4.5 Article

Risk of leukaemia mortality from exposure to ionising radiation in US nuclear workers: a pooled case-control study

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 70, 期 1, 页码 41-48

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2012-100906

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA)
  2. DOE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To follow-up on earlier studies of the leukaemogenicity of occupational ionising radiation exposure. Methods We conducted a nested case-control analysis of leukaemia mortality in a pooled cohort of US nuclear workers followed through 2005. Each case was matched to four controls on attained age. Exposures were estimated from available records. General relative risk models were used to estimate the excess relative risk (ERR) of leukaemia, excluding chronic lymphocytic (CLL), acute myeloid leukaemia, chronic myeloid leukaemia and CLL while controlling for potential confounders. Preferred exposure lags and time-windows of risks were calculated using joint maximum likelihood. Dose-response was also examined using linear, linear-quadratic, categorical and restricted cubic spline models. Results There were 369 leukaemia deaths in 105 245 US nuclear workers. The adjusted ERR for non-CLL leukaemia was 0.09 (95% CI -0.17 to 0.65) per 100 mGy. Elevated non-CLL risks were observed from exposures occurring 6-14 years prior to attained age of cases (ERR per 100 mGy=1.9; 95% CI <0 to 8.0). Lagged models indicated non-linearity of risk at very low (<10 mGy) and high (>100 mGy) doses, which contributed to the imprecision of results in linear models. Similar risk attenuation was not evident in time-windows- based models. Conclusions Risk estimates were in reasonable agreement with previous estimates, with the temporality of non-CLL leukaemia risk as a dominant factor in dose-response analyses. Future research should focus on methods that improve evaluations of the dose-response, particularly in the low-dose range.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据