Leukemia and Ionizing Radiation

  • E. B. Lewis

Abstract

Quantitative estimates of the genetic effects of ionizing radiation on human beings have been carried out by a number of investigators (1–3). Estimates of this kind involve extrapolating from induced mutation rates in such organisms as Drosophila and mice. Quantitative estimates of the somatic, or “direct,” effects of radiation must also be attempted if the biological hazards of ionizing radiation are to be fully assessed. In the case of direct effects, it is particularly difficult to extrapolate from results with lower organisms, and it becomes important to have data on man himself.

Keywords

Strontium Ster Osin Adiol 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    For example, H. J. Muller, Am. J. Human Genet. 2, 111 (1950).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Biological Effects of Atomic Radiations, Summary rept. (Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.,Washington, D.C., 1956).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations. Rept. of the Medical Research Council (Brit.) (H.M. Stationery Office, London, 1956).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For example, R. J. Hasterlik in Proc. Intern. Conf on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy (United Nations New York, 1956), vol. 11, p. 148.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. E. Clark, ibid. p. 146.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. L. Simpson, L. H. Hempelmann, L. M. Fuller, Radiology 64, 840 (1955).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    For the sake of consistency, the “rad,” the unit of absorbed dose (100 ergs per gram) is adopted. When the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is not necessarily unity, as in the case of neutrons, the “rem” (roentgen-equivalent-man) is used (rem=radçRBE). The factor for converting the “r,” or “roentgen,” to the rad varies with the type of material and energy of radiation [see, for example, F. Ellis, Brit. J. Radiol. 29, 367 (1956)]; since this conversion factor is usually nearly unity (or, in the case of bone marrow, is not easily estimated), the rad is taken as equivalent to the r, for the purposes of this article. The “rep” (roentgen-equivalent-physical) is another unit of absorbed dose (93 ergs per gram of tissue) which is gradually being replaced by the rad.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. S. Sacks and I. Seeman, Blood, 2, 1 (1947).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. G. Gilliam, ibid., 8, 693 (1953).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vital Statistics—Special Reports, vol. 44, No. 12 (Natl. Office of Vital Statistics,Washington, D.C., 1956).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibid. vol. 43, No. 11 (1956).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Damashek and F. W. Gunz, J. Am. Med. Assoc., 163, 838 (1957).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. MacMahon and D. Clark, Blood, 11, 871 (1956).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I am indebted to Brian MacMahon for providing unpublished data used in preparing Table 1.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. H. Folley, W. Borges, T. Yamawaki, Am. J. Med., 13, 311 (1952).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. D. Lange, W. C. Moloney, T. Yamawaki, Blood, 9, 574 (1954).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. C. Moloney and M. A. Kastenbaum, Science, 121, 308 (1955).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    I had access to an unpublished, detailed listing of leukemia cases up to Sept. 1955, provided by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, through the courtesy of R. W. Miller. The number of cases of leukemia shown in Table 2 is compiled from this source.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Studies of children irradiated in utero [A. Stewart, J. Webb, D. Giles, D. Hewitt, Lancet 271, 447 (1956)] or in early infancy (6) may help to refine estimates of the probability of radiation-induced leukemia in these age groups.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. V. Neel and W. J. Schull, The Effect of Exposure to the Atomic Bombs on Pregnancy Termination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Publ. 461 (Natl. Acad. Sci. US., Washington, D.C., 1956.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Dunning, in an address before the Wash. Acad. Sci., 15Nov. 1956 (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., 1956).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. C. Upton et al., Proc. Soc. Exptl. Biol. Med., 92, 436 (1956).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A detailed discussion of many aspects of the problem of estimating doses received by the survivors is given by R. R. Wilson, Radiation Research 4, 349 (1956).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    W. M. Court Brown and R. Doll, reference 3, appendix B, p. 87.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W. M. Court Brown and J. D. Abbat, Lancet, 268, 1283 (1955).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    H. van Swaay, ibid. 269, 225 (1955).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    F. Garwood, Biometrika 28, 437 (1936).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. March, Radiology 43, 275 (1944).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    H. March, Am. J. Med. Sci. 220, 282 (1950).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    H. Ulrich, New Engl. J. Med. 234, 45 (1946).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Warren, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 162, 464 (1956).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    L. I. Dublin and M. Spiegelman, ibid. 137, 1519 (1948).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    American Medical Directory (Am. Med. Assoc., Chicago, Ill.).