Skip Navigation

Epidemiologic Reviews 2005 27(1):56-66; doi:10.1093/epirev/mxi012
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (19)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hatch, M.
Right arrow Articles by Howe, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hatch, M.
Right arrow Articles by Howe, G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Epidemiologic Reviews Copyright © 2005 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health All rights reserved

ARTICLES

The Chernobyl Disaster: Cancer following the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant

M. Hatch1, E. Ron1, A. Bouville1, L. Zablotska2 and G. Howe2

1 National Cancer Institute, Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD
2 Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY

Correspondence to Dr. Maureen Hatch, Chernobyl Research Unit, Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (e-mail: hatchm{at}mail.nih.gov).

Received for publication March 20, 2005; accepted for publication March 30, 2005.


   THE ACCIDENT
TOP
 THE ACCIDENT
EMERGENCY WORKERS
 CLEANUP WORKERS
 RESIDENTS OF CONTAMINATED AREAS
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
The Chernobyl nuclear power plant, located in Ukraine about 130 km north of the capital of Kiev and about 10 km south of the border with Belarus, was the scene of the most severe accident that has ever occurred in the nuclear industry. On April 26, 1986, two violent explosions destroyed the core of unit 4 of the power plant and the roof of the building, resulting in a series of fires and in massive releases of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. The releases consisted of gases, aerosols, and finely fragmented nuclear fuel particles. From the radiologic point of view, iodine-131 (131I) and cesium-137 (137Cs) are the most important radionuclides to consider (1Go, 2Go). During the 10 days of massive releases, the wind direction changed frequently, so that all areas surrounding the reactor received some fallout at one time or another. In addition, rainfall occurred in an irregular pattern, causing varying degrees of deposition. The releases of radioactive materials were such that contamination of the ground was found to some extent in every country in the Northern Hemisphere (3Go). However, the most contaminated areas were in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine (table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Contaminated areas* of European countries following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident{dagger}

 
Several categories of people were affected by the accident: 1) workers, who can be divided into two groups: a) the approximately 600 persons involved in emergency measures during the first day of the accident (the so-called emergency workers), and b) the hundreds of thousands of people who, from 1986 to 1989, were sent in to the power station or the zone surrounding it for decontamination work, sarcophagus construction, and other cleanup operations; this second group of workers is usually referred to as cleanup workers or liquidators; and 2) members of the general public, including a) the evacuees, mainly from the area within 30 km of the damaged reactor; about 100,000 persons were evacuated within 2 weeks of the accident and 16,000 more before the autumn of 1986, for a total of 116,000 persons, and b) the approximately 5 million residents of the contaminated areas in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia (2Go).


   EMERGENCY WORKERS
TOP
 THE ACCIDENT
 EMERGENCY WORKERS
CLEANUP WORKERS
 RESIDENTS OF CONTAMINATED AREAS
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
Dosimetry

The most important exposures for emergency workers were due to external irradiation. Because all of the dosimeters worn by the workers were overexposed, they could not be used to estimate doses. Estimates were obtained by means of biologic dosimetry for the treated workers.

Short-term health effects

A number of the emergency workers, who dealt with the fires and other emergency situations within hours of the accident, developed radiation sickness, that is, health effects due to massive cell damage and cell death, regarded as a deterministic event. A total of 134 workers were treated clinically for radiation sickness (2Go). Of these, all had bone marrow symptoms and some demonstrated symptoms related to other organs such as the intestines, lung, and eye.

The clinical treatment was generally successful for those who received whole-body doses of less than 4 Gy and was moderately successful for those who received doses of 4–6 Gy, but the fatality rate for doses above 6 Gy was very high. Twenty-two workers received whole-body doses of external irradiation in excess of 4 Gy and 21 workers doses in excess of 6 Gy, with fatality rates of 32 percent and 95 percent, respectively (2Go). The experience gained in terms of clinical treatment of so many persons with severe radiation sickness should provide valuable information in the event of future nuclear incidents.


   CLEANUP WORKERS
TOP
 THE ACCIDENT
 EMERGENCY WORKERS
 CLEANUP WORKERS
RESIDENTS OF CONTAMINATED AREAS
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
Dosimetry

The cleanup workers, sent to the Chernobyl power plant from 1986 through 1989 to mitigate the consequences of the accident, received radiation exposures primarily due to external irradiation from gamma-emitting radionuclides. The highest doses were received by the cleanup workers, mostly males aged 20–45 years, who were employed in 1986–1987 in the 30-km exclusion zone. Lower doses were received by the remainder of the cleanup workers who came to the reactor site in 1988–1989 (a small number of workers are still involved).

External doses from gamma radiation. Doses from external irradiation have been recorded, to the extent feasible, in national registries. The national registry data for Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, presented in table 2, show that the number of cleanup workers and the average of the doses recorded decreased from year to year, with mean doses of about 0.14 Gy in 1986, 0.09 Gy in 1987, and 0.04 Gy in 1988–1989, in accordance with a decrease in the annual dose limits for most cleanup workers, from 0.25 Gy in 1986, to 0.1 Gy in 1987, and to 0.05 Gy from 1988 onward.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. Distribution of doses from external radiation to cleanup workers, as recorded in national registries, following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident*

 
Within the framework of epidemiologic studies conducted by the National Cancer Institute and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, efforts have been made to develop a time-and-motion method of dose assessment that would be applicable to all subjects (4Go). Gamma radiation levels were measured at various points at the reactor site, and the dose to the worker was estimated as a function of the location of work and of time spent there. The results will be validated by using biodosimetry.

Internal doses. Because of the abundance of 131I and of shorter-lived radioiodines in the environment of the reactor during the accident, the cleanup workers on site during the first few weeks after the accident may also have received substantial thyroid doses from internal irradiation, since the thyroid gland concentrates radioiodines. Information on the thyroid doses is very limited and imprecise, however. Tentative thyroid dose estimates, based on direct thyroid measurements of 600 cleanup workers, showed the following distribution (5Go): 64.0 percent of workers were exposed to less than 0.15 Gy, 32.9 percent to 0.15–0.74 Gy, 2.6 percent to 0.75–1.4 Gy, and the remaining 0.5 percent to 1.5–3.0 Gy. The average thyroid dose estimate is about 0.21 Gy.

Cancer

The several hundred thousand cleanup workers, drawn mainly from Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation, did not experience radiation sickness unless they were among the emergency workers described above. For the rest of the Chernobyl workers, the dose was protracted over days, weeks, or even months. Thus, the health outcomes of greatest concern are the long-term stochastic effects such as cancer induction.

All cleanup workers were eligible to be enrolled in Chernobyl state registries and received free annual medical examinations. Although not all cleanup workers were registered, the state registries have been the basis for nearly all epidemiology studies that have assessed long-term health effects. However, the "official doses" contained in the state registries are missing for many (refer to table 2) and are of uncertain accuracy and precision for others. Secondly, diagnostic information in the registries may be of questionable quality and requires further independent confirmation. Finally, comparisons with external population rates may be misleading because the cleanup workers who attend the medical examinations will all generally be screened much more frequently than the general population. These limitations should be borne in mind in interpreting epidemiologic studies that depend on registry data.

Studies to date have focused on the occurrence of leukemia and thyroid cancer, given their short minimal latency period and sensitivity to radiation. In addition, a few studies of the occurrence of other cancers have been reported (6Go, 7Go).

Leukemia

An early cohort study of Estonian cleanup workers reported no cases of leukemia occurring among 4,742 men between 1986 and 1993 (7Go). However, this study was limited by small numbers and a relatively short follow-up.

A much larger cohort study among 168,000 Russian liquidators was reported by Ivanov et al. (8Go). On the basis of 48 cases of leukemia through 1993 (including chronic lymphocytic leukemia, generally believed not to be radiosensitive), they found a statistically significant standardized incidence ratio of 1.77 (95 percent confidence interval: 1.22, 2.47) compared with the Russian population for the period 1990–1995. Before 1990, the standardized incidence ratio was much lower and was not significant. A statistically significant excess relative risk of 4.3 per Gy (95 percent confidence interval: 0.83, 7.75) was observed in the cohort. This estimate appeared comparable in magnitude to the leukemia risk estimate for the survivors of atomic bombings who were older than 20 years of age at the time of the bombings (excess relative risk = 3.70 per Gy, averaged over sexes (2Go)).

In a further study of Russian cleanup workers, Ivanov et al. (9Go) studied the occurrence of leukemia in a cohort of 71,870 workers engaged in recovery operations within the 30-km zone between 1986 and 1990 and for whom individual external radiation dose estimates were available in the Russian National Medical and Dosimetric Registry. They observed 58 cases of pathologically confirmed leukemia between 1986 and 1998. After excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia (n = 16), they obtained a standardized incidence ratio of 2.5 (90 percent confidence interval: 1.3, 3.7) comparing those who received doses of 150–300 mGy to those whose doses were below 150 mGy and estimated an excess relative risk at 1 Gy of 6.7 (90 percent confidence interval: 0.8, 23.5).

Buzunov et al. (10Go) studied leukemia occurrence among approximately 175,000 cleanup workers in Ukraine. They compared the rates of leukemia for those first employed in 1986 with those for workers employed in 1987, when doses were lower; they found that the rate of leukemia had approximately doubled among those who first worked in 1986. However, there was no obvious time trend among those employed in 1986.

To date, the results of one analytic study—a case-control study nested within a cohort of cleanup workers—have been reported (11Go). A total of 36 nonchronic lymphocytic leukemia cases diagnosed between 1986 and 1993 were compared with controls (case:control ratio of 1:3). The mean dose for cases was lower than that for the corresponding controls; nevertheless, an elevated, nonstatistically significant relative risk was observed with the highest exposures.

Thyroid cancer

In the study of 4,742 Estonian cleanup workers referred to above, Inskip et al. (12Go) did not find an excess of thyroid cancer 9 years after the accident, and subsequent extended follow-up of this cohort did not show any increase in the risk of thyroid cancer up to 16 years after the accident. In an early study of Russian cleanup workers, Ivanov et al. (8Go, 13Go) did find a suggestion of increased risk of thyroid cancer for early workers, that is, those on site within several weeks of the accident who had been exposed to radioactive iodines in addition to the external radiation to which all workers were exposed.

A later follow-up study of Russian cleanup workers by Ivanov et al. (14Go) reported on thyroid cancer incidence among 99,024 workers. A total of 58 thyroid cancers were detected between 1986 and 1998, which yielded a standardized incidence ratio of 4.33 (95 percent confidence interval: 3.29, 5.60) compared with Russian population rates for men. There was no significant association with risk of thyroid cancer when considering internal comparisons within the cohort based on external dose, but the authors ascribed this to lack of data on internal doses and the possibility of increased detection because of the regular medical examinations.

Other cancers

In general, there are very few data related to other individual cancer risks among cleanup workers. There have been reports, however, of an increase in all solid cancers combined occurring among Russian cleanup workers (15Go, 16Go). In a cohort of approximately 56,000 such workers, who received doses of up to 300 mGy, 1,370 cancers were observed between 1991 and 2001 (16Go). There was a suggestion of an association with radiation dose that was not significant either in an internal analysis or in comparison with Russian population rates. Similar results were obtained in a much smaller cohort of Russian cleanup workers (15Go).

Summary

Because cleanup workers largely receive higher doses than the general population, studies of such workers potentially have greater statistical power to measure effects. The use of official doses from the registries is problematic, as mentioned above. For this reason, case-control studies conducted within registry-based cohorts offer the best chance for estimating doses by means of reconstruction techniques and also offer the potential for determining possible confounders or effect modifiers.

To date, the available data support a measurable increase in risk of leukemia among cleanup workers; the evidence with regard to thyroid cancer is more equivocal, which may be due to the difficulty in estimating internal doses to the thyroid among the early emergency workers who potentially are at the greatest risk. For other solid cancers, little can be said, presumably because of a longer minimal latency period and lower risks per dose. It is hoped that future studies of cleanup workers will clarify information in all these areas.


   RESIDENTS OF CONTAMINATED AREAS
TOP
 THE ACCIDENT
 EMERGENCY WORKERS
 CLEANUP WORKERS
 RESIDENTS OF CONTAMINATED AREAS
CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
Dosimetry

The most important pathways of exposure for the residents of contaminated regions were found to be external exposure from radionuclides deposited on the ground and internal exposure resulting from ingesting milk and other foodstuffs contaminated with 131I, 134Cs, and 137Cs. In the first few months, because of the significant release of the short-lived 131I, the thyroid was the most exposed organ. The main route of internal exposure for thyroid dose was the pasture-cow-milk pathway, with a secondary component from inhalation. After a few months, when 131I had decayed away, the most important contributors to the doses to all organs and tissues were 137Cs and, to a lesser degree, 134Cs.

Thyroid doses. The assessment of thyroid doses is based on measurements of external gamma radiation performed by means of radiation detectors placed against the neck. Within a few weeks following the accident, approximately 350,000 of these measurements were made in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia (17Go–19Go). The thyroid dose estimates obtained in this manner for the approximately 25,000 subjects of two epidemiologic cohort studies conducted in Belarus and in Ukraine are presented in table 3 (20Go); the distribution of the thyroid doses is similar in the two countries, with medians of about 0.3 Gy and a substantial fraction of doses exceeding 1 Gy.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3. Distribution of the Ukrainian and Belarusian cohort subjects according to the geometric mean of their thyroid doses following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident*

 
For the persons whose exposure was not measured but who lived in areas where many persons had been measured, the thyroid doses are reconstructed on the basis of the statistical distribution of the thyroid doses estimated for the people for whom measurements are available, together with knowledge of the dietary habits of the persons considered. Finally, the thyroid doses for people who lived in areas with very few or no direct thyroid measurements within a few weeks after the accident are reconstructed by means of associations using available data on 131I or 137Cs deposition, exposure rates, or concentrations of 131I in milk (2Go). Catalogues of thyroid dose estimates are available for the exposed populations of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine (18Go, 21Go, 22Go).

