Method for assessing the radiation risks of the solid cancer incidence accounting for possible diagnostic errors

A. Gorski, S. Chekin, M. Maksioutov, N. V. Shchukina, E. Kochergina, N. S. Zelenskaya, O. E. Lashkova
{"title":"Method for assessing the radiation risks of the solid cancer incidence accounting for possible diagnostic errors","authors":"A. Gorski, S. Chekin, M. Maksioutov, N. V. Shchukina, E. Kochergina, N. S. Zelenskaya, O. E. Lashkova","doi":"10.21870/0131-3878-2022-31-4-53-63","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A bias in radiation risk estimates may be caused by diagnostic errors. In this paper radiation risk estimates are examined with the use of the contingency table 2х2 of irradiated cancer cases with account of sensitivity and specificity indicators of diagnostic methods accuracy were examined. Radiation risk is estimated by metrics of the odds ratio (OR) and relative risk ratio (RR). It is shown that the estimation of radiation risk in the RR metric did not depend on the diagnostic sensitivity indicator, and therefore is preferable, compared to the OR metric. When the specificity of the diagno-sis is reduced, the RR value increases, compared to the risk estimated with the use of observed number of cancer cases regardless of the specificity. As a numerical example, data on trachea, bronchus and lung cancers in a cohort of the Chernobyl cleanup workers of Russia formed by using data monitored within frames of the National Radiation Epidemiological Register (NRER) from 1992 to 2020. During this period, 2,222 cancer cases were reported in the cohort of 67,587 people. The cohort members were divided into two groups, those who were unexposed to radiation (radia-tion doses less than 0.1 Gy) and other, exposed to radiation. If the specificity indicator is taken to be 100%, then the RR=1.07 at 95% CI (1.02; 1.13). The estimates of radiation risks of malignant neoplasms obtained directly from the observed number of cancer cases in exposed and unexposed groups of people, excluding the specificity and sensitivity indicators of diagnosis accuracy, are the lower estimates of radiation risk. As the probability of diagnostic errors increases (as the specificity and sensitivity of diagnostic tests decrease), and when these errors are taken into account, the es-timates of radiation risks increase. If the specificity is reduced to 98.7% CI radiation risk estimates for trachea, bronchus and lung cancer among cleanup workers of the Chernobyl accident increase to RR=1.13, but it is within 95% CI of the RR estimate if specificity is 100%. The radiation risk as-sessment approach used in the study, based on the comparison of exposed and unexposed groups of cleanup workers in OR or RR metrics, imposes high requirements to the specificity indicator of the complex of diagnostic methods in trachea, bronchus and lung (Sp>98.7%) in order to obtain unbiased estimates of radiation risks of cancer in the cleanup workers received dose below 1 Sv. These requirements are not supported by current screening methods, they can be fulfilled as a result of longterm medical monitoring within the system of the NRER.","PeriodicalId":6315,"journal":{"name":"\"Radiation and Risk\" Bulletin of the National Radiation and Epidemiological Registry","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"\"Radiation and Risk\" Bulletin of the National Radiation and Epidemiological Registry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21870/0131-3878-2022-31-4-53-63","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