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    The 1950 distribution is based only on radiologists listed in the section of the 1950 American Medical Directory devoted to membership in radiological societies. Each name in that list was looked up in the main body of the directory to determine year of birth and type of specialization. Only those listed as “R*” (an asterisk signifies that practice is limited to radiology) and resident in the continental U.S. were used in compiling the final age distribution. This procedure therefore fails to include radiologists who were nonmembers of radiological societies: however, this deficiency has been taken into account by establishing that the 12 deaths from leukemia from 1943–52, inclusive, were in fact radiologists whose names were listed in the section of the 1940 or 1950 directory devoted to membership in radiological societies. (I am indebted to Alethea Miller, Janet Chaitkin, and Joan Lewis for assistance in compiling the 1950 age distribution.)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    The procedure was to obtain a list of deaths of members of one of the leading radiological societies and to search for the cause of death in the death notices of the Journal of the American Medical Association. In the period 1949–52, inclusive, only some 70 percent of all such deaths were found to have a cause of death listed. In order to have a conservative estimate of the incidence of leukemia, no correction for this defect is attempted. The four deaths from leukemia in the 1949–52 period have the following volume and page locations in the afore-mentioned journal: 144, 407; 147, 1065; 148, 218; 151, 488.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Death rates from leukemia for the years 1939-41 have been obtained from reference 11 and computed for the 1949–51 period from Vital Statistics of the United States (Federal Security Agency, Washington, D.C., 1949–51). Sources for the living population were Current Population Repts., Series P-25, No. 98 (1954); No. 114 (1955); No. 121 (1955). (U.S. Bur. of the Census, Washington, D.C.)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pathologic Effects of Atomic Radiation, Publ. 452 (Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S., Washington, D.C., 1956).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    The computation involved applying the age distribution of radiologists for 1940 and 1950 (Table 6) to the age-specific death rates for physicians for 1938–42 and 1949–51, respectively. Death rates for the former period are given by L. I. Dublin and M. Spiegelman [J. Am. Med. Assoc. 134, 1211 (1947)] and for the latter period by F. G. Dickinson and L. W. Martin [J. Am. Med. Assoc. 162, 1462 (1956)].Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    These uncertainties about the type of leukemia in the thymic enlargement series have been pointed out by C. L. Simpson (personal communication).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    W. M. Court Brown and R. Doll, quoted from reference 3, appendix A, p. 84.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    H. J. Muller, Science 66, 84 (1927).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    See, for example, discussions by J. Furth, Blood 6, 964 (1951).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    W. P. Spencer and C. Stern, Genetics 33, 43 (1948).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    D. E. Uphoff and C. Stern, Science 109, 609 (1949).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    E. C. MacDowell, J. S. Potter, M. J. Taylor, Cancer Research 5, 65 (1945).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    A. Videbaek, Heredity in Human Leukemia and Its Relation to Cancer. (Munksgaard Copenhagen, Denmark, 1947).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    See discussions by J. V. Neel and W. J. Schull, Human Heredity (Univ. of Chicago Press Chicago, Ill., 1954).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    To illustrate, a check of the case histories in Videbaek’s study (46 ) of heredity in leukemia reveals that among the female probands who were at ages 40 to 59, inclusive, at the time of diagnosis of leukemia, six (12 percent) were reported to have received castration doses of x-rays to the ovaries prior to the diagnosis of leukemia.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    F. W. Spiers, Brit. J. Radiol. 29, 409 (1956).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Only the longer-lived isotope, Sr90 (half-life, 28 years) is considered in the discussion which follows.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    National Bureau of Standards Handbook 52. (Supt. of Documents, U.S. Govt. PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C., 1953.)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    W. F. Libby, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., U.S. 42, 365 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    -, ibid. 42, 945 (1956); and M. Eisenbud, in an address before the Wash. Acad. Sci., 15 Nov. 1956 (U. S. Atomic Energy Comm., Washington, D.C., 1956).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Quoted from reference 37, p. 37.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    C. L. Comar and R. H. Wasserman, in Progress in Nuclear Energy, Ser. VI (Pergamon London, 1956); and J. L. Kulp, W. R. Eckelmann, A. R. Sculert, Science 125, 219 (1957).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Evidence suggesting that Sr89 may produce leukemia in mice has been reported by S. Watanabe. Acta Haematol. Jap 18, 508 (1955).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Current Population Repts., Series P-25, No. 121 (U.S. Bur. of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1955)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. B. Lewis
    • 1
  1. 1.California Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations