Solid Cancer Incidence in Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958–1998

By D. Preston, E. Ron, S. Tokuoka, S. Funamoto, N. Nishi, M. Soda, K. Mabuchi, K. Kodama. Radiation Research, 2007

1,754 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bdd436382f41b29db8f130ba2acf45da0765831a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

1. C. Land
2. Prashanth Rawla

In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

1. E. Hall
2. David J. Brenner
3. C. Land
4. Prashanth Rawla
5. D. Lichtenstein
6. Ge Wang

Citations in the corpus

• Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. (2008, background): “A-bomb survivors Several analyses have addressed the question of the lowest dose for which a statistically significant increase in cancer risk is apparent [6, 7], with the caveat, as discussed above, that age-averaged data must be used for the analysis.”
• Use of Diagnostic Imaging Studies and Associated Radiation Exposure For Patients Enrolled in Large Integrated Healthcare Systems, 1996–2010 (2012, positive): “Although cancer risks from radiation are often considered to decline with age, recent models suggest that cancer risks decline with age until middle age, when cancer risks may then increase in a U-shaped distribution.(6,31) Thus, radiation-related cancer risks after exposure in middle and older ages”
• Pediatric Computed Tomography and Associated Radiation Exposure and Estimated Cancer Risk (2013, background): “The ionizing radiation doses delivered by CT are 100 to 500 times higher than conventional radiography and are in ranges linked to an increased risk of cancer.(10,11) This is especially concerning for children because they are more sensitive to radiation-induced carcinogenesis and have many remainin”
• Projected Cancer Risks From Computed Tomographic Scans Performed in the United States in 2007 (2009, neutral): “6 (1) 150 (70-300) 1 30 (10-60) 1 180 (80-400) 1 Otherd 3.”
• iArc monogrAphs on the evAluAtion oF cArcinogenic risks to humAns (2012, methodology): “] In summary, although this is a rare cancer site, there are strong and highly statistically significant trends in the LSS data (Land et al., 1996; Preston et al., 2007), and trends of similar magnitude in the study of Schneider et al.”
• Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases (2012, methodology): “, high doses among urban people and lower doses among rather rural people) (1, 2, 5, 27, 28).”
• Epidemiology of gastric cancer: global trends, risk factors and prevention (2018, background): “Follow-up of survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs has established radiation as a risk factor for gastric cancer [42].”
• Lauriston S. Taylor lecture: Radiation Protection and Public Policy in an Uncertain World. (2011, methodology): “Moreover, this low-dose subset provides adequate statistical power to make direct inferences about doserelated cancer risk at low doses (Pierce and Preston 2000; Preston et al. 2007).”
• Radiation Dose Associated with Common Computed Tomography Examinations and the Associated Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer (2009, neutral): “7-9 55 9 Suspected stroke 87 14 (9-20) 4-56 199 33 Chest Routine chest, no contrast 120 8 (5-11) 2-24 117 20 Routine chest, with contrast 120 8 (5-12) 2-19 119 20 Suspected pulmonary embolism 120 10 (7-14) 2-30 137 23 Coronary angiogram 34 22 (14-24) 7-39 309 51 Abdomen-pelvis Routine abdomen-pelvis”