Bone marrow doses. Bone marrow doses also have been estimated for the approximately 5 million residents of the contaminated areas who were not evacuated. Following the first few weeks of the accident, when 131I was the main contributor, doses relatively homogeneous over all organs and tissues of the body were delivered at much lower rates by 137Cs and 134Cs, so the bone marrow doses are generally assumed to be equal to the whole-body doses. The average bone marrow doses from 134Cs and 137Cs that the residents of contaminated areas received during the first 10 years after the accident are estimated to be about 0.01 Gy (table 4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 4. Summary of estimated average bone marrow doses (excluding thyroid doses) to populations of areas contaminated by the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident (1986–1995)*

 
Thyroid cancer

As described earlier, the principal component of the massive releases of radioactive materials into the environment from the Chernobyl accident was 131I, which is primarily absorbed by the thyroid gland. Because of the small size of the gland in children and their high intake of milk, much of which was contaminated, children generally received the highest thyroid doses (3Go, 17Go).

Thyroid cancer among those exposed in childhood. The thyroid gland in children is especially radiosensitive, and childhood exposure to relatively low doses of external radiation (approximately 0.1 Gy) is known to significantly increase the risk of thyroid tumors (2Go, 23Go–25Go). Thus, one of the main health concerns related to the Chernobyl disaster was the risk of developing radiation-related thyroid diseases, particularly neoplasms. Five years after the accident, the first report of an unusually high occurrence of childhood thyroid cancer in the contaminated regions of Ukraine was published (26Go). Shortly afterward, a high incidence of thyroid cancer in children also was observed in Belarus (27Go–30Go) and later in the contaminated area of Russia (31Go, 32Go). Between 1990 and 1998, it has been estimated that close to 2,000 thyroid cancers were diagnosed in the contaminated regions of the three countries (Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation) among persons less than 18 years of age (2Go). In Belarus, the enormous rise in pediatric thyroid cancers was especially notable. Compared with the usual incidence rate of about 1 case per million children per year, the rate in Belarus was nearly 30 times higher less than 10 years after the accident (33Go). Between 1992 and 2000, about 4,000 thyroid cancers were diagnosed in the contaminated regions of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine (34Go).

Early on, it was thought that better reporting and screening might be partly responsible for the large number of thyroid cancers diagnosed so soon after the accident (35Go–37Go). However, more recent epidemiologic data have demonstrated that the enhanced risk is associated with the radioiodine exposure (38Go–50Go).

While it is now unquestionable that radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident has resulted in a substantially elevated incidence of thyroid cancer among persons exposed at young ages, most studies to date have been descriptive and few have quantified risks or have evaluated factors that may modify risk. Several ecologic studies have been conducted in the three countries most affected (39Go–42Go, 51Go). On the basis of collective dose, Jacob et al. (41Go) reported a linear dose response for the three countries and an excess absolute risk per 10,000 person-year-Gy of 2.3 (95 percent confidence interval: 1.4, 3.8). In a later study (51Go), performed in Belarus and the Bryansk region of Russia, results were very similar. The excess absolute risk per 10,000 person-year-Gy was 2.1 (95 percent confidence interval: 1.0, 4.5), and the excess relative risk per Gy was 23 (95 percent confidence interval: 8.6, 82). The risk was statistically significantly elevated even in the lowest dose group, which received an average of only 0.05 Gy.

The first population-based case-control study of thyroid cancer and radiation from Chernobyl, comprising 107 young thyroid cancer cases and double the number of controls, was conducted in Belarus (38Go). This study was unique because it tried to account for possible ascertainment bias by choosing one general control group and another control group comprising persons who had an opportunity to be diagnosed with thyroid cancer similar to that of the cases. Doses were calculated based on the mean doses estimated for adults living in the same villages or towns, taking into account the study subjects' age and location at the time of the accident. A strong association between thyroid cancer and estimated dose was observed. When exposures of less than 0.3 Gy were compared with those equal to or greater than 0.3 Gy, the odds ratios for the latter ranged from 2.1 to 8.3 depending on which subgroups of controls were used as the comparison population. A small population-based case-control study of 26 cases and 52 controls, all under the age of 19 years at the time of the accident, has recently been completed in Russia. It demonstrated a strong dose response (one-sided p < 0.01) (48Go).

As has been clearly shown for external radiation (2Go, 23Go–25Go), the risk of developing thyroid cancer related to Chernobyl exposure appears to increase with decreasing age at exposure (33Go, 42Go–45Go, 52Go–54Go). Comparing the number of thyroid cancer cases reported in Belarus and three oblasts (territorial subdivisions) in Russia with cases in the United Kingdom, Cardis et al. (55Go) estimated that the risk for children less than 1 year of age at the time of the accident was about five times larger than for those aged 5 years at exposure, and about 40 times greater than for children aged 10 years at exposure. Other studies have also reported greater risks for younger children compared with older children, but the magnitude of the difference was considerably smaller (45Go). In a new evaluation of time trends in the exposed regions in Ukraine, the absolute risk for developing radiation-related thyroid cancer was similar for children up to age 15 years at the time of the accident (56Go).

Information is lacking about thyroid cancer risks associated with in utero exposure. Since, in early childhood, the thyroid is very sensitive to radiation, the fetus might also be expected to be extremely vulnerable. However, almost 20 years after the accident, there is little evidence to support the notion that in utero exposure is particularly dangerous to the thyroid. On the basis of the finding of only two thyroid cancers diagnosed before 1999 among persons exposed in utero, it has been postulated that the thyroid gland of the fetus is protected by the mother's physiology (57Go). Furthermore, the two cases were born a few weeks after the accident, when they would have received some environmental contamination postnatally. Fetal thyroid risk from 131I has also been examined in 400 subjects from the Utah fallout study who were exposed in utero (58Go); no thyroid cancers were found, but benign thyroid disease was observed. However, before drawing firm conclusions about the sensitivity of the fetal thyroid, it should be noted that the power to observe excess risks in persons exposed in utero is very limited compared with those exposed as children (aged 1–18 years).

Thyroid cancer among those exposed as adults. There have been few investigations of radiation-related thyroid cancer among adults living in the exposed areas (52Go). Early on, reports suggested an association between thyroid cancer and adult exposure in Ukraine (26Go) and in Russia (13Go). A recent dose-response analysis of thyroid cancer in persons exposed in Bryansk between ages 15 and 69 years found no association with dose (59Go). On the basis of the current data, the role of adult radioiodine exposure in the etiology of thyroid cancer remains to be clarified. The role of adult external radiation exposure is equally unclear.

Modifying factors. A radiation-associated increase in thyroid cancer incidence has been shown for both women and men, with women often having a somewhat higher excess relative risk (45Go, 48Go). It is of note, however, that in Belarus, there is little evidence of women having a greater susceptibility than men (39Go). This difference may be partly due to the very early age at diagnosis for many of the thyroid cancers, that is, at ages when there is little difference in the sex ratio of spontaneous thyroid cancers.

