Donald A. Pierce

Studies of Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors. Report 13: Solid Cancer and Noncancer Disease Mortality: 1950–1997

This continues the series of general reports on mortality in the cohort of atomic bomb survivors followed up by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation. This cohort includes 86,572 people with individual dose estimates, 60% of whom have doses of at least 5 mSv. We consider mortality for solid cancer and for noncancer diseases with 7 additional years of follow-up. There have been 9,335 deaths from solid cancer and 31,881 deaths from noncancer diseases during the 47-year follow-up. Of these, 19% of the solid cancer and 15% of the noncancer deaths occurred during the latest 7 years. We estimate that about 440 (5%) of the solid cancer deaths and 250 (0.8%) of the noncancer deaths were associated with the radiation exposure. The excess solid cancer risks appear to be linear in dose even for doses in the 0 to 150-mSv range. While excess rates for radiation-related cancers increase throughout the study period, a new finding is that relative risks decline with increasing attained age, as well as being highest for those exposed as children as noted previously. A useful representative value is that for those exposed at age 30 the solid cancer risk is elevated by 47% per sievert at age 70. There is no significant city difference in either the relative or absolute excess solid cancer risk. Site-specific analyses highlight the difficulties, and need for caution, in distinguishing between site-specific relative risks. These analyses also provide insight into the difficulties in interpretation and generalization of LSS estimates of age-at-exposure effects. The evidence for radiation effects on noncancer mortality remains strong, with risks elevated by about 14% per sievert during the last 30 years of follow-up. Statistically significant increases are seen for heart disease, stroke, digestive diseases, and respiratory diseases. The noncancer data are consistent with some non-linearity in the dose response owing to the substantial uncertainties in the data. There is no direct evidence of radiation effects for doses less than about 0.5 Sv. While there are no statistically significant variations in noncancer relative risks with age, age at exposure, or sex, the estimated effects are comparable to those seen for cancer. Lifetime risk summaries are used to examine uncertainties of the LSS noncancer disease findings.

Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors.Report 12, Part I. Cancer: 1950–1990

This continues the series of periodic general reports on cancer mortality in the cohort of A-bomb survivors followed by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation. The follow-up is extended by the 5 years 1986-1990, and analysis includes an additional 10,500 survivors with recently estimated radiation doses. Together these extensions add about 550,000 person-years of follow-up. The cohort analyzed consists of 86,572 subjects, of which about 60% have dose estimates of at least 0.005 Sv. During 1950-1990 there have been 3086 and 4741 cancer deaths for the less than and greater than 0.005 Sv groups, respectively. It is estimated that among these there have been approximately 420 excess cancer deaths during 1950-1990, of which about 85 were due to leukemia. For cancers other than leukemia (solid cancers), about 25% of the excess deaths in 1950-1990 occurred during the last 5 years; for those exposed as children this figure is nearly 50%. For leukemia only about 3% of the excess deaths in 1950-1990 occurred in the last 5 years. Whereas most of the excess for leukemia occurred in the first 15 years after exposure, for solid cancers the pattern of excess risk is apparently more like a life-long elevation of the natural age-specific cancer risk. Taking advantage of the lengthening follow-up, increased attention is given to clarifying temporal patterns of the excess cancer risk. Emphasis is placed on describing these patterns in terms of absolute excess risk, as well as relative risk. For example: (a) although it is becoming clearer that the excess relative risk for those exposed as children has declined over the follow-up, the excess absolute risk has increased rapidly with time; and (b) although the excess relative risk at a given age depends substantially on sex and age at exposure, the age-specific excess absolute risk depends little on these factors. The primary estimates of excess risk are now given as specific to sex and age at exposure, and these include projections of dose-specific lifetime risks for this cohort. The excess lifetime risk per sievert for solid cancers for those exposed at age 30 is estimated at 0.10 and 0.14 for males and females, respectively. Those exposed at age 50 have about one-third these risks. Projection of lifetime risks for those exposed at age 10 is more uncertain. Under a reasonable set of assumptions, estimates for this group range from about 1.0-1.8 times the estimates for those exposed at age 30. The excess life-time risk for leukemia at 1 Sv for those exposed at either 10 or 30 years is estimated as about 0.015 and 0.008 for males and females, respectively. Those exposed at age 50 have about two-thirds that risk. Excess risks for solid cancer appear quite linear up to about 3 Sv, but for leukemia apparent nonlinearity in dose results in risks at 0.1 Sv estimated at about 1/20 of those for 1.0 Sv. Site-specific risk estimates are given, but it is urged that great care be taken in interpreting these, because most of their variation can be explained simply by imprecision in the estimates.

