Residential Radon Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk: Commentary on Cohen???s County-Based Study

Cw, Heath; Pd, Bond; Dg, Hoel; Cb, Meinhold

doi:10.1097/01.hp.0000138588.59022.40

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Puskin examined correlations of county mortality rates for other smoking-related cancers with county average radon levels and found negative correlations, as shown for lung cancer, a pattern indicating uncontrolled confounding by smoking. A review carried out by a scientific committee of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements reached a similar conclusion [24]. The longstanding discussion of the Cohen analyses and their utilization in policy discussions reflects the willingness of some to use data that are flawed but consistent with a policy objective.…”

Section: Radon Epidemiology and Riskmentioning

confidence: 88%

Radiation and cancer risk: a continuing challenge for epidemiologists

Samet

2011

Environmental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a perspective on epidemiological research on radiation and cancer, a field that has evolved over its six decade history. The review covers the current framework for assessing radiation risk and persistent questions about the details of these risks: is there a threshold and more generally, what is the shape of the dose-response relationship? How do risks vary over time and with age? What factors modify the risk of radiation? The example of radon progeny and lung cancer is considered as a case study, illustrating the modeling of epidemiological data to derive quantitative models and the coherence of the epidemiological and biological evidence. Finally, the manuscript considers the need for ongoing research, even in the face of research over a 60-year span.

show abstract

Section: Radon Epidemiology and Riskmentioning

confidence: 88%

Radiation and cancer risk: a continuing challenge for epidemiologists

Samet

2011

Environmental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…they are highly sensitive to confounding factors. For example, Cohen's results [ 11 ] were criticized for improperly taking into account the effect of cigarette smoking as a confounding factor [ 53 , 54 ]. In Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis of thirty-two case–control and two ecological radon studies of lung cancer

Dobrzyński

Fornalski

Reszczyńska

2017

Journal of Radiation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A re-analysis has been carried out of thirty-two case–control and two ecological studies concerning the influence of radon, a radioactive gas, on the risk of lung cancer. Three mathematically simplest dose–response relationships (models) were tested: constant (zero health effect), linear, and parabolic (linear–quadratic). Health effect end-points reported in the analysed studies are odds ratios or relative risk ratios, related either to morbidity or mortality. In our preliminary analysis, we show that the results of dose–response fitting are qualitatively (within uncertainties, given as error bars) the same, whichever of these health effect end-points are applied. Therefore, we deemed it reasonable to aggregate all response data into the so-called Relative Health Factor and jointly analysed such mixed data, to obtain better statistical power. In the second part of our analysis, robust Bayesian and classical methods of analysis were applied to this combined dataset. In this part of our analysis, we selected different subranges of radon concentrations. In view of substantial differences between the methodology used by the authors of case–control and ecological studies, the mathematical relationships (models) were applied mainly to the thirty-two case–control studies. The degree to which the two ecological studies, analysed separately, affect the overall results when combined with the thirty-two case–control studies, has also been evaluated. In all, as a result of our meta-analysis of the combined cohort, we conclude that the analysed data concerning radon concentrations below ~1000 Bq/m3 (~20 mSv/year of effective dose to the whole body) do not support the thesis that radon may be a cause of any statistically significant increase in lung cancer incidence.

show abstract

“…They consist of cosmic radiation, ionizing radiation from naturally occurring radionuclides in soil ( 226 Ra, 232 Th and their decay products, 40 K), radiation of radon (decay product of 226 Ra) and its decay products [1]. They cause the exposure outdoors [2,3] and indoors [1,4]. Exposure from radionuclides in construction materials is a significant source indoors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%