It has been suggested that radiation exposure in the presence of iodine deficiency might make people more susceptible to developing benign thyroid diseases and thyroid cancer (54Go, 60Go). This susceptibility may occur because the iodine deficiency results in greater radioiodine uptake and therefore dose, as well as hypothyroidism and increased thyroid-stimulating hormone. Elevated levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone are related to thyroid growth and possibly thyroid cancer (61Go, 62Go). In the Bryansk region of Russia, a twofold risk of childhood thyroid cancer was observed in highly deficient areas compared with regions that had normal iodine levels (63Go).

From the few studies that have reported quantified risks associated with Chernobyl exposure, the shape of the dose-response curve, the magnitude of the risks, and the patterns of modifying effects are consistent with those demonstrated for external radiation exposure. The excess absolute risks estimated from ecologic studies (42Go, 51Go) were about 50 percent lower than in the pooled analysis of childhood exposure to external radiation (25Go), but the differences were not significant. In contrast, the excess relative risk was about 2.5 times higher than that reported for the pooled analysis, but again it was not significantly different (42Go). From these risk estimates, the authors concluded that the carcinogenic effectiveness of 131I relative to external X- or gamma radiation was less than unity based on an absolute risk model but above unity based on a relative risk model.

Clinical and molecular features. Both the clinical and molecular features of the thyroid cancers that developed following Chernobyl are unique. As expected for radiogenic thyroid cancers, the great majority of the cancers that occurred in children or young adults were papillary carcinomas; however, many had an unusual subtype that has a large solid component. The thyroid cancers also appeared to grow rapidly and had high rates of local and distant metastasis (64Go–67Go). Although many of the cancers were aggressive, survival has been excellent. In Belarus, the survival rate was 99 percent for patients diagnosed between 1986 and 2002, with eight (0.7 percent) patients dying from the thyroid cancer (34Go). It is unclear whether the clinical presentation and course of the Chernobyl-related cancers is unusual or whether some of the findings represent a more general picture of thyroid carcinoma at young ages, or possibly when it occurs in conjunction with iodine deficiency, or very shortly after radiation exposure (2Go, 67Go, 68Go).

The frequency of RET/PTC rearrangements is high in post-Chernobyl childhood papillary thyroid cancers (69Go–71Go). The PTC3 type is particularly common and has been associated with the solid variant of papillary cancer. Whether the PTC3 rearrangements are due to radiation exposure or to the young age of the patients or early latency has not yet been established (67Go, 72Go). In a study of 67 Ukrainian patients, the frequency of rearrangements was about the same for young thyroid cancer patients whether they were exposed to Chernobyl or were born after the accident (72Go). Point mutations in the BRAF gene also have been found in papillary cancers (73Go, 74Go); however, unlike RET rearrangements, they occur most frequently in adult papillary carcinoma and are infrequent in childhood thyroid cancers (72Go, 75Go, 76Go). To date, no radiation "footprint" has been identified, and what once appeared to be radiation-related mutations may actually be age related.

Summary. Although there is still an excess of thyroid cancers in the territories near Chernobyl, the long-term time trends are not yet known. Of particular interest is whether the very rapid increase in incidence seen 5–10 years after the accident will continue. When an excess absolute risk model was used, there was no evidence of a downturn in risk between 1989 and 1998 (56Go). Learning more about time since exposure is important in trying to predict the future level of risk. Cardis et al. (55Go) predicted the lifetime number of thyroid cancers that would develop among children in Belarus less than age 5 years at the time of the accident. Depending on what statistical model was used, between 17,710 and 66,198 cases were estimated. The number of cases predicted is considerably larger than the approximately 12,000 predicted by Jacob et al. (51Go) to occur between 1997 and 2036.

In most assessments, both internal and external exposures appeared to be especially carcinogenic to the very young thyroid, and neither type of radiation has been clearly linked to adult exposure. As observed for external radiation, females generally have higher risks than males, but the differences are not statistically significant. A particularly short latency period has been demonstrated in Chernobyl, but this finding may be due to the large number of exposed persons and the early detection resulting from screening rather than to a true biologic difference. Further follow-up is needed to learn whether risks persist over time.

Leukemia

Although thyroid cancer was a primary concern in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, attention has also been paid to a potential increased risk of leukemia due to the exposure to external radiation. Several ecologic studies have examined this possibility by using comparisons by time period (pre-/postaccident) or extent of contamination.

Leukemia among those exposed in utero. Although, as mentioned above, there is little evidence concerning thyroid cancer among those exposed to Chernobyl radiation in utero, a series of studies have been carried out to examine leukemia risk in this population, stimulated by an initial report from Greece, which received some fallout from the accident (table 1) (77Go). The Greek study compared rates for cohorts born during "exposed" and "unexposed" periods and found a 2.6-fold increase (95 percent confidence interval: 1.4, 5.1) in leukemia risk among those in utero at the time of the accident. Elevated rates were also reported for those born in regions of Greece with higher levels of radioactive fallout (<6 kBq/m2, 6–10 kBq/m2, >10 kBq/m2). However, the numbers of cases in each exposure category were small, and the results were not confirmed when a similar approach comparing areas with the same categories of contamination was applied to analyzing data from the German Childhood Cancer Registry (78Go).

In a study in Belarus (79Go), where levels of contamination are higher by a factor of 10 or more, the results were similar to those in the Greek study, but the trend was weaker. Nevertheless, the highest annual incidence rate was in 1987, the year after the accident, and although numbers are small and the results nonsignificant statistically, the largest rate ratio (1.51, 95 percent confidence interval: 0.63, 3.61) was found in the two most contaminated regions of Belarus (Gomel and Mogilev).

A small study published by Noshchenko et al. (80Go) compares leukemia incidence during 1986–1996 among Ukrainian children born in 1986 and thus exposed in utero in the contaminated oblast of Zhitomir with children born in Poltava, a supposedly uncontaminated oblast. The reported risk ratios based on cumulative incidence show significant increases for all leukemia (rate ratio = 2.7, 95 percent confidence interval: 1.9, 3.8) and for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (rate ratio = 3.4, 95 percent confidence interval: 1.1, 10.4). The number of total cases was relatively small, however (21 in Zhitomir, eight in Poltava).

Leukemia among those exposed in childhood. Three registry-based studies (81Go–83Go) focused on possible risk among children in Belarus. None of the three studies, each with a different length of follow-up, reported excess rates of acute or other types of childhood leukemias in the postaccident period, either overall or in the most severely contaminated regions.

To our knowledge, only one analytic study of childhood leukemia (84Go) has been reported. The case-control study was based in two contaminated oblasts in Ukraine. Cases, diagnosed between 1987 and 1997, were under age 20 years at the time of the accident. Controls were randomly selected from the same oblast as the case and were matched on age at exposure, gender, and type of settlement (urban, rural). Although significant results are reported for subgroups in two time periods—acute leukemias among males who received doses of more than 10 mGy and were diagnosed between 1993 and 1997 and acute myeloid leukemia in the period 1987–1992—the analysis was restricted to a small subset of the total cases, with no description of how they were selected.

