Assessing the impact of neutron relative biological effectiveness on all solid cancer mortality risks in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

PURPOSE: Risk analyses, based on relative biological effectiveness (RBE) estimates for neutrons relative to gammas, were performed; and the change in the curvature of the risk to dose response with increasing neutron RBE was analyzed using all solid cancer mortality data from the Radiation Effect Research Foundation (RERF). Results were compared to those based on incidence data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This analysis is based on RERF mortality data with separate neutron and gamma doses for colon doses, from which organ averaged doses could be calculated. A model for risk ratio variation with RBE was developed. RESULTS: The best estimate of the neutron RBE considering mortality data was 200 (95% confidence interval (CI): 50-1010) for colon dose using the weighted-dose approach and for organ averaged dose 110 (95% CI: 30-350). The ERR risk ratios for all solid cancers combined, for the best fitting neutron RBE estimate and the neutron RBE of 10 result in a ratio of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.17-0.85) for colon dose and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.18-0.87) for organ averaged dose. The risk to dose response curvature became significantly negative (concave down) with increasing RBE, at a neutron RBE of 170 using colon dose and at an RBE of 90 using organ averaged dose for males when fitting a linear-quadratic dose response. For females, the curvature decreased toward linearity with increasing neutron RBE and remained significantly positive until RBE of 80 and 40 using colon and organ averaged dose, respectively. For higher neutron RBEs, no significant conclusion could be drawn about the shape of the dose-response curve. CONCLUSIONS: Application of neutron RBE values higher than 10 results in substantially reduced cancer mortality risk estimates and a significant reduction in curvature of the risk to dose responses for males. Using mortality data, the best fitting neutron RBE is much higher than when incidence data is used. The neutron RBE ranges covered by the overlap in the CIs from both the mortality and incidence analyses are 50-190 using colon dose and in all cases, the best fitting neutron RBE and lower 95% CI are higher than the value of 10 traditionally applied by the RERF. Therefore, it is recommended to consider uncertainties in neutron RBE values when calculating radiation risks and discussing the shape of dose responses using Japanese A-bomb survivors data.

European astronaut radiation related cancer risk assessment using dosimetric calculations of organ dose equivalents.

An illustrative sample mission of a Mars swing-by mission lasting one calendar year was chosen to highlight the application of European risk assessment software to cancer (all solid cancer plus leukaemia) risks from radiation exposures in space quantified with organ dose equivalent rates from model calculations based on the quantity Radiation Attributed Decrease of Survival (RADS). The relevant dose equivalent to the colon for radiation exposures from this Mars swing-by mission were found to vary between 198 and 482 mSv. These doses depend on sex and the two other factors investigated here of: solar activity phase (maximum or minimum); and the choice of space radiation quality factor used in the calculations of dose equivalent. Such doses received at typical astronaut ages around 40 years old will result in: the probability of surviving until retirement age (65 years) being reduced by a range from 0.38% (95%CI: 0.29; 0.49) to 1.29% (95%CI: 1.06; 1.56); and the probability of surviving cancer free until retirement age being reduced by a range from 0.78% (95%CI: 0.59; 0.99) to 2.63% (95%CI: 2.16; 3.18). As expected from the features of the models applied to quantify the general dosimetric and radiation epidemiology parameters, the cancer incidence risks in terms of surviving cancer free, are higher than the cancer mortality risks in terms of surviving, the risks for females are higher than for males, and the risks at solar minimum are higher than at solar maximum.

Application of multi-method-multi-model inference to radiation related solid cancer excess risks models for astronaut risk assessment.

The impact of including model-averaged excess radiation risks (ER) into a measure of radiation attributed decrease of survival (RADS) for the outcome all solid cancer incidence and the impact on the uncertainties is demonstrated. It is shown that RADS applying weighted model averaged ER based on AIC weights result in smaller risk estimates with narrower 95% CI than RADS using ER based on BIC weights. Further a multi-method-multi-model inference approach is introduced that allows calculating one general RADS estimate providing a weighted average risk estimate for a lunar and a Mars mission. For males the general RADS estimate is found to be 0.42% (95% CI: 0.38%; 0.45%) and for females 0.67% (95% CI: 0.59%; 0.75%) for a lunar mission and 2.45% (95% CI: 2.23%; 2.67%) for males and 3.91% (95% CI: 3.44%; 4.39%) for females for a Mars mission considering an age at exposure of 40 years and an attained age of 65 years. It is recommended to include these types of uncertainties and to include model-averaged excess risks in astronaut risk assessment.

