In this article we review the history of key epidemiological studies of populations exposed to ionizing radiation. We highlight historical and recent findings regarding radiation-associated risks for incidence and mortality of cancer and non-cancer outcomes with emphasis on study design and methods of exposure assessment and dose estimation along with brief consideration of sources of bias for a few of the more important studies. We examine the findings from the epidemiological studies of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, persons exposed to radiation for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes, those exposed to environmental sources including Chornobyl and other reactor accidents, and occupationally exposed cohorts. We also summarize results of pooled studies. These summaries are necessarily brief, but we provide references to more detailed information. We discuss possible future directions of study, to include assessment of susceptible populations, and possible new populations, data sources, study designs and methods of analysis.

One of the principal uncertainties when estimating population risk of late effects from epidemiological data is that few radiation-exposed cohorts have been followed up to extinction. Therefore, the relative risk model has often been used to estimate radiation-associated risk and to extrapolate risk to the end of life. Epidemiological studies provide evidence that children are generally at higher risk of cancer induction than adults for a given radiation dose. However, the strength of evidence varies by cancer site and questions remain about site-specific age at exposure patterns. For solid cancers, there is a large body of evidence that excess relative risk (ERR) diminishes with increasing age at exposure. This pattern of risk is observed in the Life Span Study (LSS) as well as in other radiation-exposed populations for overall solid cancer incidence and mortality and for most site-specific solid cancers. However, there are some disparities by endpoint in the degree of variation of ERR with exposure age, with some sites (e.g., colon, lung) in the LSS incidence data showing no variation, or even increasing ERR with increasing age at exposure. The pattern of variation of excess absolute risk (EAR) with age at exposure is often similar, with EAR for solid cancers or solid cancer mortality decreasing with increasing age at exposure in the LSS. We shall review the human data from the Japanese LSS cohort, and a variety of other epidemiological data sets, including a review of types of medical diagnostic exposures, also some radiobiological animal data, all bearing on the issue of variations of radiation late-effects risk with age at exposure and with attained age. The paper includes a summary of several oral presentations given in a Symposium on "Age effects on radiation response" as part of the 67th Annual Meeting of the Radiation Research Society, held virtually on 3-6 October 2021.

BACKGROUND: Ionizing radiation is an established carcinogen, but risks from low-dose exposures are controversial. Since the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII review of the epidemiological data in 2006, many subsequent publications have reported excess cancer risks from low-dose exposures. Our aim was to systematically review these studies to assess the magnitude of the risk and whether the positive findings could be explained by biases. METHODS: Eligible studies had mean cumulative doses of less than 100 mGy, individualized dose estimates, risk estimates, and confidence intervals (CI) for the dose-response and were published in 2006-2017. We summarized the evidence for bias (dose error, confounding, outcome ascertainment) and its likely direction for each study. We tested whether the median excess relative risk (ERR) per unit dose equals zero and assessed the impact of excluding positive studies with potential bias away from the null. We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the ERR and assess consistency across studies for all solid cancers and leukemia. RESULTS: Of the 26 eligible studies, 8 concerned environmental, 4 medical, and 14 occupational exposure. For solid cancers, 16 of 22 studies reported positive ERRs per unit dose, and we rejected the hypothesis that the median ERR equals zero (P = .03). After exclusion of 4 positive studies with potential positive bias, 12 of 18 studies reported positive ERRs per unit dose (P  = .12). For leukemia, 17 of 20 studies were positive, and we rejected the hypothesis that the median ERR per unit dose equals zero (P  = .001), also after exclusion of 5 positive studies with potential positive bias (P  = .02). For adulthood exposure, the meta-ERR at 100 mGy was 0.029 (95% CI = 0.011 to 0.047) for solid cancers and 0.16 (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.25) for leukemia. For childhood exposure, the meta-ERR at 100 mGy for leukemia was 2.84 (95% CI = 0.37 to 5.32); there were only two eligible studies of all solid cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic assessments in this monograph showed that these new epidemiological studies are characterized by several limitations, but only a few positive studies were potentially biased away from the null. After exclusion of these studies, the majority of studies still reported positive risk estimates. We therefore conclude that these new epidemiological studies directly support excess cancer risks from low-dose ionizing radiation. Furthermore, the magnitude of the cancer risks from these low-dose radiation exposures was statistically compatible with the radiation dose-related cancer risks of the atomic bomb survivors.

