was extended by including two extra high-dose categories (4–6 Sv and 6–13 Sv) and by an attempted combination with cancer data on patients receiving radiotherapy for Hodgkin’s disease. In addition, since there are some recent indications for a high neutron dose contribution, the data were fitted separately for three different values for the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of the neutrons (10, 35 and 100) and a variable RBE as a function of dose. The data were fitted using a linear, a linear-exponential and a plateau-dose–response relationship. Best agreement was found for the plateau model with a dose-varying RBE. It can be concluded that for doses above 1 Gy there is a tendency for a nonlinear dose–response curve. In addition, there is evidence of a neutron RBE greater than 10 for the A-bomb survivor data. Many problems and uncertainties are involved in combing these two datasets. However, since very little is currently known about the shape of dose–response relationships for radiation-induced cancer in the radiotherapy dose range, this approach could be regarded as a first attempt to acquire more information on this area. The work presented here also provides the first direct evidence that the bending over of the solid cancer excess risk dose response curve for the A-bomb survivors, generally observed above 2 Gy, is due to cell killing effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S, Funamoto S, Nishi N, Soda M, Mabuchi K, Kodama K (2007) Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat Res 168:1–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Cullings HM, Fujita S, Funamoto S, Kodama K (2004) Effects of recent changes in Atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimated. Radiat Res 162:377–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Walsh L, Rühm W, Kellerer AM (2004) Cancer risk estimates for X-rays with regard to organ specific doses, part I: all solid cancers combined. Radiat Environ Biophys 43:145–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Walsh L, Rühm W, Kellerer AM (2004) Cancer risk estimates for γ-rays with regard to organ specific doses, part II: site specific solid cancers. Radiat Environ Biophys 43:225–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cucinotta FA, Wu H, Shavers M, George K (2003) Radiation dosimetry and biophysical models of space radiation effects. Gravit Space Biol Bull 16(2):11–18

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kim MH, Cucinotta FA, Wilson JW (2007) A temporal forecast of radiation environments for future space exploration missions. Radiat Environ Biophys 46(2):95–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lindsay KA, Wheldon EG, Deehan C, Wheldon TE (2001) Radiation carcinogenesis modelling for risk of treatment-related second tumours following radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 74(882):529–536

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hall EJ, Wuu CS (2003) Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56(1):83–88

    Google Scholar 

  9. Davis RH (2004) Production and killing of second cancer precursor cells in radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59(3):916

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schneider U (2005) Dose–response relationship for radiation-induced cancer-decrease or plateau at high dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61(1):312–313

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dasu A, Toma-Dasu I (2005) Dose-effect models for risk-relationship to cell survival parameters. Acta Oncol 44(8):829–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dasu A, Toma-Dasu I, Olofsson J, Karlsson M (2005) The use of risk estimation models for the induction of secondary cancers following radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 44(4):339–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schneider U, Zwahlen D, Ross D, Kaser-Hotz B (2005) Estimation of radiation induced cancer from 3D-dose distributions: concept of organ equivalent dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61: 1510–1515

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schneider U, Kaser-Hotz B (2005) A simple dose–response relationship for modelling secondary cancer incidence after radiotherapy. Z Med Phys 15(1):31–37

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sachs RK, Brenner DJ (2005) Solid tumor risks after high doses of ionizing radiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(37):13040–13045

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Schneider U, Kaser-Hotz B (2005) Radiation risk estimates after radiotherapy: application of the organ equivalent dose concept to plateau dose–response relationships. Radiat Environ Biophys 44(3):235–2399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kellerer AM, Walsh L (2001), Risk estimation for fast neutrons with regard to solid cancer. Radiat Res 156:708–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pierce DA, Stram DO, Vaeth M (1990) Allowing for random errors in radiation dose estimates for the atomic bomb survivor data. Radiat Res 123:275–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kellerer AM, Rühm W, Walsh L (2006) Indications of the neutron effect contribution in the solid cancer data of the A-bomb survivors. Health Phys 90(6):554–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rühm W, Walsh L (2007) Current risk estimates based on the A-bomb survivors data—a discussion in terms of the ICRP recommendations on the neutron weighting factor. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. (Advance access, May 28, doi:10.1093/rpd/ncm087)

  21. Sasaki MS, Endo S, Ejima Y, Saito I, Okamura K, Oka Y, Hoshi M (2006) Effective dose of A-bomb radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as assessed by chromosomal effectiveness of spectrum energy photons and neutrons. Radiat Environ Biophys 45:79–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Carmel RJ, Kaplan HS (1976) Mantle irradiation in Hodgkin’s disease. An analysis of technique, tumor eradication, and complications. Cancer 37(6):2813–2825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoppe RT (1990) Radiation therapy in the management of Hodgkin’s disease. Semin Oncol 17(6):704–715

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Dores GM, Metayer C, Curtis RE, Lynch CF, Clarke EA, Glimelius B, Storm H, Pukkala E, van Leeuwen FE, Holowaty EJ, Andersson M, Wiklund T, Joensuu T, van’t Veer MB, Stovall M, Gospodarowicz M, Travis LB (2002) Second malignant neoplasms among long-term survivors of Hodgkin’s disease: a population-based evaluation over 25 years. J Clin Oncol 20(16):3484–3494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zubal IG, Harrell CR, Smith EO, Rattner Z, Gindi G, Hoffer PB (1994) Computerized three-dimensional segmented human anatomy. Med Phys 21(2):299–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mauch PM, Leslie AK, Kadin M, Coleman CN, Osteen R, Hellman S (1993) Patterns of presentation of Hodgkin disease. Cancer 71(6):2062–2071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Little MP (2001) Comparison of the risks of cancer incidence and mortality following radiation therapy for benign and malignant disease with the cancer risks observed in the Japanese A-bomb survivors. Int J Radiat Biol 77(4):431–464 (Erratum in: Int J Radiat Biol 2001 77(6):745–60)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van Leeuwen FE, Travis LB (2005) Risk of second malignancy in patients with selected primary cancers. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA (eds) Cancer: principles & practice of oncology, 7th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 2575–2602

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mack TM, Cozen W, Shibata DK et al (1995) Concordance for Hodgkin’s disease in identical twins suggesting genetic susceptibility to the young-adult form of the disease. N Engl J Med 332(7):413–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks are due to Dr. Werner Rühm for many useful comments and valuable discussions. This work makes use of the data obtained from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) in Hiroshima, Japan. RERF is a private foundation funded equally by the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare and the US Department of Energy through the US National Academy of Sciences. The conclusions in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the scientific judgment of RERF or its funding agencies.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, The Triemli Hospital Zürich, 8063, Zürich, Switzerland

    Uwe Schneider

  2. GSF National Research Center, Institute of Radiation Protection, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany

    Linda Walsh

Authors
  1. Uwe Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Uwe Schneider.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schneider, U., Walsh, L. Cancer risk estimates from the combined Japanese A-bomb and Hodgkin cohorts for doses relevant to radiotherapy. Radiat Environ Biophys 47, 253–263 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-007-0151-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-007-0151-y

Keywords

  • Dose Distribution
  • Relative Biological Effectiveness
  • Excess Absolute Risk
  • Organ Equivalent Dose
  • Excess Relative Risk Model