Linear No-Threshold Model

From

(Redirected from LNT)
Jump to: navigation, search

Summary

TBD.

Studies and Reports

  • Little M et al., New models for evaluation of radiation-induced lifetime cancer risk and its uncertainty employed in the UNSCEAR 2006 report, Radiat Res. 169(6):660-76, June 2008.
    • Abstract. " Generalized relative and absolute risk models are fitted to the latest Japanese atomic bomb survivor solid cancer and leukemia mortality data (through 2000), with the latest (DS02) dosimetry, by classical (regression calibration) and Bayesian techniques, taking account of errors in dose estimates and other uncertainties. Linear-quadratic and linear-quadratic-exponential models are fitted and used to assess risks for contemporary populations of China, Japan, Puerto Rico, the U.S. and the UK. Many of these models are the same as or very similar to models used in the UNSCEAR 2006 report. For a test dose of 0.1 Sv, the solid cancer mortality for a UK population using the generalized linear-quadratic relative risk model is estimated as 5.4% Sv(-1) [90% Bayesian credible interval (BCI) 3.1, 8.0]. At 0.1 Sv, leukemia mortality for a UK population using the generalized linear-quadratic relative risk model is estimated as 0.50% Sv(-1) (90% BCI 0.11, 0.97). Risk estimates varied little between populations; at 0.1 Sv the central estimates ranged from 3.7 to 5.4% Sv(-1) for solid cancers and from 0.4 to 0.6% Sv(-1) for leukemia. Analyses using regression calibration techniques yield central estimates of risk very similar to those for the Bayesian approach. The central estimates of population risk were similar for the generalized absolute risk model and the relative risk model. Linear-quadratic-exponential models predict lower risks (at least at low test doses) and appear to fit as well, although for other (theoretical) reasons we favor the simpler linear-quadratic models."
  • Pierce J et al., An evaluation of reported no-effect chrysotile asbestos exposures for lung cancer and mesothelioma, Crit Rev Toxicol. 38(3):191-214, 2008.
      Abstract. "Numerous investigators have suggested that there is likely to be a cumulative chrysotile exposure below which there is negligible risk of asbestos-related diseases. However, to date, little research has been conducted to identify an actual "no-effect" exposure level for chrysotile-related lung cancer and mesothelioma. The purpose of this analysis is to summarize and present all of the cumulative exposure-response data reported for predominantly chrysotile-exposed cohorts in the published literature. Criteria for consideration in this analysis included stratification of relative risk or mortality ratio estimates by cumulative chrysotile exposure. Over 350 studies were initially evaluated and subsequently excluded from the analysis due primarily to lack of cumulative exposure information, lack of information on fiber type, and/or evidence of significant exposures to amphiboles. Fourteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were found where lung cancer risk was stratified by cumulative chrysotile exposure; four such studies were found for mesothelioma. All of the studies involved cohorts exposed to high levels of chrysotile in mining or manufacturing settings. The preponderance of the cumulative "no-effects" exposure levels for lung cancer and mesothelioma fall in a range of approximately 25-1,000 fibers per cubic centimeter per year (f/cc-yr) and 15-500 f/cc-yr, respectively, and a majority of the studies did not report an increased risk at the highest estimated exposure. Sources of uncertainty in these values include errors in the cumulative exposure estimates, conversion of dust counts to fiber data, and use of national age-adjusted mortality rates. Numerous potential biases also exist. For example, smoking was rarely controlled for and amphibole exposure did in fact occur in a majority of the studies, which would bias many of the reported "no-effect" exposure levels towards lower values. However, many of the studies likely lack sufficient power (e.g., due to small cohort size) to assess whether there could have been a significant increase in risk at the reported no-observed-adverse-effects level (NOAEL); additional statistical analyses are required to address this source of bias and the attendant influence on these values. The chrysotile NOAELs appear to be consistent with exposure-response information for certain cohorts with well-established industrial hygiene and epidemiology data. Specifically, the range of chrysotile NOAELs were found to be consistently higher than upper-bound cumulative chrysotile exposure estimates that have been published for pre-1980s automobile mechanics (e.g., 95th percentile of 2.0 f/ cc-yr), an occupation that historically worked with chrysotile-containing friction products yet has been shown to have no increased risk of asbestos-related diseases. While the debate regarding chrysotile as a risk factor for mesothelioma will likely continue for some time, future research into nonlinear, threshold cancer risk models for chrysotile-related respiratory diseases appears to be warranted."
  • Pollycove M and Feinendegen L, Radiation-induced versus endogenous DNA damage: possible effect of inducible protective responses in mitigating endogenous damage, Hum Exp Toxicol. 22(6):290-306, June 2003.
