Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cancer risk from chronic exposures to chemicals and radiation: a comparison of the toxicological reference value with the radiation detriment

  • Review
  • Published:
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 28 September 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

This article aims at comparing reference methods for the assessment of cancer risk from exposure to genotoxic carcinogen chemical substances and to ionizing radiation. For chemicals, cancer potency is expressed as a toxicological reference value (TRV) based on the most sensitive type of cancer generally observed in animal experiments of oral or inhalation exposure. A dose–response curve is established by modelling experimental data adjusted to apply to human exposure. This leads to a point of departure from which the TRV is derived as the slope of a linear extrapolation to zero dose. Human lifetime cancer risk can then be assessed as the product of dose by TRV and it is generally considered to be tolerable in a 10–6–10–4 range for the public in a normal situation. Radiation exposure is assessed as an effective dose corresponding to a weighted average of energy deposition in body organs. Cancer risk models were derived from the epidemiological follow-up of atomic bombing survivors. Considering a linear-no-threshold dose-risk relationship and average baseline risks, lifetime nominal risk coefficients were established for 13 types of cancers. Those are adjusted according to the severity of each cancer type and combined into an overall indicator denominated radiation detriment. Exposure to radiation is subject to dose limits proscribing unacceptable health detriment. The differences between chemical and radiological cancer risk assessments are discussed and concern data sources, extrapolation to low doses, definition of dose, considered health effects and level of conservatism. These differences should not be an insuperable impediment to the comparison of TRVs with radiation risk, thus opportunities exist to bring closer the two types of risk assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Change history

Abbreviations

ANSES:

French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety

ATSDR:

Agency for toxic substances and disease registry (USA)

BMD:

Benchmark dose

BMDL:

Lower limit of the confidence interval of the benchmark dose

CERCLA:

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

DDREF:

Dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor

EAR:

Excess absolute risk

ECHA:

European Chemicals Agency

EFSA:

European Food Safety Authority

ERR:

Excess relative risk

Gy:

Gray

HCPH:

French High Council for Public Health

ICRP:

International Commission on Radiological Protection

LOAEL:

Lower observed adverse effect level

LNT:

Linear-no-threshold

LSS:

Life Span Study

OEHHA:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (USA)

PBPK:

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic

POD:

Point of departure

REIC:

Risk of exposure-induced cancer

RIVM:

National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Netherlands)

Sv:

Sievert

TRV:

Toxicological reference values

UNSCEAR:

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

US-EPA:

United States Environmental Protection Agency

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  • Anses (2017) French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety. Valeurs toxicologiques de référence—Guide d’élaboration—rapport d’expertise collective. Available at https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/SUBSTANCES2017SA0016Ra.pdf

  • Breckow J (2020) Do we really need the “detriment” for radiation protection? Radiat Environ Biophys 59:343–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese EJ (2009) The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment. Arch Toxicol 83(3):203–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelletti N, Kaiser JC, Simonetto C, Furukawa K, Küchenhoff H, Stathopoulos GT (2019) Risk of lung adenocarcinoma from smoking and radiation arises in distinct molecular pathways. Carcinogenesis 40(10):1240–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cléro E, Vaillant L, Hamada N, Zhang W, Preston D, Laurier D, Ban N (2019) History of radiation detriment and its calculation methodology used in ICRP Publication 103. J Radiol Prot 39(3):R19–R36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COMARE (2016) Seventeenth report. Further consideration of the incidence of cancers around the nuclear installations at Sellafield and Dounreay. Crown copyright. Produced by Public Health England for the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment

  • Desbiolles A, Soerjomataram I, Marant Micallef C, Gaillot-de Saintignon J (2019) Population attributable fractions of cancers due to environmental risk factors in France in 2015. Environ Epidemiol 3:96

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHA (2012) European Chemicals Agency Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, Chapter R8: characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for human health. ECHA-2010-G-19-EN Version 2.1. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r8_en.pdf