Comparison and multi-model inference of excess risks models for radiation-related solid cancer.

In assessments of detrimental health risks from exposures to ionising radiation, many forms of risk to dose-response models are available in the literature. The usual practice is to base risk assessment on one specific model and ignore model uncertainty. The analysis illustrated here considers model uncertainty for the outcome all solid cancer incidence, when modelled as a function of colon organ dose, using the most recent publicly available data from the Life Span Study on atomic bomb survivors of Japan. Seven recent publications reporting all solid cancer risk models currently deemed plausible by the scientific community have been included in a model averaging procedure so that the main conclusions do not depend on just one type of model. The models have been estimated with different baselines and presented for males and females at various attained ages and ages at exposure, to obtain specially computed model-averaged Excess Relative Risks (ERR) and Excess Absolute Risks (EAR). Monte Carlo simulated estimation of uncertainty on excess risks was accounted for by applying realisations including correlations in the risk model parameters. Three models were found to weight the model-averaged risks most strongly depending on the baseline and information criteria used for the weighting. Fitting all excess risk models with the same baseline, one model dominates for both information criteria considered in this study. Based on the analysis presented here, it is generally recommended to take model uncertainty into account in future risk analyses.

Assessing the impact of different neutron RBEs on the all solid cancer radiation risks obtained from the Japanese A-bomb survivors data.

PURPOSE: Development of a model characterizing risk variation with RBE to investigate how the incidence risk for all solid cancers combined varies with higher neutron RBEs and different organ dose types. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The model is based on RERF data with separate neutron and gamma dose information. RESULTS: For both additive and multiplicative linear excess risks per unit organ averaged dose, a reduction of 50% in the risk coefficient per weighted dose arises when a neutron RBE of 110 is used instead of 10. Considering risk per unit liver dose, this reduction occurs for an RBE of 130 and for risks per unit colon dose for an RBE of 190. The change in the shape of the dose response curve when using higher neutron RBEs is evaluated. The curvature changed and became significantly negative for males at an RBE of 140 for colon dose, 100 for liver dose and 80 for organ averaged dose. For females this is the case at an RBE of 110, 80 and 60, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainties in neutron RBE values should be considered when radiation risks and the shape of dose responses are deduced from cancer risk data from the atomic bomb survivors.

Valid versus invalid radiation cancer risk assessment methods illustrated using Swiss population data.

After the nuclear accident in Fukushima, the public interest in radiation related cancer-risk assessment increased. However, interpretations of results from epidemiological studies and comprehension of cancer risk assessment methods can be unclear and involve questions about correctness and validity of the approaches. To shed some light on this potential lack of clarity, valid versus invalid radiation cancer risk assessments methods are illustrated here using Swiss population data. This involves a comparison of the cancer risk assessment method based on collective dose and the cumulative risk assessment method, where the latter is recommended with regard to uncertainties and risk of misinterpretation. Further, risk assessment in different dose ranges is discussed and it is concluded that below 100 mSv it cannot be appropriately stated that an adequate strength of evidence of a causal relationship between cancer and radiation is provided, because of the large uncertainties in this dose range. However, the linear non-threshold (LNT) model can be used to model the dose response, because it represents a prudent and parsimonious model, that fits the data well and lies within the given uncertainties. Additionally, treatments of uncertainties in the risk models are illustrated. The EU-project CONFIDENCE software is applied here to obtain example radiation related lifetime cancer risks for exposures of 20 mSv and 5 mSv. Furthermore, the impact of different dosimetry errors on the uncertainties in the cancer lifetime risk calculation is analysed, by including different standard deviations (SD) and by comparing the sampling of the doses from a normal and a lognormal distribution. Using the normal distribution, for females exposed to 20 mSv, the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the cancer lifetime risk increases, when compared to using a SD of 4 mSv, by a factor of 1.5 using a SD of 8 mSv and by a factor of 1.7 using a SD of 10 mSv. The corresponding factors for males for the same exposure are 1.3 and 1.5 respectively. For exposure to 5 mSv, the 95% CIs on the risk increase by a factor of 1.2 for females and 1.4 for men for a SD of 2 mSv using the normal distribution compared to the lognormal distribution and by a factor of 1.5 and 1.8 for a SD of 3 mSv compared to a SD of 1 mSv respectively. Furthermore, differences in the resulting 95% CI on the risk, using different distributions for the dose sampling are visible.

A bespoke health risk assessment methodology for the radiation protection of astronauts.

An alternative approach that is particularly suitable for the radiation health risk assessment (HRA) of astronauts is presented. The quantity, Radiation Attributed Decrease of Survival (RADS), representing the cumulative decrease in the unknown survival curve at a certain attained age, due to the radiation exposure at an earlier age, forms the basis for this alternative approach. Results are provided for all solid cancer plus leukemia incidence RADS from estimated doses from theoretical radiation exposures accumulated during long-term missions to the Moon or Mars. For example, it is shown that a 1000-day Mars exploration mission with a hypothetical mission effective dose of 1.07 Sv at typical astronaut ages around 40 years old, will result in the probability of surviving free of all types of solid cancer and leukemia until retirement age (65 years) being reduced by 4.2% (95% CI 3.2; 5.3) for males and 5.8% (95% CI 4.8; 7.0) for females. RADS dose-responses are given, for the outcomes for incidence of all solid cancer, leukemia, lung and female breast cancer. Results showing how RADS varies with age at exposure, attained age and other factors are also presented. The advantages of this alternative approach, over currently applied methodologies for the long-term radiation protection of astronauts after mission exposures, are presented with example calculations applicable to European astronaut occupational HRA. Some tentative suggestions for new types of occupational risk limits for space missions are given while acknowledging that the setting of astronaut radiation-related risk limits will ultimately be decided by the Space Agencies. Suggestions are provided for further work which builds on and extends this new HRA approach, e.g., by eventually including non-cancer effects and detailed space dosimetry.

Cancer incidence risks above and below 1 Gy for radiation protection in space.

The risk assessment quantities called lifetime attributable risk (LAR) and risk of exposure-induced cancer (REIC) are used to calculate the cumulative cancer incidence risks for astronauts, attributable to radiation exposure accumulated during long term lunar and Mars missions. These risk quantities are based on the most recently published epidemiological data on the Life Span Study (LSS) of Japanese A-bomb survivors, who were exposed to γ-rays and neutrons. In order to analyze the impact of a different neutron RBE on the risk quantities, a model for the neutron relative biological effectiveness (RBE) relative to gammas in the LSS is developed based on an older dataset with less follow-up time. Since both risk quantities are based on uncertain quantities, such as survival curves, and REIC includes deterministic radiation induced non-cancer mortality risks, modelled with data based on the general population, the risks for astronauts may not be optimally estimated. The suitability of these risk assessment measures for the use of cancer risk calculation for astronauts is discussed. The work presented here shows that the use of a higher neutron RBE than the value of 10, traditionally used in the LSS risk models, can reduce the risks up to almost 50%. Additionally, including an excess absolute risk (EAR) baseline scaling also increases the risks by between 0.4% and 8.1% for the space missions considered in this study. Using just an EAR model instead of an equally weighted EAR and excess relative risk (ERR) model can decrease the cumulative risks for the considered missions by between 0.4% and 4.1% if no EAR baseline scaling is applied. If EAR baseline scaling is included, the calculated risks with the EAR- and the mixed model, as well as the risks calculated with just the ERR model are almost identical and only small differences in the uncertainties are visible.

Deformable image registration uncertainty for inter-fractional dose accumulation of lung cancer proton therapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients show typically large anatomical changes during treatment, making recalculation or adaption necessary. For report and review, the applied treatment dose can be accumulated on the reference planning CT using deformable image registration (DIR). We investigated the dosimetric impact of using six different clinically available DIR algorithms for dose accumulation in presence of inter-fractional anatomy variations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For seven NSCLC patients, proton treatment plans with 66 Gy-RBE to the planning target volume (PTV) were optimised. Nine repeated CTs were registered to the planning CT using six DIR algorithms each. All CTs were acquired in visually guided deep-inspiration breath-hold. The plans were recalculated on the repeated CTs and warped back to the planning CT using the corresponding DIRs. Fraction doses warped with the same DIR were summed up to six different accumulated dose distributions per patient, and compared to the initial dose. RESULTS: The PTV-V95 of accumulated doses decreased by 16% on average over all patients, with variations due to DIR selection of 8.7%. A separation of the dose effects caused by anatomical changes and DIR uncertainty showed a good agreement between the dose degradation caused by anatomical changes and the dose predicted from the average of all DIRs (differences of only 1.6%). CONCLUSION: The dose degradation caused by anatomical changes was more pronounced than the uncertainty of employing different DIRs for dose accumulation, with averaged results from several DIRs providing a good representation of dose degradation caused by anatomy. However, accumulated dose variations between DIRs can be substantial, leading to an additional dose uncertainty.