    • Abstract. "Ionizing radiation (IR) causes damage to DNA that is apparently proportional to absorbed dose. The incidence of radiation-induced cancer in humans unequivocally rises with the value of absorbed doses above about 300 mGy, in a seemingly linear fashion. Extrapolation of this linear correlation down to zero-dose constitutes the linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis of radiation-induced cancer incidence. The corresponding dose-risk correlation, however, is questionable at doses lower than 300 mGy. Non-radiation induced DNA damage and, in consequence, oncogenic transformation in non-irradiated cells arises from a variety of sources, mainly from weak endogenous carcinogens such as reactive oxygen species (ROS) as well as from micronutrient deficiencies and environmental toxins. In order to relate the low probability of radiation-induced cancer to the relatively high incidence of non-radiation carcinogenesis, especially at low-dose irradiation, the quantitative and qualitative differences between the DNA damages from non-radiation and radiation sources need to be addressed and put into context of physiological mechanisms of cellular protection. This paper summarizes a co-operative approach by the authors to answer the questions on the quantitative and qualitative DNA damages from non-radiation sources, largely endogenous ROS, and following exposure to low doses of IR. The analysis relies on published data and justified assumptions and considers the physiological capacity of mammalian cells to protect themselves constantly by preventing and repairing DNA damage. Furthermore, damaged cells are susceptible to removal by apoptosis or the immune system. The results suggest that the various forms of non-radiation DNA damage in tissues far outweigh corresponding DNA damage from low-dose radiation exposure at the level of, and well above, background radiation. These data are examined within the context of low-dose radiation induction of cellular signaling that may stimulate cellular protection systems over hours to weeks against accumulation of DNA damage. The particular focus is the hypothesis that these enhanced and persisting protective responses reduce the steady state level of non-radiation DNA damage, thereby reducing deleterious outcomes such as cancer and aging. The emerging model urgently needs rigorous experimental testing, since it suggests, importantly, that the LNT hypothesis is invalid for complex adaptive systems such as mammalian organisms."
  • Krewski D et al, The use of biologically based cancer risk models in radiation epidemiology, Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 104(4):367-76, 2003.
    • Abstract. "Biologically based risk projection models for radiation carcinogenesis seek to describe the fundamental biological processes involved in neoplastic transformation of somatic cells into malignant cancer cells. A validated biologically based model, whose parameters have a direct biological interpretation, can also be used to extrapolate cancer risks to different exposure conditions with some confidence. In this article biologically based models for radiation carcinogenesis, including the two-stage clonal expansion (TSCE) model and its extensions, are reviewed. The biological and mathematical bases for such models are described, and the implications of key model parameters for cancer risk assessment examined. Specific applications of versions of the TSCE model to important epidemiological datasets are discussed, including the Colorado uranium miners' cohort; a cohort of Chinese tin miners; the lifespan cohort of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and a cohort of over 200,000 workers included in the National Dose Registry (NDR) of Canada."
  • Heindenreich W et al., Multistage models and the incidence of cancer in the cohort of atomic bomb survivors, Radiat Res. 158(5):607-14, November 2002.
    • Abstract. "The analyses in this paper show that a number of biologically based models describe cancer incidence among the A-bomb survivors equally well. However, these different models can predict very different temporal patterns of risk after irradiation. No evidence was found to support the previous claim of Pierce and Mendelsohn that excess cancer risks for the solid tumors depend only upon attained age and not on age at exposure or time since exposure. Although the A-bomb survivor cohort is the largest epidemiological data set for the study of radiation and cancer, it is not large enough to discriminate among various possible carcinogenic mechanisms. Unfortunately for hypothesis generation, the data appear to be consistent with a number of different mechanistic interpretations of the role of radiation in carcinogenesis."
  • Pollycove M and Feinendegen L, Molecular biology, epidemiology, and the demise of the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, C R Acad Sci III. 322(2-3):197-204, February-March 1999.
