No abstract

A combined analysis of three case-control studies nested in three European uranium miner cohorts was performed to study the joint effects of radon exposure and smoking on lung cancer death risk. Occupational history and exposure data were available from the cohorts. Smoking information was reconstructed using self-administered questionnaires and occupational medical archives. Linear excess relative risk models adjusted for smoking were used to estimate the lung cancer risk associated with radon exposure. The study includes 1046 lung cancer cases and 2492 controls with detailed radon exposure data and smoking status. The ERR/WLM adjusted for smoking is equal to 0.008 (95% CI: 0.004-0.014). Time since exposure is shown to be a major modifier of the relationship between radon exposure and lung cancer risk. Fitting geometric mixture models yielded arguments in favor of a sub-multiplicative interaction between radon and smoking. This combined study is the largest case-control study to investigate the joint effects of radon and smoking on lung cancer risk among miners. The results confirm that the lung carcinogenic effect of radon persists even when smoking is adjusted for, with arguments in favor of a sub-multiplicative interaction between radon and smoking.

The biological effects on humans of low-dose and low-dose-rate exposures to ionizing radiation have always been of major interest. The most recent concept as suggested by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is to extrapolate existing epidemiological data at high doses and dose rates down to low doses and low dose rates relevant to radiological protection, using the so-called dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF). The present paper summarizes what was presented and discussed by experts from ICRP and Japan at a dedicated workshop on this topic held in May 2015 in Kyoto, Japan. This paper describes the historical development of the DDREF concept in light of emerging scientific evidence on dose and dose-rate effects, summarizes the conclusions recently drawn by a number of international organizations (e.g., BEIR VII, ICRP, SSK, UNSCEAR, and WHO), mentions current scientific efforts to obtain more data on low-dose and low-dose-rate effects at molecular, cellular, animal and human levels, and discusses future options that could be useful to improve and optimize the DDREF concept for the purpose of radiological protection.

Data from the German miners' cohort study were analysed to investigate whether radon in ambient air causes cancers other than lung cancer. The cohort includes 58 987 men who were employed for at least 6 months from 1946 to 1989 at the former Wismut uranium mining company in Eastern Germany. A total of 20 684 deaths were observed in the follow-up period from 1960 to 2003. The death rates for 24 individual cancer sites were compared with the age and calendar year-specific national death rates. Internal Poisson regression was used to estimate the excess relative risk (ERR) per unit of cumulative exposure to radon in working level months (WLM). The number of deaths observed (O) for extrapulmonary cancers combined was close to that expected (E) from national rates (n=3340, O/E=1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98–1.05). Statistically significant increases in mortality were recorded for cancers of the stomach (O/E=1.15; 95% CI: 1.06–1.25) and liver (O/E=1.26; 95% CI: 1.07–1.48), whereas significant decreases were found for cancers of the tongue, mouth, salivary gland and pharynx combined (O/E=0.80; 95% CI: 0.65–0.97) and those of the bladder (O/E=0.82; 95% CI: 0.70–0.95). A statistically significant relationship with cumulative radon exposure was observed for all extrapulmonary cancers (ERR/WLM=0.014%; 95% CI: 0.006–0.023%). Most sites showed positive exposure–response relationships, but these were insignificant or became insignificant after adjustment for potential confounders such as arsenic or dust exposure. The present data provide some evidence of increased risk of extrapulmonary cancers associated with radon, but chance and confounding cannot be ruled out.

No abstract