Title |
Childhood cancer research in oxford III: The work of CCRG on ionising radiation
|
---|---|
Published in |
British Journal of Cancer, August 2018
|
DOI | 10.1038/s41416-018-0182-y |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Gerald M. Kendall, John F. Bithell, Kathryn J. Bunch, Gerald J. Draper, Mary E. Kroll, Michael F. G. Murphy, Charles A. Stiller, Tim J. Vincent |
Abstract |
High doses of ionising radiation are a known cause of childhood cancer and great public and professional interest attaches to possible links between childhood cancer and lower doses, particularly of man-made radiation. This paper describes work done by the Childhood Cancer Research Group (CCRG) on this topic METHODS: Most UK investigations have made use of the National Registry of Childhood Tumours and associated controls. Epidemiological investigations have included national incidence and mortality analyses, geographical investigations, record linkage and case-control studies. Dosimetric studies use biokinetic and dosimetric modelling. This paper reviews the work of the CCRG on the association between exposure to ionising radiation and childhood cancer, 1975-2014. The work of CCRG has been influential in developing understanding of the causes of 'clusters' of childhood cancer and the risks arising from exposure to ionising radiation both natural and man-made. Some clusters around nuclear installations have certainly been observed, but ionising radiation does not seem to be a plausible cause. The group's work has also been instrumental in discounting the hypothesis that paternal preconception irradiation was a cause of childhood cancers and has demonstrated an increased leukaemia risk for children exposed to higher levels of natural gamma-ray radiation. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Japan | 6 | 55% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unspecified | 5 | 17% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 14% |
Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
Other | 3 | 10% |
Unknown | 10 | 34% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 21% |
Unspecified | 5 | 17% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
Other | 4 | 14% |
Unknown | 9 | 31% |