4.7 Article

Long-term trend of thyroid cancer risk among Japanese atomic-bomb survivors: 60 years after exposure

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 132, Issue 5, Pages 1222-1226

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.27749

Keywords

thyroid cancer; radiation effects; epidemiological cohort study

Categories

Funding

  1. US National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program [N01CP31012 N]
  2. RERF Research Protocols, Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)
  3. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-HS0000031]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23590839] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Thyroid cancer risk following exposure to ionizing radiation in childhood and adolescence is a topic of public concern. To characterize the long-term temporal trend and age-at-exposure variation in the radiation-induced risk of thyroid cancer, we analyzed thyroid cancer incidence data for the period from 1958 through 2005 among 105,401 members of the Life Span Study cohort of Japanese atomic-bomb survivors. During the follow-up period, 371 thyroid cancer cases (excluding those with microcarcinoma with a diameter <10 mm) were identified as a first primary among the eligible subjects. Using a linear dose-response model, the excess relative risk of thyroid cancer at 1 Gy of radiation exposure was estimated as 1.28 (95% confidence interval: 0.59-2.70) at age 60 after acute exposure at age 10. The risk decreased sharply with increasing age-at-exposure and there was little evidence of increased thyroid cancer rates for those exposed after age 20. About 36% of the thyroid cancer cases among those exposed before age 20 were estimated to be attributable to radiation exposure. While the magnitude of the excess risk has decreased with increasing attained age or time since exposure, the excess thyroid cancer risk associated with childhood exposure has persisted for >50 years after exposure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available