Radiation-Related Cancer Risks at Low Doses among Atomic Bomb Survivors

Abstract Pierce, D. A. and Preston, D. L. Radiation-Related Cancer Risks at Low Doses among Atomic Bomb Survivors. To clarify the information in the Radiation Effects Research Foundation data regarding cancer risks of low radiation doses, we focus on survivors with doses less than 0.5 Sv. For reasons indicated, we also restrict attention mainly to survivors within 3,000 m of the hypocenter of the bombs. Analysis is of solid cancer incidence from 1958–1994, involving 7,000 cancer cases among 50,000 survivors in that dose and distance range. The results provide useful risk estimates for doses as low as 0.05–0.1 Sv, which are not overestimated by linear risk estimates computed from the wider dose ranges 0–2 Sv or 0–4 Sv. There is a statistically significant risk in the range 0–0.1 Sv, and an upper confidence limit on any possible threshold is computed as 0.06 Sv. It is indicated that modification of the neutron dose estimates currently under consideration would not markedly change the conclusions.

Effect of Recent Changes in Atomic Bomb Survivor Dosimetry on Cancer Mortality Risk Estimates

Abstract Preston, D. L., Pierce, D. A., Shimizu, Y., Cullings, H. M., Fujita, S., Funamoto, S. and Kodama, K. Effect of Recent Changes in Atomic Bomb Survivor Dosimetry on Cancer Mortality Risk Estimates. Radiat. Res. 162, 377–389 (2004). The Radiation Effects Research Foundation has recently implemented a new dosimetry system, DS02, to replace the previous system, DS86. This paper assesses the effect of the change on risk estimates for radiation-related solid cancer and leukemia mortality. The changes in dose estimates were smaller than many had anticipated, with the primary systematic change being an increase of about 10% in γ-ray estimates for both cities. In particular, an anticipated large increase of the neutron component in Hiroshima for low-dose survivors did not materialize. However, DS02 improves on DS86 in many details, including the specifics of the radiation released by the bombs and the effects of shielding by structures and terrain. The data used here extend the last reported follow-up for solid cancers by 3 years, with a total of 10,085 deaths, and extends the follow-up for leukemia by 10 years, with a total of 296 deaths. For both solid cancer and leukemia, estimated age–time patterns and sex difference are virtually unchanged by the dosimetry revision. The estimates of solid-cancer radiation risk per sievert and the curvilinear dose response for leukemia are both decreased by about 8% by the dosimetry revision, due to the increase in the γ-ray dose estimates. The apparent shape of the dose response is virtually unchanged by the dosimetry revision, but for solid cancers, the additional 3 years of follow-up has some effect. In particular, there is for the first time a statistically significant upward curvature for solid cancer on the restricted dose range 0–2 Sv. However, the low-dose slope of a linear-quadratic fit to that dose range should probably not be relied on for risk estimation, since that is substantially smaller than the linear slopes on ranges 0–1 Sv, 0–0.5 Sv, and 0– 0.25 Sv. Although it was anticipated that the new dosimetry system might reduce some apparent dose overestimates for Nagasaki factory workers, this did not materialize, and factory workers have significantly lower risk estimates. Whether or not one makes allowance for this, there is no statistically significant city difference in the estimated cancer risk.

