RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Occupational ionising radiation and risk of basal cell carcinoma in US radiologic technologists (1983–2005)
JF Occupational and Environmental Medicine
JO Occup Environ Med
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
SP 862
OP 869
DO 10.1136/oemed-2015-102880
VO 72
IS 12
A1 Terrence Lee
A1 Alice J Sigurdson
A1 Dale L Preston
A1 Elizabeth K Cahoon
A1 D Michal Freedman
A1 Steven L Simon
A1 Kenrad Nelson
A1 Genevieve Matanoski
A1 Cari M Kitahara
A1 Jason J Liu
A1 Timothy Wang
A1 Bruce H Alexander
A1 Michele M Doody
A1 Martha S Linet
A1 Mark P Little
YR 2015
UL http://oem.bmj.com/content/72/12/862.abstract
AB Objective To determine risk for incident basal cell carcinoma from cumulative low-dose ionising radiation in the US radiologic technologist cohort.Methods We analysed 65 719 Caucasian technologists who were cancer-free at baseline (1983–1989 or 1994–1998) and answered a follow-up questionnaire (2003–2005). Absorbed radiation dose to the skin in mGy for estimated cumulative occupational radiation exposure was reconstructed for each technologist based on badge dose measurements, questionnaire-derived work history and protection practices, and literature information. Radiation-associated risk was assessed using Poisson regression and included adjustment for several demographic, lifestyle, host and sun exposure factors.Results Cumulative mean absorbed skin dose (to head/neck/arms) was 55.8 mGy (range 0–1735 mGy). For lifetime cumulative dose, we did not observe an excess radiation-related risk (excess relative risk/Gy=−0.01 (95% CI −0.43 to 0.52). However, we observed that basal cell carcinoma risk was increased for radiation dose received before age 30 (excess relative risk/Gy=0.59, 95% CI −0.11 to 1.42) and before 1960 (excess relative risk/Gy=2.92, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.45).Conclusions Basal cell carcinoma risk was unrelated to low-dose radiation exposure among radiologic technologists. Because of uncertainties in dosimetry and sensitivity to model specifications, both our null results and our findings of excess risk for dose received before age 30 and exposure before 1960 should be interpreted with caution.