    • Abstract. "The prime concern of radiation protection policy since 1959 has been protecting DNA from damage. The 1995 NCRP Report 121 on collective dose states that since no human data provides direct support for the linear no threshold hypothesis (LNT), and some studies provide quantitative data that, with statistical significance, contradict LNT, ultimately, confidence in LNT is based on the biophysical concept that the passage of a single charged particle could cause damage to DNA that would result in cancer. Current understanding of the basic molecular biologic mechanisms involved and recent data are examined before presenting several statistically significant epidemiologic studies that contradict the LNT hypothesis. Over eons of time a complex biosystem evolved to control the DNA alterations (oxidative adducts) produced by about 10(10) free radicals/cell/d derived from 2-3% of all metabolized oxygen. Antioxidant prevention, enzymatic repair of DNA damage, and removal of persistent DNA alterations by apoptosis, differentiation, necrosis, and the immune system, sequentially reduce DNA damage from about 10(6) DNA alterations/cell/d to about 1 mutation/cell/d. These mutations accumulate in stem cells during a lifetime with progressive DNA damage-control impairment associated with aging and malignant growth. A comparatively negligible number of mutations, an average of about 10(-7) mutations/cell/d, is produced by low LET radiation background of 0.1 cGy/y. The remarkable efficiency of this biosystem is increased by the adaptive responses to low-dose ionizing radiation. Each of the sequential functions that prevent, repair, and remove DNA damage are adaptively stimulated by low-dose ionizing radiation in contrast to their impairment by high-dose radiation. The biologic effect of radiation is not determined by the number of mutations it creates, but by its effect on the biosystem that controls the relentless enormous burden of oxidative DNA damage. At low doses, radiation stimulates this biosystem with consequent significant decrease of metabolic mutations. Low-dose stimulation of the immune system may not only prevent cancer by increasing removal of premalignant or malignant cells with persistent DNA damage, but used in human radioimmunotherapy may also completely remove malignant tumors with metastases. The reduction of gene mutations in response to low-dose radiation provides a biological explanation of the statistically significant observations of mortality and cancer mortality risk decrements, and contradicts the biophysical concept of the basic mechanisms upon which, ultimately, the NCRPs confidence in the LNT hypothesis is based.
  • Pollycove M, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9539031, Nonlinearity of radiation health effects], Environ Health Perspect. 106 Suppl 1:363-8, February 1998.
    • Abstract. "The prime concern of radiation protection policy since 1959 has been to protect DNA from damage. In 1994 the United Nations Scientific Community on the Effects of Atomic Radiation focused on biosystem response to radiation with its report Adaptive Responses to Radiation of Cells and Organisms. The 1995 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements report Principles and Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection states that because no human data provides direct support for the linear nonthreshold hypothesis (LNT), confidence in LNT is based on the biophysical concept that the passage of a single charged particle could cause damage to DNA that would result in cancer. Several statistically significant epidemiologic studies contradict the validity of this concept by showing risk decrements, i.e., hormesis, of cancer mortality and mortality from all causes in populations exposed to low-dose radiation. Unrepaired low-dose radiation damage to DNA is negligible compared to metabolic damage. The DNA damage-control biosystem is physiologically operative on both metabolic and radiation damage and effected predominantly by free radicals. The DNA damage-control biosystem is suppressed by high dose and stimulated by low-dose radiation. The hormetic effect of low-dose radiation may be explained by its increase of biosystem efficiency. Improved DNA damage control reduces persistent mis- or unrepaired DNA damage i.e., the number of mutations that accumulate during a lifetime. This progressive accumulation of gene mutations in stem cells is associated with decreasing DNA damage control, aging, and malignancy. Recognition of the positive health effects produced by adaptive responses to low-dose radiation would result in a realistic assessment of the environmental risk of radiation."
  • Gori G, Cancer risk assessment: the science that is not, Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 6(1):10-20, August 1992."
    • Abstract. "Regulators have adopted the assumption of low dose linearity in cancer risk assessment, variously justified as scientifically correct and as responsible public health policy. Corollary assumptions are the one-molecule-one-hit hypothesis, the exclusion of no-effect thresholds, and the equivalency of response in experimental rodents and man. While our understanding of the carcinogenesis process remains tentative, these generalizations are not sustained by the limited scientific evidence available, not even as interim working hypotheses. In this light, they reflect a facile bureaucratic response to pragmatic demands borne of political perceptions, rather than the recognition of a complex and still opaque reality."

Analysis and Commentary

Retrieved from "http://www.debunkosaurus.com/debunkosaurus/index.php/Linear_No-Threshold_Model"
Personal tools