A bias in radiation risk estimates may be caused by diagnostic errors. In this paper radiation risk estimates are examined with the use of the contingency table 2х2 of irradiated cancer cases with account of sensitivity and specificity indicators of diagnostic methods accuracy were examined. Radiation risk is estimated by metrics of the odds ratio (OR) and relative risk ratio (RR). It is shown that the estimation of radiation risk in the RR metric did not depend on the diagnostic sensitivity indicator, and therefore is preferable, compared to the OR metric. When the specificity of the diagno-sis is reduced, the RR value increases, compared to the risk estimated with the use of observed number of cancer cases regardless of the specificity. As a numerical example, data on trachea, bronchus and lung cancers in a cohort of the Chernobyl cleanup workers of Russia formed by using data monitored within frames of the National Radiation Epidemiological Register (NRER) from 1992 to 2020. During this period, 2,222 cancer cases were reported in the cohort of 67,587 people. The cohort members were divided into two groups, those who were unexposed to radiation (radia-tion doses less than 0.1 Gy) and other, exposed to radiation. If the specificity indicator is taken to be 100%, then the RR=1.07 at 95% CI (1.02; 1.13). The estimates of radiation risks of malignant neoplasms obtained directly from the observed number of cancer cases in exposed and unexposed groups of people, excluding the specificity and sensitivity indicators of diagnosis accuracy, are the lower estimates of radiation risk. As the probability of diagnostic errors increases (as the specificity and sensitivity of diagnostic tests decrease), and when these errors are taken into account, the es-timates of radiation risks increase. If the specificity is reduced to 98.7% CI radiation risk estimates for trachea, bronchus and lung cancer among cleanup workers of the Chernobyl accident increase to RR=1.13, but it is within 95% CI of the RR estimate if specificity is 100%. The radiation risk as-sessment approach used in the study, based on the comparison of exposed and unexposed groups of cleanup workers in OR or RR metrics, imposes high requirements to the specificity indicator of the complex of diagnostic methods in trachea, bronchus and lung (Sp>98.7%) in order to obtain unbiased estimates of radiation risks of cancer in the cleanup workers received dose below 1 Sv. These requirements are not supported by current screening methods, they can be fulfilled as a result of longterm medical monitoring within the system of the NRER.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
考虑可能诊断错误的实体癌发病率辐射风险评估方法
辐射风险估计的偏差可能是由诊断错误引起的。本文利用列联表2х2对辐照癌症病例的辐射风险估计进行了检查,并考虑了诊断方法的敏感性和特异性指标的准确性。辐射风险是通过比值比(OR)和相对风险比(RR)来估计的。结果表明,RR指标对辐射风险的估计不依赖于诊断敏感性指标,因此与OR指标相比更可取。当诊断的特异性降低时,与使用观察到的癌症病例数(无论特异性如何)估计的风险相比,RR值增加。作为一个数值例子,通过使用1992年至2020年在国家辐射流行病学登记册(NRER)框架内监测的数据形成了俄罗斯切尔诺贝利清理工人队列中的气管、支气管和肺癌数据。在此期间,67,587人的队列中报告了2,222例癌症病例。研究对象被分为两组,一组未暴露于辐射(辐射剂量小于0.1 Gy),另一组暴露于辐射。如果取特异性指标为100%,则95% CI (1.02;1.13)。从观察到的受照射人群和未受照射人群的癌症病例数直接得出的恶性肿瘤辐射风险估计值,排除诊断准确性的特异性和敏感性指标,是较低的辐射风险估计值。由于诊断错误的可能性增加(诊断试验的特异性和敏感性降低),并且考虑到这些错误时,辐射风险的es-估计值增加。当特异性降低到98.7% CI时,切尔诺贝利事故清理工人的气管、支气管和肺癌的辐射风险估计增加到RR=1.13,但如果特异性为100%,则在RR估计的95% CI范围内。本研究采用的辐射风险评估方法是基于对清洁工人暴露组和未暴露组的OR或RR指标的比较,为了获得剂量低于1 Sv的清洁工人癌症辐射风险的无偏估计,对气管、支气管和肺部诊断方法复合物的特异性指标(Sp>98.7%)提出了很高的要求。目前的筛查方法不支持这些要求,但可以通过NRER系统内的长期医疗监测来满足这些要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pilot-demonstration energy complex (PDEC): the level of radiological protection of the population due to the modern “dose-effect” model of the ICRP Distribution of the ambient dose equivalent rate of gamma radiation in specially protected natural areas of the Rostov region Application of unified methodology for analytical calculation of absorbed dose gamma-radiation fractions to cylinder-shape biological objects Assessments of uncertainties in effective radiation doses to the population in the contaminated regions of the Russian Federation after the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident Evaluation of the operational intervention levels for radiation protection of the public based on the emergency scenarios at Russian nuclear power plants
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1