Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians

John D Mathews, Anna V Forsythe, Zoe Brady, Martin W Butler, Stacy K Goergen, Graham B Byrnes, Graham G Giles, Anthony B Wallace, Philip R Anderson, Tenniel A Guiver, Paul McGale, Timothy M Cain, James G Dowty, Adrian C Bickerstaffe, Sarah C Darby, John D Mathews, Anna V Forsythe, Zoe Brady, Martin W Butler, Stacy K Goergen, Graham B Byrnes, Graham G Giles, Anthony B Wallace, Philip R Anderson, Tenniel A Guiver, Paul McGale, Timothy M Cain, James G Dowty, Adrian C Bickerstaffe, Sarah C Darby

Abstract

Objective: To assess the cancer risk in children and adolescents following exposure to low dose ionising radiation from diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scans.

Design: Population based, cohort, data linkage study in Australia. COHORT MEMBERS: 10.9 million people identified from Australian Medicare records, aged 0-19 years on 1 January 1985 or born between 1 January 1985 and 31 December 2005; all exposures to CT scans funded by Medicare during 1985-2005 were identified for this cohort. Cancers diagnosed in cohort members up to 31 December 2007 were obtained through linkage to national cancer records.

Main outcome: Cancer incidence rates in individuals exposed to a CT scan more than one year before any cancer diagnosis, compared with cancer incidence rates in unexposed individuals.

Results: 60,674 cancers were recorded, including 3150 in 680,211 people exposed to a CT scan at least one year before any cancer diagnosis. The mean duration of follow-up after exposure was 9.5 years. Overall cancer incidence was 24% greater for exposed than for unexposed people, after accounting for age, sex, and year of birth (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.20 to 1.29); P<0.001). We saw a dose-response relation, and the IRR increased by 0.16 (0.13 to 0.19) for each additional CT scan. The IRR was greater after exposure at younger ages (P<0.001 for trend). At 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15 or more years since first exposure, IRRs were 1.35 (1.25 to 1.45), 1.25 (1.17 to 1.34), 1.14 (1.06 to 1.22), and 1.24 (1.14 to 1.34), respectively. The IRR increased significantly for many types of solid cancer (digestive organs, melanoma, soft tissue, female genital, urinary tract, brain, and thyroid); leukaemia, myelodysplasia, and some other lymphoid cancers. There was an excess of 608 cancers in people exposed to CT scans (147 brain, 356 other solid, 48 leukaemia or myelodysplasia, and 57 other lymphoid). The absolute excess incidence rate for all cancers combined was 9.38 per 100,000 person years at risk, as of 31 December 2007. The average effective radiation dose per scan was estimated as 4.5 mSv.

Conclusions: The increased incidence of cancer after CT scan exposure in this cohort was mostly due to irradiation. Because the cancer excess was still continuing at the end of follow-up, the eventual lifetime risk from CT scans cannot yet be determined. Radiation doses from contemporary CT scans are likely to be lower than those in 1985-2005, but some increase in cancer risk is still likely from current scans. Future CT scans should be limited to situations where there is a definite clinical indication, with every scan optimised to provide a diagnostic CT image at the lowest possible radiation dose.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: support from the Australian government (via the National Health and Medical Research Council, salary support from the Cancer Research Campaign UK and other agencies) for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4790759/bin/matj009041.f1_default.jpg
Fig 1 Schematic diagram showing how study members contributed to unexposed and exposed groups. All study members were classified as unexposed on entry to the study. Those who were exposed to a CT scan remained in the unexposed group for the duration of the lag period (one year in most analyses, but five or 10 years in some). They were then transferred to the exposed group, provided that their date of transfer was before their date of exit from the study. Study members who had no CT scan remained in the unexposed group for the duration of the study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4790759/bin/matj009041.f2_default.jpg
Fig 2 Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for all types of cancers in exposed versus unexposed individuals based on a one year lag period, by the number of CT scans. The IRR increased by 0.16 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.19) for each additional CT scan, calculated after stratification for age, sex, and year of birth (χ2=131.4 and P<0.001 for trend). If unexposed people were excluded, the trend remained significant (χ2=5.79 and P=0.02 for trend). The average number of scans among individuals exposed to three or more scans was 3.5. (Web figure A shows corresponding results based on lag periods of five and 10 years)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4790759/bin/matj009041.f3_default.jpg
Fig 3 Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for exposed versus unexposed by site of CT scan and type of cancer, based on a one year lag period. IRRs were calculated after stratification for age, sex, and year of birth. Heterogeneity between cancer types, by site of CT scan exposure: all sites, χ2=23.58 (6 df), P=0.001; brain, χ2=104.1 (6 df), P<0.001; abdomen or pelvis, χ2=15.7 (6 df), P=0.02. Heterogeneity between sites of CT scan exposure, by cancer type: all cancers, χ2=111.1 (6 df), P<0.001; brain, χ2=13.9 (6 df), P=0.03; leukaemia, χ2=24.81 (6 df), P<0.001