One of the largest studies to date is the European Childhood Leukemia-Lymphoma Incidence Study (ECLIS), which examined rates of childhood leukemia in Belarus, Russia, and 33 other regions of Europe in relation to an estimated region- or country-specific exposure to Chernobyl fallout (85Go). Estimated doses had been calculated by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (3Go) using models based on direct measurements carried out in the year after the accident (86Go). Rates of childhood leukemia were higher in the postaccident period, but there was no trend with radiation dose. However, the study design treating both dose and cancer rates at the regional or national level had only limited power to detect a small effect if there were one, given the misclassification inherent in such a metric.

Leukemia among those exposed as adults. Only a few studies have been conducted examining leukemia incidence in adult residents of exposed areas. Age-specific leukemia incidence rates in three contaminated regions of Ukraine (87Go) were examined by year of diagnosis, before and after the accident (through 1990). Increases were seen only in the age group 65 years or older, suggesting heightened medical surveillance rather than an effect of exposure.

Time trends were also examined in the Kaluga oblast of the Russian Federation 10 years postaccident (47Go). Rate ratios were similar before and after the accident or steadily increased with time, and no increase in leukemia occurred in the most contaminated areas of the oblast. In Ukraine (88Go), incidence rates increased postaccident from 5.1 per 100,000 to 11.0 per 100,000, but rates were not higher in the more contaminated areas.

Summary. To date, the available evidence does not indicate an effect of Chernobyl fallout on leukemia risk among residents of contaminated areas exposed either as children or as adults. The great majority of studies have relied on available data from registries. Although ecologic studies do not have much power to detect small effects, if increases were occurring of the same magnitude as those for thyroid cancer in children, they would likely have been picked up by now.

There is a suggestion that leukemia risk may be raised for persons exposed in utero. The hypothesis that low-dose fetal irradiation may damage hematopoietic processes may merit further consideration but primarily on the basis of biologic assumptions about susceptibility and evidence from external radiation rather than the results of studies of Chernobyl fallout, which are conflicting.

Other cancers

Scant evidence exists concerning risk of solid tumors, other than thyroid cancer, among residents of contaminated areas. What evidence there is is difficult to interpret since follow-up periods are generally shorter than the latency periods for these cancers, and the ecologic study designs used to date have not generally permitted adjustment for potential confounding variables.

One of the series of reports by Ivanov et al. (47Go) analyzed time trends and relative population risks among adults in a contaminated oblast in the Russian Federation. Data came from a computerized cancer registry, part of the Russian National Medical and Dosimetric Registry, and included approximately 10 years of follow-up postaccident. Average 137Cs contamination densities were based on models of the composition of the fallout and atmospheric transport. Standardized incidence and mortality ratios were similar before and after the Chernobyl accident. Ratios for cancers of the respiratory organs among women from the contaminated areas were raised, but the increase was not significant.

Breast cancer is of interest because of its sensitivity to external radiation and because lactating women receive higher doses of radioiodines. We know of no descriptive or analytic studies concerning breast cancer risk in exposed populations that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. However, a monograph report (89Go) has shown an increase in premenopausal breast cancer in women from contaminated areas of Ukraine close to Chernobyl compared with Ukraine female population rates (standardized incidence ratio = 1.50, 95 percent confidence interval: 1.27, 1.73).

As the length of time since the accident increases to almost 20 years, there is interest in pursuing the lead with respect to breast cancer as well as in examining patterns with other solid tumors.

Other outcomes

Consideration of noncancer endpoints is beyond the scope of this review. However, research is being conducted in a number of different areas, including nonmalignant thyroid disease, cardiovascular disease, cataracts, adverse pregnancy outcomes, psychological and cognitive status of children, and mental health and well-being of the population. A World Health Organization report of the Chernobyl Forum's Expert Group Health summarizes this work (34Go).


   CONCLUSION
TOP
 THE ACCIDENT
 EMERGENCY WORKERS
 CLEANUP WORKERS
 RESIDENTS OF CONTAMINATED AREAS
 CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
 
Because of the magnitude and extent of the radioactive releases and the size of the exposed population, the Chernobyl accident is a man-made, nuclear disaster of unparalleled proportions. From the Chernobyl disaster, however, we have learned a great deal about childhood exposure to 131I. In general, there appears to be much in common between the role of external and internal radiation in the development of thyroid cancer. Given all of the uncertainties in dose estimates, the role of screening in case ascertainment, and the small numbers for some of the observations, the magnitude of the excess risks is consistent. Following either internal or external radiation, the thyroid of young children is more vulnerable to radiation carcinogenesis than that of adults, radiation-related risks may be somewhat higher for females than males, and excess risks are still observed 18 years after the accident. Gaps still need to be filled, however. Of particular interest is whether some of the findings to date are related to Chernobyl specifically or to the characteristics of thyroid cancer in very young children or the very short latency period between radiation exposure and the development of thyroid cancer. Little is known about the potential modifying effects of prior thyroid disease, hormonal and reproductive factors, diet, or ethnic differences. Finally, because the Chernobyl-related thyroid cancers are known to be caused by radiation, these cancers are a unique resource for studying the molecular biology of radiation- and non-radiation-induced thyroid cancer. This field is continuing to advance and should increase our understanding of thyroid cancer in general.

With respect to adults, it appears that although risks of thyroid cancer and leukemia are not elevated among residents of contaminated areas, increases in leukemia are being observed in those exposed to external radiation during cleanup operations. There is also a suggestion of heightened risk among those exposed in utero. (Refer to table 5 for a summary.)


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 5. Summary of findings* to date on Chernobyl fallout and cancer risk following the 1986 nuclear power plant accident

