Cited by 434Effects of Radiation ExposureRadiation Dose and ImagingRadioactivity and Radon Measurements

Solid cancer incidence among the Life-span study of atomic-bomb survivors: 1958-2009

Open access
Grant, Eric J., Brenner, Alina, Sugiyama, Hiromi, Sakata, Ritsu, Sadakane, Atsuko, Utada, Mai, Cahoon, Elizabeth K., Milder, Caitlin M. +5 more·2017·Radiation Research

Abstract

This is the third analysis of solid cancer incidence among the Life Span Study (LSS) cohort of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, adding eleven years of follow-up data since the previously reported analysis. For this analysis, several changes and improvements were implemented, including updated dose estimates (DS02R1) and adjustment for smoking. Here, we focus on all solid cancers in aggregate. The eligible cohort included 105,444 subjects who were alive and had no known history of cancer at the start of follow-up. A total of 80,205 subjects had individual dose estimates and 25,239 were not in either city at the time of the bombings. The follow-up period was 1958-2009, providing 3,079,484 person-years of follow-up. Cases were identified by linkage with population-based Hiroshima and Nagasaki Cancer Registries. Poisson regression methods were used to elucidate the nature of the radiation-associated risks per Gy of weighted absorbed colon dose using both excess relative risk (ERR) and excess absolute risk (EAR) models adjusted for smoking. Risk estimates were reported for a person exposed at age 30 years with attained age of 70 years. In this study, 22,538 incident first primary solid cancer cases were identified, of which 992 were associated with radiation exposure. There were 5,918 cases (26%) that occurred in the 11 years (1999-2009) since the previously reported study. For females, the dose response was consistent with linearity with an estimated ERR of 0.64 per Gy (95% CI: 0.52 to 0.77). For males, significant upward curvature over the full dose range as well as restricted dose ranges was observed and therefore, a linear-quadratic model was used, which resulted in an ERR of 0.20 (95% CI: 0.12 to 0.28) at 1 Gy and an ERR of 0.010 (95% CI: -0.0003 to 0.021) at 0.1 Gy. The shape of the ERR dose response was significantly different among males and females (P = 0.02). While there was a significant decrease in the ERR with increasing attained age, this decrease was more rapid in males compared to females. The lowest dose range that showed a statistically significant dose response using the sex-averaged, linear ERR model was 0-100 mGy (P = 0.038). In conclusion, this analysis demonstrates that solid cancer risks remain elevated more than 60 years after exposure. Sex-averaged upward curvature was observed in the dose response independent of adjustment for smoking. Findings from the current analysis regarding the dose-response shape were not fully consistent with those previously reported, raising unresolved questions. At this time, uncertainties in the shape of the dose response preclude definitive conclusions to confidently guide radiation protection policies. Upcoming results from a series of analyses focusing on the radiation risks for specific organs or organ families, as well as continued follow-up are needed to fully understand the nature of radiation-related cancer risk and its public health significance. Data and analysis scripts are available for download at: http://www.rerf.or.jp .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1667/rr14492.1

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The INWORKS study is only 9% female while the LSS is 60% female and has doses more distributed near 600 mSv.

    “The INWORKS study is only 9% female while the LSS is 60% female and doses more distributed near 600 mSv”

    From A proposed change to astronaut exposures limits is a giant leap backwards for radiation protection (2021) · cites this paper as Grant et al., 2017

    Table 1 (Appendix B; page unavailable) lists 66,053 women among 111,917 LSS subjects, approximately 59%, supporting the rounded 60% figure. Table 8 shows LSS subjects in the 0.5–1 Gy dose category, and the Summary and Discussion describes INWORKS as mostly male with a mean dose of 0.021 Gy. The paper does not give the claimed 9% female figure for INWORKS or establish that LSS doses were concentrated near 600 mSv. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [6]6. Cullings HM, Grant EJ, Egbert SD, Watanabe T, Oda T, Nakamura F, et al. DS02R1: Improvements to atomic bomb survivors' input data and implementation of dosimetry system 2002 (DS02) and resulting changes in estimated doses. Health Phys 2017; 112:56-97.
  2. [17]17. Preston DL, Lubin J, Pierce DA, McConney ME, Shilnikova NS. Epicure User Guide. Vol. 2.01. Ottawa: Risk Sciences Interna- tional; 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grant, E. J., Brenner, A., Sugiyama, H., Sakata, R., Sadakane, A., Utada, M., Cahoon, E. K., Milder, C. M., Soda, M., Cullings, H. M., Preston, D. L., Mabuchi, K., & Ozasa, K.
Affiliations
  • Department of Epidemiology, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Radiation Effects Research Foundation (JP)
  • Department of Statistics, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan
  • Hirosoft International Corporation, Eureka, California
  • Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
Corresponding author
Grant, Eric J.
Venue
Radiation Research
Published
2017-05
Volume
187
Issue
5
Pages
513-537
ISSN
  • 0033-7587 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-5404
OpenAlex
W2599903518
Cited by
434
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 13
FWCI
33.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiation Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DEHS0000031)
  • Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (DE-HS0000031)
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 CA999999)
  • National Cancer Institute (ZIACP010134, HHSN261201400009C)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Effects of Radiation Exposure
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Radioactivity and Radon Measurements
Keywords
atomic bomb survivors, Life Span Study, radiation-induced cancer, dose-response relationship, linear-quadratic model, sex differences, smoking adjustment, excess relative risk, excess absolute risk, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, cancer registry linkage, low-dose radiation risk
MeSH terms
Radiation Exposure, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Japan, Life Expectancy, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced, Risk Factors, Incidence, Proportional Hazards Models, Survival Analysis, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution, Survivors, Nuclear Weapons, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review