The LNT Debate in Radiation Protection: Science vs. Policy

Mossman, Kenneth L.

doi:10.2203/dose-response.11-017.mossman

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some argue that the LNT model is too conservative and overestimates the potential health risks of low dose radiation exposure which results in unnecessarily high economic and psychological costs to society ( 76, 77 ). Others argue that if the LNT model is to be replaced which alternate model is the most appropriate to replace it ( 80, 81 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of Radioactive Medicine

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discovery of X rays in the late 19th century heralded the beginning of a new age in medicine, and the advent of channeling the power of radiation to diagnose and treat human disease. Radiation has been leveraged in medicine in a multitude of ways and is a critical element of cancer care including screening, diagnosis, surveillance, and interventional treatments. Modern radiotherapy techniques include a multitude of methodologies utilizing both externally and internally delivered radiation from a variety of approaches. This review provides a comprehensive overview of contemporary radiotherapy methodologies, the field of radiopharmaceuticals and theranostics, effects of low dose radiation and highlights the phenomena of fear of exposure to radiation and its impact in modern medicine.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of Radioactive Medicine

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For exposures below 2.5 Sv (considered low dose in radiation oncology), the commonly accepted model for cancer induction risk due to radiation is the linear no-threshold (LNT) model described in the BEIR VII report (NRC 2006). This model relies heavily on data from the atomic bomb survivors, and the validity of this model is the subject of significant debate (Mossman 2012, Cardarelli and Ulsh 2018, Sykes 2020. Even accepting the LNT model as it is, current recommendations from the BEIR VII limit its validity to tissues receiving under 2.5 Sv.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applications of a patient-specific whole-body CT-mesh hybrid computational phantom in second cancer risk prediction

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: CT-mesh hybrid phantoms (or “hybrid(s)”) made from integrated patient CT data and mesh-type reference computational phantoms (MRCPs) can be beneficial for patient-specific whole-body dose evaluation, but this benefit has yet to be evaluated for second cancer risk prediction. The purpose of this study is to compare the hybrid’s ability to predict risk throughout the body with a patient-scaled MRCP against ground truth whole-body CTs (WBCTs). Approach: Head and neck active scanning proton treatment plans were created for and simulated on seven hybrids and the corresponding scaled MRCPs and WBCTs. Equivalent dose throughout the body was calculated and input into five second cancer risk models for both excess absolute and excess relative risk (EAR and ERR). The hybrid phantom was evaluated by comparing equivalent dose and risk predictions against the WBCT. Main Results: The hybrid most frequently provides whole-body second cancer risk predictions which are closer to the ground truth when compared to a scaled MRCP alone. The performance of the hybrid relative to the scaled MRCP was consistent across ERR, EAR, and all risk models. For all in-field organs, where the hybrid shares the WBCT anatomy, the hybrid was better than or equal to the scaled MRCP for both equivalent dose and risk prediction. For out-of-field organs across all patients, the hybrid’s equivalent dose prediction was superior than the scaled MRCP in 48% of all comparisons, equivalent for 34%, and inferior for 18%. For risk assessment in the same organs, the hybrid’s prediction was superior than the scaled MRCP in 51.8% of all comparisons, equivalent in 28.6%, and inferior in 19.6%. Significance: Whole-body risk predictions from the CT-mesh hybrid have shown to be more accurate than those from a reference phantom alone. These hybrids could aid in risk-optimized treatment planning and individual risk assessment to minimize second cancer incidence.

show abstract

“…Most radiation protection organizations concur that it is prudent to assume the risk is proportional to the dose, even in the case of diagnostic exposure. 16 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hand-held dental X-ray device: Attention to correct use

Martins,

Rocha,

de Lima Azeredo

et al. 2023

Imaging Sci Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The LNT Debate in Radiation Protection: Science vs. Policy

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

The Future of Radioactive Medicine

The Future of Radioactive Medicine

Applications of a patient-specific whole-body CT-mesh hybrid computational phantom in second cancer risk prediction

Hand-held dental X-ray device: Attention to correct use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About