 
Although we have not covered the topic of disaster preparedness in this review, the Chernobyl accident has provided valuable experience in this area, particularly with regard to the administration of potassium iodide as a preventive measure. Furthermore, the accidental exposure of children to radioiodines has generated information that will be relevant in evaluating the use of 131I in treating children with hyperthyroidism. The opportunity to compare outcomes in different population subgroups, such as workers or residents exposed as children or as adults, contributes to our understanding of dose-response relations and moderating factors and, in the case of cleanup workers, should provide input for formulating guidelines to protect the health of nuclear workers.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 THE ACCIDENT
 EMERGENCY WORKERS
 CLEANUP WORKERS
 RESIDENTS OF CONTAMINATED AREAS
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. NEA. Nuclear Energy Agency. Chernobyl: assessment of radiological and health impacts. 2002 update of Chernobyl: ten years on. Paris, France: OECD Publications, 2002.
  2. UNSCEAR. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. New York, NY: United Nations, 2000. (United Nations sales publication no. E.00.IX.4).
  3. UNSCEAR. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation. 1988 Report to the General Assembly, with annexes. New York, NY: United Nations, 1988. (United Nations sales publication no. E.88.IX.7).
  4. Bouville A, Chumak VV, Inskip PD, et al. Chornobyl accident: estimation of radiation doses received by the Baltic and Ukrainian clean-up workers. Radiat Res (in press).
  5. Khrouch VT, Gavrilin YI, Konstantinov YO, et al. Characteristics of the radionuclides inhalation intake. In: Medical aspects of the Chernobyl accident at the ChNPP. Proceedings of the International Conference, Kiev, Ukraine, May 11–13, 1988. Kiev, Ukraine: Zdorovie Publishing House, 1988:76–87.
  6. Ivanov VK, Rastopchin EM, Gorsky AI, et al. Cancer incidence among liquidators of the Chernobyl accident: solid tumors, 1986–1995. Health Phys 1998;74:309–15.[Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Rahu M, Tekkel M, Veidebaum T, et al. The Estonian study of Chernobyl cleanup workers: II. Incidence of cancer and mortality. Radiat Res 1997;147:653–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Ivanov VK, Tsyb AF, Gorsky AI, et al. Leukaemia and thyroid cancer in emergency workers of the Chernobyl accident: estimation of radiation risks (1986–1995). Radiat Environ Biophys 1997;36:9–16.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Ivanov VK, Tsyb AF, Gorsky AI, et al. Elevated leukemia rates in Chernobyl accident liquidators. BMJ, Rapid Responses, April 15, 2003. (available at www.bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/319/7203/145/a).
  10. Buzunov V, Omelyanetz N, Strapko N, et al. Chernobyl NPP accident consequences cleaning up participants in Ukraine—health status epidemiologic study—main results. In: Karaoglou A, Desmet G, Kelly GN, et al, eds. The radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Luxembourg, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1996:871–8.
  11. Konogorov AP, Ivanov VK, Chekin SY, et al. A case-control analysis of leukemia in accident emergency workers of Chernobyl. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol 2000;19:143–51.[Medline]
  12. Inskip PD, Hartshorne MF, Tekkel M, et al. Thyroid nodularity and cancer among Chernobyl cleanup workers from Estonia. Radiat Res 1997;147:225–35.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Ivanov VK, Tsyb AF, Gorsky AI, et al. Thyroid cancer among "liquidators" of the Chernobyl accident. Br J Radiol 1997;70:937–41.[Abstract]
  14. Ivanov VK, Tsyb AF, Petrov AV, et al. Thyroid cancer incidence among liquidators of the Chernobyl accident. Absence of dependence of radiation risks on external radiation dose. Radiat Environ Biophys 2002;41:195–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Ivanov V, Ilyin L, Gorski A, et al. Radiation and epidemiological analysis for solid cancer incidence among nuclear workers who participated in recovery operations following the accident at the Chernobyl NPP. J Radiat Res (Tokyo) 2004;45:41–4.[Medline]
  16. Ivanov VK, Gorski AI, Tsyb AF, et al. Solid cancer incidence among the Chernobyl emergency workers residing in Russia: estimation of radiation risks. Radiat Environ Biophys 2004;43:35–42.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Gavrilin YI, Khrouch VT, Shinkarev SM, et al. Chernobyl accident: reconstruction of thyroid dose for inhabitants of the Republic of Belarus. Health Physics 1999;76:105–18.[Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Likhtarev IL, Kovgan L, Vavilov M, et al. Post-Chornobyl thyroid cancers in Ukraine. Report 1: estimation of thyroid doses. Radiat Res 2005;163:125–36.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Zvonova IA, Balonov MI. Radioiodine dosimetry and prediction of consequences of thyroid exposure of the Russian population following the Chernobyl accident. In: Merwin SE, Balonow MI, eds. Doses to the Soviet population and early health effects studies. Vol I. Richland, WA: Research Enterprises Inc, 1993:71–125.
  20. Likhtarev IV, Minenko V, Khrouch VT, et al. Uncertainties in the thyroid dose reconstruction after Chernobyl. Radiat Prot Dosim 2003;105:601–8.[Abstract]
  21. Balonov MI, Zvonova IA, Bratilova AA, et al. Thyroid dose reconstruction of radioactive iodine exposure in thyroids of inhabitants living in settlements of the Russian Federation that were radioactively contaminated due to the accident at the Chernobyl NPP in 1986. Moscow, Russia: Russian Ministry of Public Health, 2001. (Publication MU 2.6.1.1000-00).
  22. Kenigsberg JE, Kruk JE. Iodine-131 exposure of thyroid of Belarus population cancer due to Chernobyl accident. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Scientific and Practical Conference "Mitigation of the Consequences of the Catastrophe at the Chernobyl NPP: State and Perspectives," Gomel, Belarus, April 26–27, 2004.
  23. Shore RE. Issues and epidemiological evidence regarding radiation-induced thyroid cancer. Radiat Res 1992;131:98–111.[Web of Science][Medline]
  24. Thompson D, Mabuchi K, Ron E, et al. Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. Part II: solid tumors, 1958–87. Radiat Res 1994;137:S17–S67.[Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Ron E, Lubin J, Shore R, et al. Thyroid cancer after exposure to external radiation: a pooled analysis of seven studies. Radiat Res 1995;141:259–77.[Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Prisyazhiuk A, Pjatak OA, Buzanov VA, et al. Cancer in the Ukraine, post-Chernobyl. Lancet 1991;338:1334–5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Kazakov VS, Demidchik EP, Astakhova LN. Thyroid cancer after Chernobyl. (Letter). Nature 1992;359:21.[Medline]
  28. Baverstock K, Egloff B, Pinchera A, et al. Thyroid cancer after Chernobyl. (Letter). Nature 1992;359:21–2.[Medline]
  29. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). Thyroid cancer in children living near Chernobyl. Expert panel report on the consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Brussels, Belgium: CEC, 1993. (Publication EUR 15248EN).
  30. Abelin T, Egger M, Ruchti C. Fallout from Chernobyl. Belarus increase was probably caused by Chernobyl. (Letter). BMJ 1994;309:1298.[Medline]
  31. Stsjazhko VA, Tsyb AF, Tronko ND, et al. Childhood thyroid cancer since accident at Chernobyl. (Letter). BMJ 1995;310:801.[Free Full Text]