Allowing for Random Errors in Radiation Dose Estimates for the Atomic Bomb Survivor Data

The presence of random errors in the individual radiation dose estimates for the A-bomb survivors causes underestimation of radiation effects in dose-response analyses, and also distorts the shape of dose-response curves. Statistical methods are presented which will adjust for these biases, provided that a valid statistical model for the dose estimation errors is used. Emphasis is on clarifying some rather subtle statistical issues. For most of this development the distinction between radiation dose and exposure is not critical. The proposed methods involve downward adjustment of dose estimates, but this does not imply that the dosimetry system is faulty. Rather, this is a part of the dose-response analysis required to remove biases in the risk estimates. The primary focus of this report is on linear dose-response models, but methods for linear-quadratic models are also considered briefly. Some plausible models for the dose estimation errors are considered, which have typical errors in a range of 30-40% of the true values, and sensitivity analysis of the resulting bias corrections is provided. It is found that for these error models the resulting estimates of excess cancer risk based on linear models are about 6-17% greater than estimates that make no allowance for dose estimation errors. This increase in risk estimates is reduced to about 4-11% if, as has often been done recently, survivors with dose estimates above 4 Gy are eliminated from the analysis.

Residuals in Generalized Linear Models

Abstract Generalized linear models are regression-type models for data not normally distributed, appropriately fitted by maximum likelihood rather than least squares. Typical examples are models for binomial or Poisson data, with a linear regression model for a given, ordinarily nonlinear, function of the expected values of the observations. Use of such models has become very common in recent years, and there is a clear need to study the issue of appropriate residuals to be used for diagnostic purposes. Several definitions of residuals are possible for generalized linear models. The statistical package GLIM (Baker and Nelder 1978) routinely prints out residuals , where V(μ) is the function relating the variance to the mean of y and is the maximum likelihood estimate of the ith mean as fitted to the regression model. These residuals are the signed square roots of the contributions to the Pearson goodness-of-fit statistic. Another choice of residual is the signed square root of the contribution to the devia...

Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 12, Part II. Noncancer mortality : 1950-1990

This report updates the data on noncancer mortality for 86,572 atomic bomb survivors with dose estimates in the Radiation Effects Research Foundations Life Span Study cohort. The primary analyses are based on more than 27,000 noncancer disease deaths that occurred in the cohort between October 1, 1950, and December 31, 1990, 30% more than in the previous report. The present analyses strengthen earlier findings of a statistically significant increase in noncancer disease death rates with radiation dose. Increasing trends are observed for diseases of the circulatory, digestive and respiratory systems. Rates for those exposed to 1 Sv are elevated about 10%, a relative increase that is considerably smaller than that for cancer. However, estimates of the number of radiation-related noncancer deaths in the cohort to date (140 to 280) are 50 to 100% of the number for solid cancer. The data do not yet clarify the shape of the dose response. There is no significant evidence against linearity, but the data are statistically consistent with curvilinear dose-response functions that posit essentially zero risk for doses below 0.5 Sv. Similarly, while the data are consistent with substantial variation in the excess relative risk with age at exposure or attained age, there is no statistically significant dependence on these factors. In view of the small relative risks and the lack of understanding of biological mechanisms, we emphasize consideration of whether the findings could be explained by misclassification, confounding or selection effects. Based on available data, we conclude that such factors are unlikely to fully explain the observed dose response. A significant dose response is also seen for deaths from blood diseases with an excess relative risk that is several times greater than that seen for solid cancer. Particular attention is paid to the possibility that this apparent effect is a consequence of the attribution of leukemia or other cancer deaths to noncancer blood diseases. We find that misclassification does not explain this excess risk. As in earlier reports, suicide rates tend to decrease with increasing dose.

