Myocardial perfusion scans: projected population cancer risks from current levels of use in the United States.

Berrington de Gonzalez, Amy,Kim, Kwang-Pyo,Smith-Bindman, Rebecca,McAreavey, Dorothea American Heart Association, etc.] 2010 CIRCULATION - Vol.122 No.23

<P>Myocardial perfusion scans contribute up to 20% of the estimated annual collective radiation dose to the US population. We estimated potential future cancer risk from these scans by age at exposure and current frequency of use in the United States.</P>

Cancer Risks from Low-dose Ionizing Radiation:- Growing Direct Evidence for the LNT assumption

Amy Berrington 대한방사선방어학회 2017 대한방사선방어학회 학술발표회 논문요약집 Vol.2017 No.11

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Pearce, Neil,Blair, Aaron,Vineis, Paolo,Ahrens, Wolfgang,Andersen, Aage,Anto, Josep M.,Armstrong, Bruce K.,Baccarelli, Andrea A.,Beland, Frederick A.,Berrington, Amy,Bertazzi, Pier Alberto,Birnbaum, L U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Publ 2015 Environmental health perspectives Vol.123 No.6

<P>Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.</P><P>Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.</P><P>Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.</P><P>Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health.</P><P>Citation: Pearce N, Blair A, Vineis P, Ahrens W, Andersen A, Anto JM, Armstrong BK, Baccarelli AA, Beland FA, Berrington A, Bertazzi PA, Birnbaum LS, Brownson RC, Bucher JR, Cantor KP, Cardis E, Cherrie JW, Christiani DC, Cocco P, Coggon D, Comba P, Demers PA, Dement JM, Douwes J, Eisen EA, Engel LS, Fenske RA, Fleming LE, Fletcher T, Fontham E, Forastiere F, Frentzel-Beyme R, Fritschi L, Gerin M, Goldberg M, Grandjean P, Grimsrud TK, Gustavsson P, Haines A, Hartge P, Hansen J, Hauptmann M, Heederik D, Hemminki K, Hemon D, Hertz-Picciotto I, Hoppin JA, Huff J, Jarvholm B, Kang D, Karagas MR, Kjaerheim K, Kjuus H, Kogevinas M, Kriebel D, Kristensen P, Kromhout H, Laden F, Lebailly P, LeMasters G, Lubin JH, Lynch CF, Lynge E, ‘t Mannetje A, McMichael AJ, McLaughlin JR, Marrett L, Martuzzi M, Merchant JA, Merler E, Merletti F, Miller A, Mirer FE, Monson R, Nordby KC, Olshan AF, Parent ME, Perera FP, Perry MJ, Pesatori AC, Pirastu R, Porta M, Pukkala E, Rice C, Richardson DB, Ritter L, Ritz B, Ronckers CM, Rushton L, Rusiecki JA, Rusyn I, Samet JM, Sandler DP, de Sanjose S, Schernhammer E, Seniori Costantini A, Seixas N, Shy C, Siemiatycki J, Silverman DT, Simonato L, Smith AH, Smith MT, Spinelli JJ, Spitz MR, Stallones L, Stayner LT, Steenland K, Stenzel M, Stewart BW, Stewart PA, Symanski E, Terracini B, Tolbert PE, Vainio H, Vena J, Vermeulen R, Victora CG, Ward EM, Weinberg CR, Weisenburger D, Wesseling C, Weiderpass E, Zahm SH. 2015. IARC Monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans. Environ Health Perspect 123:507–514; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409149</P>

Lack of Association between Fingernail Selenium and Thyroid Cancer Risk: A Case-Control Study in French Polynesia

Ren, Yan,Kitahara, Cari Meinhold,de Gonzalez, Amy Berrington,Clero, Enora,Brindel, Pauline,Maillard, Stephane,Cote, Suzanne,Dewailly, Eric,Rachedi, Frederique,Boissin, Jean-Louis,Sebbag, Joseph,Shan, Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 2014 Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention Vol.15 No.13

Background: Numerous studies have suggested that selenium deficiency may be associated with an increased risk for several types of cancer, but few have focused on thyroid cancer. Materials and Methods: We examined the association between post-diagnostic fingernail selenium levels and differentiated thyroid cancer risk in a French Polynesian matched case-control study. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: The median selenium concentration among controls was $0.76{\mu}g/g$. Significantly, we found no association between fingernail selenium levels and thyroid cancer risk after conditioning on year of birth and sex and additionally adjusting for date of birth (highest versus lowest quartile: odds-ratio=1.12, 95% confidence interval: 0.66-1.90; p-trend=0.30). After additional adjustment for other covariates, this association remained non-significant (p-trend=0.60). When restricting the analysis to thyroid cancer of 10 mm or more, selenium in nails was non-significantly positively linked to thyroid cancer risk (p-trend=0.09). Although no significant interaction was evidenced between iodine in nails and selenium in nails effect (p=0.70), a non-significant (p-trend =0.10) positive association between selenium and thyroid cancer risk was seen in patients with less than 3 ppm of iodine in nails. The highest fingernail selenium concentration in French Polynesia was in the Marquises Islands ($M=0.87{\mu}g/g$) and in the Tuamotu-Gambier Archipelago ($M=0.86{\mu}g/g$). Conclusions: Our results do not support, among individuals with sufficient levels of selenium, that greater long-term exposure to selenium may reduce thyroid cancer risk. Because these findings are based on post-diagnostic measures, studies with prediagnostic selenium are needed for corroboration.

Historical review of occupational exposures and cancer risks in medical radiation workers.

Linet, Martha S,Kim, Kwang Pyo,Miller, Donald L,Kleinerman, Ruth A,Simon, Steven L,Berrington de Gonzalez, Amy Academic Press 2010 Radiation research Vol.174 No.6

<P>Epidemiological studies of medical radiation workers have found excess risks of leukemia, skin and female breast cancer in those employed before 1950 but little consistent evidence of cancer risk increases subsequently. Occupational radiation-related dose-response data and recent and lifetime cancer risk data are limited for radiologists and radiologic technologists and lacking for physicians and technologists performing fluoroscopically guided procedures. Survey data demonstrate that occupational doses to radiologists and radiologic technologists have declined over time. Eighty mostly small studies of cardiologists and fewer studies of other physicians reveal that effective doses to physicians per interventional procedure vary by more than an order of magnitude. For medical radiation workers, there is an urgent need to expand the limited information on average annual, time-trend and organ doses from occupational radiation exposures and to assess lifetime cancer risks of these workers. For physicians and technologists performing interventional procedures, more information about occupational doses should be collected and long-term follow-up studies of cancer and other serious disease risks should be initiated. Such studies will help optimize standardized protocols for radiologic procedures, determine whether current radiation protection measures for medical radiation workers are adequate, provide guidance on cancer screening needs, and yield valuable insights on cancer risks associated with chronic radiation exposure.</P>