External background ionizing radiation and childhood cancer: Update of a nationwide cohort analysis

Risk Factors for Childhood Leukemia: Radiation and Beyond

“…A very recent study considered more accurate measurements of terrestrial radiation based on a new map of terrestrial radiation in Switzerland and an extended cohort. The authors confirmed the recent results that NBR contributes to the risk of leukemia in children (101). However, studies in France do not support an association between NBR and a higher risk of childhood acute leukemia (including ALL and AML) (102,103).…”

Review of the risk of cancer following low and moderate doses of sparsely ionising radiation received in early life in groups with individually estimated doses

“…Most studies do not yield significant excess risks, the only exceptions being the British study of Kendall et al ( Kendall et al 2013 ) and the Swiss study of Spycher et al ( Spycher et al 2015 ). We note that since the original database search was conducted an updated Swiss study has been published ( Mazzei-Abba et al 2021 ), which reported very similar relative risk estimates to those of Spycher et al ( Spycher et al 2015 ) and we judge that the meta-analysis would be little affected. The small Finnish study of Nikkilä et al ( Nikkiläet al 2016 ) is probably of limited statistical power, but the French studies are of much larger populations ( Berlivet et al 2021 ; Berlivet et al 2020 ; Demoury et al 2017 ).…”

“…Therefore, this loss of information is perhaps not a large concern. There have been a number of European national register-based studies ( Berlivet et al 2021 ; Berlivet et al 2020 ; Demoury et al 2017 ; Kendall et al 2013 ; Mazzei-Abba et al 2021 ; Nikkilä et al 2016 ; Spi x et al 2017 ; Spycher et al 2015 ), recently reviewed by Mazzei-Abba et al ( Mazzei-Abba et al 2020 ) and by Kendall et al ( Kendall et al 2021 ). Most of these studies remain underpowered; only the British study ( Kendall et al 2013 ) and the French study ( Berlivet et al 2021 ; Demoury et al 2017 ) have reasonable power, of 50% or more, to detect the predicted excess risk.…”

“…We would suggest that the evidence for elevated leukaemia risk now extends down to 0.05 Gy, and indeed for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, as shown in a recent pooling study of low dose studies, excess risk extends down to around 0.02 Gy ( Little et al 2018b ). These studies ( Little et al 2018b ) and studies of natural background radiation ( Kendall et al 2013 ; Mazzei-Abba et al 2021 ; Spi x et al 2017 ; Spycher et al 2015 ) and of medical diagnostic exposures ( Berrington de Gonzalez et al 2016 ; Journy et al 2015 ; Journy et al 2016 ; Krille et al 2015 ; Mathews et al 2013 ; Meulepas et al 2019 ; Pearce et al 2012 ) offer strong suggestions of excess risks for certain types of cancer at around the same level of dose, about 0.02 Gy. Studies should concentrate on all these endpoints (leukaemia, thyroid cancer and brain/CNS tumours), because in these the excess risk will be most clearly established, and at lower levels of dose, although it is likely that different patterns of low-dose response may emerge.…”

Measurements and determinants of children’s exposure to background gamma radiation in Switzerland

“…Our analyses included model-based estimates of outdoor dose rates as a covariate. These estimates were obtained for participants’ reported addresses using an exposure model adopted from a recent study about risks of childhood cancers related to external background radiation [ 33 ]. Doses for locations with insufficient address information for geocoding were imputed using the predicted doses at the residential address.…”