  32. Tsyb AF, Parshkov EM, Ivanov VK, et al. Disease indices of thyroid and the dose dependence in children and adolescents affected as a result of the Chernobyl accident. In: Nagataki S, ed. Nagasaki Symposium on Chernobyl: update and future. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science, 1994:31–46.
  33. Williams D. Cancer after nuclear fallout: lessons from the Chernobyl accident. Nat Rev Cancer 2002;2:543–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  34. World Health Organization (WHO). Health effects of the Chernobyl accident: report of the Chernobyl Forum's Expert Group "Health." Geneva, Switzerland: WHO (in press).
  35. Ron E, Lubin J, Schneider AB. Thyroid cancer incidence. (Letter). Nature 1992;360:113.[Medline]
  36. Beral V, Reeves G. Childhood thyroid cancer in Belarus. (Letter). Nature 1992;359:680–1.[Medline]
  37. Shigematsu I, Thiessen JW. Childhood thyroid cancer in Belarus. (Letter). Nature 1992;359:681.[Medline]
  38. Astakhova LN, Anspaugh LR, Beebe GW, et al. Chernobyl-related thyroid cancer in children of Belarus: a case-control study. Radiat Res 1998;150:349–56.[Web of Science][Medline]
  39. Buglova EE, Kenigsberg JE, Sergeeva NV. Cancer risk estimation in Belarusian children due to thyroid irradiation as a consequence of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Health Phys 1996;71:45–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
  40. Sobolev B, Heidenreich WF, Kairo I, et al. Thyroid cancer incidence in the Ukraine after the Chernobyl accident: comparison with spontaneous incidences. Radiat Environ Biophys 1997;6:195–9.[CrossRef]
  41. Jacob P, Goulko G, Heidenreich WF, et al. Thyroid cancer risk to children calculated. (Letter). Nature 1998;392:31–2.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Jacob P, Kenigsberg Y, Goulko G, et al. Thyroid cancer risk in Belarus after the Chernobyl accident: comparison with external exposures. Radiat Environ Biophys 2000;1:25–31.
  43. Tronko M, Bogdanova T, Komissarenko I, et al. Thyroid carcinoma in children and adolescents in Ukraine after the Chernobyl nuclear accident: statistical data and clinico-morphologic characteristics. Cancer 1999;86:149–56.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  44. Tronko ND, Bogdanova TI, Epstein OV, et al. Thyroid cancer in children and adolescents of Ukraine having been exposed as a result of the Chernobyl accident (15-year expertise of investigations). Int J Radiat Med 2002;4:222–32.
  45. Heidenreich WF, Kenigsberg J, Jacob P, et al. Time trends of thyroid cancer incidence in Belarus after the Chernobyl accident. Radiat Res 1999;151:617–25.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  46. Kenigsberg J, Buglova E, Kruk J, et al. Thyroid cancer among children and adolescents of Belarus exposed due to the Chernobyl accident: dose and risk assessment. In: Yamashita S, Shibata Y, Hoshi M, et al, eds. Chernobyl: message for the 21st century. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: 2002:293–300. (International Congress series 1234).
  47. Ivanov VK, Tsyb AF, Nilova EV, et al. Cancer risks in the Kaluga oblast of the Russian Federation 10 years after the Chernobyl accident. Radiat Environ Biophys 1997;36:161–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  48. Davis S, Stepanenko V, Rivkind N, et al. Risk of thyroid cancer in the Bryansk Oblast of the Russian Federation after the Chernobyl Power Station accident. Radiat Res 2004;162:241–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  49. Demidchik E, Mrochek A, Demidchik Y, et al. Thyroid cancer promoted by radiation in young people of Belarus (clinical and epidemiological features). In: Thomas G, Karaoglou A, Williams ED, eds. Radiation and thyroid cancer. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co, 1999.
  50. Shibata Y, Yamashita S, Masyakin V, et al. 15 years after Chernobyl: new evidence of thyroid cancer. Lancet 2001;358:1965–6.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  51. Jacob P, Kenigsberg Y, Zvonova I, et al. Childhood exposure due to the Chernobyl accident and thyroid cancer risk in contaminated areas of Belarus and Russia. Br J Cancer 1999;80:1461–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  52. Moysich K, Menezes R, Michalek A. Chernobyl-related ionising radiation exposure and cancer risk: an epidemiological review. Lancet Oncol 2002;5:269–79.
  53. Mahoney MC, Lawvere S, Falkner KL, et al. Thyroid cancer incidence trends in Belarus: examining the impact of Chernobyl. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:1025–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Nikiforov Y, Gnepp DR, Fagin JA. Thyroid lesions in children and adolescents after the Chernobyl disaster: implications for the study of radiation tumorigenesis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996;81:9–14.[Abstract]
  55. Cardis E, Amoros E, Kesminiene A. Observed and predicted thyroid cancer incidence following the Chernobyl accident: evidence for factors influencing susceptibility to radiation induced thyroid cancer. In: Thomas G, Karaoglou A, Williams ED, eds. Radiation and thyroid cancer. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co, 1999:395–404.
  56. Heidenreich WF, Bogdanova TI, Biryukov AG, et al. Time trends of thyroid cancer incidence in Ukraine after the Chernobyl accident. J Radiol Prot 2004;24:283–93.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  57. Parshkov EM. Pathogenesis of radiation-induced thyroid cancer in children affected as a result of the Chernobyl accident. Int J Radiat Med 1999;3–4:67–75.
  58. Lloyd RD, Tripp DA, Kerber RA. Limits of fetal thyroid risk from radioiodine exposure. Health Physics 1996;70:559–62.[Web of Science][Medline]
  59. Ivanov VK, Gorski AI, Maksioutov MA, et al. Thyroid cancer incidence among adolescents and adults in the Bryansk region of Russia following the Chernobyl accident. Health Phys 2003;84:46–60.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  60. Gembicki M, Stozharov AN, Arinchin AN, et al. Iodine deficiency in Belarusian children as a possible factor stimulating the irradiation of the thyroid gland during the Chernobyl catastrophe. Environ Health Perspect 1997;105:1487–90.[Medline]
  61. Derwahl M, Broecker M, Karaiem Z. Clinical review 101: thyrotropin may not be the dominant growth factor in benign and malignant thyroid tumors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:829–34.[Free Full Text]
  62. Williams ED. TSH and thyroid cancer. Horm Metab Res Suppl 1990:23:72–5.[Medline]
  63. Shakhtarin VV, Tsyb AF, Stepanenko VF, et al. Iodine deficiency, radiation dose, and the risk of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents in the Bryansk region of Russia following the Chernobyl power station accident. Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:584–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Farahati J, Demidchik E, Biko J, et al. Inverse association between age at the time of radiation exposure and extent of disease in cases of radiation-induced childhood thyroid carcinoma in Belarus. Cancer 2000;6:1470–6.
  65. Nikiforov YE, Gnepp DR. Pediatric thyroid cancer after the Chernobyl disaster. Pathomorphologic study of 84 cases (1991–1992) from the Republic of Belarus. Cancer 1994;74:748–66.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  66. Nikiforov YE, Rowland JM, Bove KE, et al. Distinct pattern of ret oncogene rearrangements in morphological variants of radiation-induced and sporadic thyroid papillary carcinomas in children. Cancer Res 1997;57:1690–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Williams ED, Abrosimov A, Bogdanova T, et al. Thyroid carcinoma after Chernobyl latent period, morphology and aggressiveness. Br J Cancer 2004;90:2219–24.[Web of Science][Medline]