  • Frischknecht R, Braunschweig A, Hofstetter P, Suter P (2000) Human health damages due to ionising radiation in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Review 20:159–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanahan D, Weinberg R (2000) The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100:57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauptmann M, Daniels RD, Cardis E, Cullings HM, Kendall G, Laurier D, Linet MS, Little MP, Lubin J, Preston DL, Richardson DB, Stram DO, Thierry-Chef I, Schubauer-Berigan MK, Gilbert ES, Berrington de Gonzalez A (2020) Epidemiological studies of low-dose ionizing radiation and cancer: summary bias assessment and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 56:188–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig A, Arand M, Epe B, Guth S, Jahnke G, Lampen A, Martus HJ, Monien B, Rietjens I, Schmitz-Spanke S, Schriever-Schwemmer G, Steinberg P, Eisenbrand G (2020) Mode of action-based risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens. Arch Toxicol 94(6):1787–1877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HCPH (2010) French High Council for Public Health, Health risk assessment in zone analyses. France. Available at: https://www.hcsp.fr/Explore.cgi/AvisRapportsDomaine?clefr=217

  • ICRP (1977a) Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 26. Ann ICRP 1(3)

  • ICRP (1977b) Problems involved in developing an index of harm. ICRP Publication 27. Ann ICRP 1(4)

  • ICRP (1991) The 1990 Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann ICRP 21(1–3): 1–201

  • ICRP (1992) The biological basis for dose limitation in the skin. ICRP Publication 59. Ann ICRP 22(2):1–104

  • ICRP (2007) The 2007 international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37(2–4):1–332

  • ICRP (2021) Use of dose quantities in radiological protection. ICRP Publication 147. Ann ICRP 50(1)

  • Ineris (2016) Choix de valeurs toxicologiques de référence (VTR) Méthodologie appliquée par l’INERIS. DRC-16-156196-11306A

  • JISA (1993) Carcinogenicity study of tetrachloroethylene by inhalation in rats and mice. Japan Industrial Safety Association (JISA), Hadano, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  • Marant Micallef C, Shield KD, Vignat J, Cléro E, Kesminiene A, Hill C, Rogel A, Vacquier B, Bray F, Laurier D, Soerjomataram I (2019a) The risk of cancer attributable to diagnostic medical radiation: estimation for France in 2015. Int J Cancer 144(12):2954–2963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marant Micallef C, Shield KD, Vignat J, Baldi I, Charbotel B, Fervers B, Gilg Soit Ilg A, Guénel P, Olsson A, Rushton L, Hutchings SJ, Cléro E, Laurier D, Scanff P, Bray F, Straif K, Soerjomataram I (2019b) Cancers in France in 2015 attributable to occupational exposures. Int J Hyg Environ Health 222(1):22–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NEA (2020). Challenges in nuclear and radiological legacy management: Towards a common framework for the regulation of nuclear and radiological legacy sites and installations. Report of the Expert Group on Legacy Management. NEA Report 7419, Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD, Paris

  • NCRP (2018) Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear nonthreshold model and radiation protection, Commentary No. 27. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD

  • NRC (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Academy Press, National Research Council (US), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (1990) Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR V. National Research Council (US) committee on the biological effects of ionizing radiation (BEIR V). National Academy Press, Washington, DC

  • NRPA (2018) Study of issues affecting the assessment of impacts of disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste. NRPA Report 2018:6, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Statens strålevern, 2018. Available at https://dsa.no/en/publications

  • Parkin DM, Whelan SL, Ferlay J, Teppo L and Thomas DB (2002) Cancer incidence in five continents, vol VIII. IARC Scientific Publications vol 155. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France

  • Preston DL, Kusumi S, Tomonaga M, Izumi S, Ron E, Kuramoto A, Kamada N, Dohy H, Matsui T, Nonaka H, Thompson DE, Soda M, Mabuchi K (1994) Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: III. Leukaemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma,1950–1987. Radiat Res 137(Suppl 2):S68–S97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Rühm W, Eidemüller M, Kaiser JC (2017) Biologically-based mechanistic models of radiation-related carcinogenesis applied to epidemiological data. Int J Radiat Biol 93(10):1093–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rühm W, Breckow J, Dietze G, Friedl A, Greinert R, Jacob P, Kistinger S, Michel R, Müller W-U, Otten H, Streffer C, Weiss W (2020) Dose limits for occupational exposure to ionising radiation and genotoxic carcinogens: a German perspective. Radiat Environ Biophys 59:9–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholze M, Boedeker W, Faust M, Backhaus T, Altenburger R, Grimme LH (2001) A general best-fit method for concentration-response curves and the estimation of low-effect concentrations. Environ Toxicol Chem 20(2):448–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore RE, Beck HL, Boice JD, Caffrey EA, Davis S, Grogan HA, Mettler FA, Preston RJ, Till JE, Wakeford R, Walsh L, Dauer LT (2018) Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear nonthreshold model and radiation protection. J Radiol Prot 38(3):1217–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soerjomataram I, Shield K, Marant-Micallef C, Vignat J, Hill C, Rogel A, Menvielle G, Dossus L, Ormsby JN, Rehm J, Rushton L, Vineis P, Parkin M, Bray F (2018) Cancers related to lifestyle and environmental factors in France in 2015. Eur J Cancer 103:e113