References

    1. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:289-96.
    1. Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004;363:345-51.
    1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277-84.
    1. Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2071-7.
    1. Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang YF, Ross JS, Chen J, Ting HH, et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:849-57.
    1. Lauer MS. Elements of danger—the case of medical imaging. N Engl J Med 2009;361:841-3.
    1. Smith-Bindman R. Is computed tomography safe? N Engl J Med 2010;363:1-4.
    1. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 report to the General Assembly. United Nations, 2010.
    1. Brady Z, Cain TM, Johnston PN. Paediatric CT imaging trends in Australia. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2011;55:132-42.
    1. Pearce MS. Patterns in paediatric CT use: an international and epidemiological perspective. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2011;55:107-9.
    1. Brady Z, Cain TM, Johnston PN. Justifying referrals for paediatric CT. Med J Aust 2012;197:95-8.
    1. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012;380:499-505.
    1. Kim KP, Berrington de González A, Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Parker L, McHugh K, et al. Development of a database of organ doses for paediatric and young adult CT scans in the United Kingdom. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2012;150:415-26.
    1. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Ionizing radiation, part 1:x- and gamma (γ)-radiation, and neutrons. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 2000;75:1-492.
    1. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, Hall EJ, Land CE, Little JB, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:13761-6.
    1. Linet MS, Kim KP, Rajaraman P. Children’s exposure to diagnostic medical radiation and cancer risk: epidemiologic and dosimetric considerations. Pediatr Radiol 2009;39:S4-26.
    1. Shimizu Y, Kato H, Schull WJ. Studies of the mortality of A-bomb survivors: 9 Mortality, 1950-1985. Part 2. Cancer mortality based on the recently revised doses (DS86). Radiat Res 1990;121:120-41.
    1. Preston DL, Kusumi S, Tomonaga M, Izumi S, Ron E, Kuramoto A, et al. Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part III: leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma, 1950-1987. Radiat Res 1994;137:S68-97.
    1. Thompson DE, Mabuchi K, Ron E, Soda M, Tokunaga M, Ochikubo S, et al. Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part II: solid tumors, 1958-1987. Radiat Res 1994;137:S17-67.
    1. National Research Council, Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. National Academies Press, 2006.
    1. Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, Gilbert E, Hakama M, Hill C, et al. Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ 2005;331:77-80.
    1. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Uncertainties in the estimates of radiation risks and probability of disease causation. Report no 171. NCRP, 2012.
    1. Hendee WR, O’Connor MK. Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology 2012;264:312-21.
    1. Socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA). Technical paper. Cat no 2039.0.55.001. 2006. .
    1. Plummer M. Improved estimates of floating absolute risk. Stat Med 2004;23:93-104.
    1. International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann ICRP 1990;21:1-201.
    1. Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hillier M, Wall BF, Le Heron JC, Faulkner K. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 2-dosimetric aspects. NRPB-R249. National Radiological Protection Board, 1991.
    1. Huda W, Atherton JV, Ware DE, Cumming WA. An approach for the estimation of effective radiation dose at CT in pediatric patients. Radiology 1997;203:417-22.
    1. McLean D, Malitz N, Lewis S. Survey of effective dose levels from typical paediatric CT protocols. Australas Radiol 2003;47:135-42.
    1. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK—2003 review. NRPB-W67. National Radiological Protection Board, 2005.
    1. Galanski M, Nagel HD, Stamm G. Paediatric CT exposure practice in the Federal Republic of Germany. Results of a nation-wide survey in 2005/06. 2006. .
    1. Moss M, McLean D. Paediatric and adult computed tomography practice and patient dose in Australia. Australas Radiol 2006;50:33-40.
    1. Brady Z. Radiation doses and risks from paediatric computed tomography [Thesis]. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, 2012.
    1. Huda W, Ogden KM. Computing effective doses to pediatric patients in Computed Tomography. Pediatr Radiol 2008;38:415-23.
    1. Eden T. Aetiology of childhood leukaemia. Cancer Treat Rev 2010;36:286-97.
    1. Gatti RA, Boder E, Vinters HV, Sparkes RS, Norman A, Lange K. Ataxia-telangiectasia: an interdisciplinary approach to pathogenesis. Medicine 1991;70:99-117.
    1. Lee Y, Miller HL, Jensen P, Hernan R, Connelly M, Wetmore C, et al. A molecular fingerprint for medulloblastoma. Cancer Res 2003;63:5428-37.
    1. Singh G, Driever PH, Sander JW. Cancer risk in people with epilepsy: the role of antiepileptic drugs. Brain 2005;128:7-17.
    1. White KS. Helical/spiral CT scanning: a pediatric radiology perspective. Pediatr Radiol 1996;26:5-14.
    1. Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S, Funamoto S, Nishi N, Soda M, et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998. Radiat Res 2007;168:1-64.
    1. Olsen JH, Hahnemann JM, Børresen-Dale AL, Brøndum-Nielsen K, Hammarström L, Kleinerman R, et al. Cancer in patients with ataxia-telangiectasia and in their relatives in the Nordic countries. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:121-7.
    1. Frush DP, Donnelly LF, Rosen NS. Computed tomography and radiation risks: what pediatric health care providers should know. Pediatrics 2003;112:951-7.
    1. Frush DP. Responsible use of CT. Radiology 2003;229:289-91.
    1. Remedios DJ, Seymour B. Making the best use of clinical radiology. BMJ 2011;342:d1951.
    1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Cancer risks from CT scans: now we have data, what next? Radiology 2012;265:330-1.
    1. Einstein AJ. Beyond the bombs: cancer risks of low-dose medical radiation. Lancet 2012;380:455-7.
    1. Osmond MH, Klassen TP, Wells GA, Correll R, Jarvis A, Joubert G, et al. CATCH: a clinical decision rule for the use of computed tomography in children with minor head injury. CMAJ 2010;182:341-8.
    1. Nigrovic LE, Schunk JE, Foerster A, Cooper A, Miskin M, Atabaki SM, et al. The effect of observation on cranial computed tomography utilization for children after blunt head trauma. Pediatrics 2011;127:1067-73.
    1. Jackson D, Ditchfield M, Goergen SK. Trans-Tasman CT dose audit. Asian Oceanian Congress of Radiology, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists Annual Scientific Meeting, 2 September 2012. Wiley, 2012.
    1. Picano E. Informed consent and communication of risk from radiological and nuclear medicine examinations: how to escape from a communication inferno. BMJ 2004;329:849-51.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다