  68. Pacini F, Vorontsova T, Demidchik EP, et al. Post-Chernobyl thyroid carcinoma in Belarus children and adolescents: comparison with naturally occurring thyroid carcinoma in Italy and France. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1997;82:3563–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Klugbauer S, Lengfelder E, Demidchik EP, et al. High prevalence of RET rearrangement in thyroid tumors of children from Belarus after the Chernobyl reactor accident. Oncogene 1995;11:2459–67.[Web of Science][Medline]
  70. Smida J, Salassidis K, Hieber L, et al. Distinct frequency of ret rearrangements in papillary thyroid carcinomas of children and adults from Belarus. Int J Cancer 1999;80:32–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  71. Thomas GA, Bunnell H, Cook HA, et al. High prevalence of RET/PTC rearrangements in Ukrainian and Belarusian post-Chernobyl thyroid papillary carcinomas: a strong correlation between RET/PTC3 and the solid-follicular variant. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:4232–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  72. Powell N, Jeremiah S, Morishita M, et al. Frequency of BRAF T1796A mutation in papillary thyroid carcinoma relates to age of patient at diagnosis and not to radiation exposure. J Pathol 2005;205:558–64.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  73. Cohen Y, Xing M, Mambo E, et al. BRAF mutation in papillary thyroid carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:625–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  74. Kimura ET, Nikiforova MN, Zhu Z, et al. High prevalence of BRAF mutations in thyroid cancer: genetic evidence for constitutive activation of the RET/PTC-RAS-BRAF signaling pathway in papillary thyroid carcinoma. Cancer Res 2003;63:1454–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Kumagai A, Namba H, Saenko VA, et al. Low frequency of BRAFT1796A mutations in childhood thyroid carcinomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004;89:4280–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  76. Lima J, Trovisco V, Soares P, et al. BRAF mutations are not a major event in post-Chernobyl childhood thyroid carcinomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004;89:4267–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  77. Petridou E, Trichopoulos D, Dessypris N, et al. Infant leukaemia after in utero exposure to radiation from Chernobyl. Nature 1996;382:352–3.[CrossRef][Medline]
  78. Steiner M, Burkart W, Grosche B, et al. Trends in infant leukaemia in West Germany in relation to in utero exposure due to the Chernobyl accident. Radiat Environ Biophys 1998;37:87–93.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  79. Ivanov EP, Tolochko GV, Shuvaeva LP, et al. Infant leukemia in Belarus after the Chernobyl accident. Radiat Environ Biophys 1998;37:53–5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  80. Noshchenko AG, Moysich KB, Bondar A, et al. Patterns of acute leukaemia occurrence among children in the Chernobyl region. Intl J Epidemiol 2001;30:125–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  81. Ivanov EP, Tolochko G, Lazarev VS, et al. Child leukaemia after Chernobyl. (Letter). Nature 1993;365:702.[Medline]
  82. Ivanov EP, Tolochko GV, Shuvaeva LP, et al. Childhood leukemia in Belarus before and after the Chernobyl accident. Radiat Environ Biophys 1996;35:75–80.[Web of Science][Medline]
  83. Gapanovich VN, Iaroshevich RF, Shuvaeva LP, et al. Childhood leukemia in Belarus before and after the Chernobyl accident: continued follow-up. Radiat Environ Biophys 2001;40:259–67.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  84. Noshchenko AG, Zamostyan PV, Bondar OY, et al. Radiation-induced leukemia risk among those aged 0–20 at the time of the Chernobyl accident: a case-control study in the Ukraine. Intl J Cancer 2002;99:609–18.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  85. Parkin DM, Clayton D, Black RJ, et al. Childhood leukaemia in Europe after Chernobyl: 5 year follow-up. Br J Cancer 1996;73:1006–12.[Web of Science][Medline]
  86. Parkin DM, Cardis E, Masuyer E, et al. Childhood leukaemia following the Chernobyl accident: the European childhood leukaemia–lymphoma incidence study (ECLIS). Eur J Cancer 1993;29A:87–95.
  87. Prisyazhiuk A, Pjatak OA, Buzanov VA, et al. Cancer in the Ukraine, post-Chernobyl. Lancet 1991;338:1334–5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  88. Bebeshko V, Kovalenk A, Bely D, et al. Health effects of the Chernobyl accident uranium and nuclear energy. Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium, the Uranium Institute. London, United Kingdom, September 1995:69–73.
  89. Prysyazhnyuk AYe, Gulak LO, Gristchyenko VG, et al. Cancer incidence in Ukraine after the Chernobyl accident. In: Chernobyl: message for the 21st century. Proceedings of the Sixth Chernobyl Sasakawa Medical Cooperation Symposium. New York, NY: Elsevier, 2002.
  90. Izrael YA, De Cort M, Jones AR, et al. The atlas of caesium-137 contamination of Europe after the Chernobyl accident. In: Karaoglou A, Desmet G, Kelly GN, et al, eds. The radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Proceedings of the First International Conference, Minsk, Belarus, March 18–22, 1996. (Publication EUR 16544).
  91. Cardis EL, Anspaugh L, Ivanov VK, et al. Estimated long term health effects of the Chernobyl accident. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on one decade after Chernobyl: summing up the consequences of the accident. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1996:241–79. (Publication STI/PUB/1001).
  92. Kenigsberg JE, Kruk JE. Exposure of Belarus participants of liquidation of consequences of the Chernobyl accident and possibilities of revealing of stochastic effects. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Scientific and Practical Conference "Mitigation of the Consequences of the Catastrophe at the Chernobyl NPP: State and Perspectives," Gomel, Belarus, April 26–27, 2004:62–5.
  93. Chernobyl state registry data. Kiev, Ukraine: Ministry of Health of Ukraine, 1999.
  94. Bennett B, Bouville A, Hall P, et al. Chernobyl accident exposures and effects. Paper T-12-1 in the proceedings of the 10th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association, Hiroshima, Japan, May 14–19, 2000. (Publication IRPA-10).

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
D. Brugge, J. L. deLemos, and C. Bui
The Sequoyah Corporation Fuels Release and the Church Rock Spill: Unpublicized Nuclear Releases in American Indian Communities
Am J Public Health, September 1, 2007; 97(9): 1595 - 1600.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
S. Sadetzki, A. Chetrit, A. Lubina, M. Stovall, and I. Novikov
Risk of Thyroid Cancer after Childhood Exposure to Ionizing Radiation for Tinea Capitis
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., December 1, 2006; 91(12): 4798 - 4804.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Occup Med (Lond)Home page
R. Wakeford
Occupational exposure, epidemiology and compensation
Occup. Med., May 1, 2006; 56(3): 173 - 179.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Epidemiol RevHome page
E. K. Noji
Disasters: Introduction and State of the Art
Epidemiol. Rev., July 1, 2005; 27(1): 3 - 8.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
L. F. Novick
Epidemiologic Approaches to Disasters: Reducing Our Vulnerability
Am. J. Epidemiol., July 1, 2005; 162(1): 1 - 2.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (19)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hatch, M.
Right arrow Articles by Howe, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hatch, M.
Right arrow Articles by Howe, G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?