4.6 Article

Flexible Modeling of the Association Between Cumulative Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation From Cardiac Procedures and Risk of Cancer in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 188, 期 8, 页码 1552-1562

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwz114

关键词

cancer epidemiology; competing risks; splines; time-varying exposure

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research grants [PJT-148946, TD3-137716]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adults with congenital heart disease are increasingly being exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation (LDIR) from cardiac procedures. In a recent study, Cohen et al. (Circulation. 2018;137(13):1334-1345) reported an association between increased LDIR exposure and cancer incidence but did not explore temporal relationships. Yet, the impact of past exposures probably accumulates over years, and its strength may depend on the amount of time elapsed since exposure. Furthermore, LDIR procedures performed shortly before a cancer diagnosis may have been ordered because of early symptoms of cancer, raising concerns about reversal causality bias. To address these challenges, we combined flexible modeling of cumulative exposures with competing-risks methodology to estimate separate associations of time-varying LDIR exposure with cancer incidence and all-cause mortality. Among 24,833 patients from the Quebec Congenital Heart Disease Database, 602 had incident cancer and 500 died during a follow-up period of up to 15 years (1995-2010). Initial results suggested a strong association of cancer incidence with very recent LDIR exposures, likely reflecting reverse causality bias. When exposure was lagged by 2 years, an increased cumulative LDIR dose from the previous 2-6 years was associated with increased cancer incidence, with a stronger association for women. These results illustrate the importance of accurate modeling of temporal relationships between time-varying exposures and health outcomes.

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

4.6
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