Joint Effects of Radiation and Smoking on Lung Cancer Risk among Atomic Bomb Survivors

Abstract Pierce, D. A., Sharp, G. B. and Mabuchi, K. Joint Effects of Radiation and Smoking on Lung Cancer Risk among Atomic Bomb Survivors. Radiat. Res. 159, 511–520 (2003). Results are given on the joint effect of radiation exposure and cigarette smoking on lung cancer risks among A-bomb survivors, based on 592 cases through 1994. Information on smoking was derived from mail surveys and clinical interviews of 45,113 persons in the Radiation Effects Research Foundation cohort. Radiation and smoking effects on lung cancer are found to be significantly sub-multiplicative and quite consistent with additivity. The smoking relative risk, previously very low in studies of this cohort, is now similar to that found in Western populations. This increase is likely to be related to the scarcity of cigarettes during and after the war. The smoking relative risk depends little on sex. After adjusting for smoking, the radiation-related risks relative to background rates for nonsmokers are similar to those for other solid cancers: a sex-averaged ERR/Sv of about 0.9 with a female:male sex ratio of about 1.6. Adjusting for smoking removes a spuriously large female:male ratio in radiation relative risk due to confounding between sex and smoking level. The adjustment also removes an artifactual age-at-exposure effect in the radiation relative risk, opposite in direction to other cancers, which is due to birth cohort variation in lung cancer rates.

The effect of changes in dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates in the atomic bomb survivors.

In the spring of 1986 the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) received a new atomic bomb dosimetry system. This report presents the comparisons of leukemia and nonleukemia cancer mortality risk estimates under the old and new dosimetries. In terms of total kerma (essentially whole-body gamma plus neutron exposure), risk estimates for both classes of cancer are 75-85% higher with the new dosimetry. This and other summary comparisons allow for possible nonlinearity at high estimated doses. Changes are also considered in relation to organ doses and assumptions about the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of neutrons. Without regard to RBE, the risk estimates for total organ dose are essentially unchanged by the dosimetry revision. However, with increasing assumed values of RBE, the estimated low-LET risk decreases much less rapidly under the new dosimetry, due to the smaller neutron component. Thus at an assumed constant RBE of 10, for example, the effect of the dosimetry revision is to increase organ dose risk estimates, relative to those based on the old dosimetry, by 30% for nonleukemia and 80% for leukemia. At an RBE of 20 these increases are 72 and 136%, respectively. A number of other issues are discussed. The city difference in dose is no longer statistically significant, even at an RBE of one. Estimation of RBE is even less feasible with new dosimetry. There is substantial question of the linearity in dose response, in the sense of a leveling off at higher doses. Finally, some indication is given of how risks estimated from this dosimetry and the current data may compare to widely used estimates based largely on the RERF data with the previous dosimetry.

A Model for Radiation-Related Cancer Suggested by Atomic Bomb Survivor Data

The age-time patterns of excess cancer risk among A-bomb survivors followed up by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation inevitably carry implications regarding the mechanisms of radiation-related cancer. It has recently been found, quite surprisingly and in contrast to impressions given by the relative risks, that for most solid cancers the excess incidence rates themselves depend very little on age at exposure or time since exposure, but mainly on attained age. This paper investigates a mechanistic model that conforms to these age-time patterns. The essence of the model, which is highly idealized, is that: (a) a cancer is caused by mutations that accumulate in a stem cell throughout life, essentially the Armitage-Doll multistage model, and (b) radiation is a general mutagen that can cause virtually any of these mutations. Although postulate (b) departs from previous modeling considerations, the extent to which it explains various aspects of the data in substantial detail is remarkable. A strength of the model is that, similarly to the Armitage-Doll multistage model but differently from many others, it predicts characteristic age-time patterns of excess rates rather independently of its parameter values. The consequence of (a) is that, in Armitage-Doll fashion, background rates increase throughout life as a power of age. The consequence of (b) is that excess absolute rates do not depend on age at exposure and increase with age to a power one less than that of the background rates. Thus the excess relative risk, which is the ratio of these rates, decreases throughout life as 1/age with no dependence on age at exposure. Although this age pattern of relative risks corresponds closely to the RERF data for solid cancer, the interpretation of such a description is quite different from the usual one in which age at exposure plays a primary role.