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran NL, Locke PA, Burke TA (2000) Chemical and radiation environmental risk management: differences, commonalities and challenges. Risk Anal 20(2):163–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNSCEAR (2001) Hereditary effects of radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation. UNSCEAR 2001 report to the general assembly with a scientific annex. United Nations, New York

  • UNSCEAR (2008) Effects of ionizing radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation. UNSCEAR 2006 report volume I to the general assembly, with scientific annexes

  • UNSCEAR (2018) Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2017 report to the general assembly, with scientific annexes. Annex B—epidemiological studies of cancer risk due to low-dose-rate radiation from environmental sources. United Nations, New York

  • UNSCEAR (2020) Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation. UNSCEAR 2019 report to the general assembly, with scientific annexes. United Nations, New York

  • US EPA (1989) Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume i. human health evaluation manual (part A). OERR. Washington, D.C. OERR 9200 6-303-894

  • US EPA (1994) Methods for derivation of inhalation reference concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina EPA/600/8-90/066F

  • US EPA (1997) Establishment of cleanup levels for CERCLA sites with radioactive contamination. OSWER 9200.4-18

  • US EPA (2000) Supplementary guidance for conducting health risk assessment of chemical mixtures. EPA/630/R-00/002. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington DC

  • US EPA (2005) Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Federal Register 70(66)177650-18717. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/raf/pubalpha.htm

  • US EPA (2007) Concepts, methods and data sources for cumulative health risk assessment of multiple chemicals, exposures and effects: a resource document. EPA/600/R-06/013F

  • US EPA (2012a) Benchmark dose technical guidance EPA/100/R-12/001

  • US EPA (2012b) Toxicological review of tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) (CAS No. 127-18-4). In support of summary information on the integrated risk information system (IRIS). EPA/635/R-08/011F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/toxreviews/0106tr.pdf

  • Walsh L, Ulanowski A, Kaiser JC, Woda C, Raskob W (2019) Risk bases can complement dose bases for implementing and optimising a radiological protection strategy in urgent and transition emergency phases. Radiat Environ Biophyss 58(4):539–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO (1994) Assessing human health risks of chemicals: derivation of guidance values for health-based exposure limits, International programme on chemical safety, Environmental health criteria 170. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2009) Principles for modelling dose-response for the risk assessment of chemicals. Environmental Health Criteria 239, World Health Organization, Geneva

  • WHO (2013) Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, based on a preliminary dose estimation. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2017) Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edition incorporating the first addendum. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Laurier D, Cléro E, Hamada N, Preston D, Vaillant L, Ban N (2020) Sensitivity analysis of parameters and methodological choices used in calculation of radiation detriment for solid cancer. Int J Radiat Biol 96(5):596–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Caroline Ringeard for participating in initiating this project, and Dominique Laurier, Chrystelle Ibanez and Dmitri Klokov of the IRSN for sharing their expertise.

Funding

No specific financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health and Environment Division, Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), BP 17, 92262, Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex, France

    Enora Cléro, Eric Blanchardon & Yann Billarand

  2. Chronic Risks Division, French National Institute for Industrial Environment and Risks (INERIS), Parc technologique Alata - BP 2, 60550 , Verneuil-en-Halatte, France

    Michèle Bisson, Velly Nathalie & Eric Thybaud

Authors
  1. Enora Cléro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michèle Bisson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Velly Nathalie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric Blanchardon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eric Thybaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yann Billarand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yann Billarand.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All co-authors approved this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: Table 2 footnote updated.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cléro, E., Bisson, M., Nathalie, V. et al. Cancer risk from chronic exposures to chemicals and radiation: a comparison of the toxicological reference value with the radiation detriment. Radiat Environ Biophys 60, 531–547 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-021-00938-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-021-00938-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation