Cancer Risks near Nuclear Facilities: The Importance of Research Design and Explicit Study Hypotheses

BackgroundIn April 2010, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked the National Academy of Sciences to update a 1990 study of cancer risks near nuclear facilities. Prior research on this topic has suffered from problems in hypothesis formulation and research design.ObjectivesWe review epidemiologic principles used in studies of generic exposure–response associations and in studies of specific sources of exposure. We then describe logical problems with assumptions, formation of testable hypotheses, and interpretation of evidence in previous research on cancer risks near nuclear facilities.DiscussionAdvancement of knowledge about cancer risks near nuclear facilities depends on testing specific hypotheses grounded in physical and biological mechanisms of exposure and susceptibility while considering sample size and ability to adequately quantify exposure, ascertain cancer cases, and evaluate plausible confounders.ConclusionsNext steps in advancing knowledge about cancer risks near nuclear facilities require studies of childhood cancer incidence, focus on in utero and early childhood exposures, use of specific geographic information, and consideration of pathways for transport and uptake of radionuclides. Studies of cancer mortality among adults, cancers with long latencies, large geographic zones, and populations that reside at large distances from nuclear facilities are better suited for public relations than for scientific purposes

Radiological informed consent in cardiovascular imaging: towards the medico-legal perfect storm?

Use of radiation for medical examinations and tests is the largest manmade source of radiation exposure. No one can doubt the immense clinical and scientific benefits of imaging to the modern practice of medicine. Every radiological and nuclear medicine examination confers a definite (albeit low) long-term risk of cancer, but patients undergoing such examinations often receive no or inaccurate information about radiological dose exposure and corresponding risk directly related to the radiological dose received. Too detailed information on radiological dose and risk may result in undue anxiety, but information "economical with the truth" may violate basic patients' rights well embedded in ethics (Oviedo convention 1997) and law (97/43 Euratom Directive 1997). Informed consent is a procedure needed to establish a respectful and ethical relation between doctors and patients. Nevertheless, in an "ideal" consent process, the principle of patient autonomy in current radiological practice might be reinforced by making it mandatory to obtain explicit and transparent informed consent form for radiological examination with high exposure (≥ 500 chest x-rays). The form may spell-out the type of examination, the exposure in effective dose (mSv), derived from reference values in guidelines or – better – from actual values from their department. The dose equivalent might be also expressed in number of chest radiographs and the risk of cancer as number of extra cases in the exposed population, derived from most recent and authorative guidelines (e.g., BEIR VII Committee, release 2006). Common sense, deontological code, patients'rights, medical imaging guidelines, Euratom law, all coherently and concordantly encourage and recommend a justified, optimized, responsible and informed use of testing with ionizing radiation. Although the idea of informed consent for radiation dose does not seem to be on the immediate radar screen at least in the US, the current practice clashes against these guidelines and laws