Whether low-dose ionizing radiation can cause cancer is a critical and long-debated question in radiation protection. Since the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report by the National Academies in 2006, new publications from large, well-powered epidemiological studies of low doses have reported positive dose-response relationships. It has been suggested, however, that biases could explain these findings. We conducted a systematic review of epidemiological studies with mean doses less than 100 mGy published 2006-2017. We required individualized doses and dose-response estimates with confidence intervals. We identified 26 eligible studies (eight environmental, four medical, and 14 occupational), including 91 000 solid cancers and 13 000 leukemias. Mean doses ranged from 0.1 to 82 mGy. The excess relative risk at 100 mGy was positive for 16 of 22 solid cancer studies and 17 of 20 leukemia studies. The aim of this monograph was to systematically review the potential biases in these studies (including dose uncertainty, confounding, and outcome misclassification) and to assess whether the subset of minimally biased studies provides evidence for cancer risks from low-dose radiation. Here, we describe the framework for the systematic bias review and provide an overview of the eligible studies.

BACKGROUND: Chromosome translocations are a biomarker of cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation. We examined the relation between the frequency of translocations and cosmic radiation dose in 83 male airline pilots. METHODS: Translocations were scored using fluorescence in situ hybridization chromosome painting. Cumulative radiation doses were estimated from individual flight records. Excess rate and log-linear Poisson regression models were evaluated. RESULTS: Pilots' estimated median cumulative absorbed dose was 15 mGy (range 4.5-38). No association was observed between translocation frequency and absorbed dose from all types of flying [rate ratio (RR) = 1.01 at 1 mGy, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.04]. However, additional analyses of pilots' dose from only commercial flying suggested an association (RR = 1.04 at 1 mGy, 95% CI 0.97-1.13). DISCUSSION: Although this is the largest cytogenetic study of male commercial airline pilots to date of which the authors are aware, future studies will need additional highly exposed pilots to better assess the translocation-cosmic radiation relation.

BACKGROUND: Flight attendants may have an increased risk of some cancers from occupational exposure to cosmic radiation and circadian disruption. METHODS: The incidence of thyroid, ovarian, and uterine cancer among approximately 6000 female flight attendants compared to the US population was evaluated via life table analyses. Associations of these cancers, melanoma, and cervical cancer with cumulative cosmic radiation dose and metrics of circadian disruption were evaluated using Cox regression. RESULTS: Incidence of thyroid, ovarian, and uterine cancer was not elevated. No significant, positive exposure-response relations were observed. Weak, non-significant, positive relations were observed for thyroid cancer with cosmic radiation and time zones crossed and for melanoma with another metric of circadian disruption. CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence of increased risk of these cancers from occupational cosmic radiation or circadian disruption in female flight attendants. Limitations include few observed cases of some cancers, limited data on risk factors, and misclassification of exposures.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the association of breast cancer incidence with cosmic radiation dose and circadian rhythm disruption in a cohort of 6093 US female flight attendants. METHODS: The association of breast cancer risk with cumulative cosmic radiation dose, time spent working during the standard sleep interval, and time zones crossed (all lagged by ten years), adjusted for non-occupational breast cancer risk factors, was evaluated using Cox regression. Individual exposure estimates were derived from work history data and domicile- and era-specific exposure estimates. Breast cancers were identified from telephone interviews and state cancer registries, and covariate data were obtained from telephone interviews. RESULTS: Breast cancer incidence in the overall cohort was not associated with exposure. Positive associations in breast cancer incidence were observed with all three exposures only among the 884 women with parity of ≥3. Adjusted excess relative risks for women with parity of ≥3 were 1.6 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.14-6.6], 0.99 (95% CI -0.04-4.3), and 1.5 (95% CI 0.14-6.2) per 10 mGy, per 2000 hours spent working in the standard sleep interval, and per 4600 time zones crossed (the approximate means of the fourth exposure quintiles among breast cancer cases), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Positive exposure-response relations, although observed only in a small subset of the cohort, were robust. Future studies of breast cancer incidence among other workers with circadian rhythm disruption should assess interaction with parity to see if our findings are confirmed.

BACKGROUND: Flight attendants may have elevated breast cancer incidence (BCI). We evaluated BCI's association with cosmic radiation dose and circadian rhythm disruption among 6,093 female former U.S. flight attendants. METHODS: We collected questionnaire data on BCI and risk factors for breast cancer from 2002-2005. We conducted analyses to evaluate (i) BCI in the cohort compared to the U.S. population; and (ii) exposure-response relations. We applied an indirect adjustment to estimate whether parity and age at first birth (AFB) differences between the cohort and U.S. population could explain BCI that differed from expectation. RESULTS: BCI was elevated but may be explained by lower parity and older AFB in the cohort than among U.S. women. BCI was not associated with exposure metrics in the cohort overall. Significant positive associations with both were observed only among women with parity of three or more. CONCLUSIONS: Future cohort analyses may be informative on the role of these occupational exposures and non-occupational risk factors.