Impact of Uncertainties in Exposure Assessment on Thyroid Cancer Risk among Persons in Belarus Exposed as Children or Adolescents Due to the Chernobyl Accident.

PLoS ONE. 2015;10(10):e0139826 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0139826


Journal Homepage

Journal Title: PLoS ONE

ISSN: 1932-6203 (Online)

Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)

LCC Subject Category: Medicine | Science

Country of publisher: United States

Language of fulltext: English

Full-text formats available: PDF, HTML, XML



Mark P Little

Deukwoo Kwon

Lydia B Zablotska

Alina V Brenner

Elizabeth K Cahoon

Alexander V Rozhko

Olga N Polyanskaya

Victor F Minenko

Ivan Golovanov

André Bouville

Vladimir Drozdovitch


Peer review

Editorial Board

Instructions for authors

Time From Submission to Publication: 24 weeks


Abstract | Full Text

BACKGROUND:The excess incidence of thyroid cancer in Ukraine and Belarus observed a few years after the Chernobyl accident is considered to be largely the result of 131I released from the reactor. Although the Belarus thyroid cancer prevalence data has been previously analyzed, no account was taken of dose measurement error. METHODS:We examined dose-response patterns in a thyroid screening prevalence cohort of 11,732 persons aged under 18 at the time of the accident, diagnosed during 1996-2004, who had direct thyroid 131I activity measurement, and were resident in the most radio-actively contaminated regions of Belarus. Three methods of dose-error correction (regression calibration, Monte Carlo maximum likelihood, Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo) were applied. RESULTS:There was a statistically significant (p<0.001) increasing dose-response for prevalent thyroid cancer, irrespective of regression-adjustment method used. Without adjustment for dose errors the excess odds ratio was 1.51 Gy- (95% CI 0.53, 3.86), which was reduced by 13% when regression-calibration adjustment was used, 1.31 Gy- (95% CI 0.47, 3.31). A Monte Carlo maximum likelihood method yielded an excess odds ratio of 1.48 Gy- (95% CI 0.53, 3.87), about 2% lower than the unadjusted analysis. The Bayesian method yielded a maximum posterior excess odds ratio of 1.16 Gy- (95% BCI 0.20, 4.32), 23% lower than the unadjusted analysis. There were borderline significant (p = 0.053-0.078) indications of downward curvature in the dose response, depending on the adjustment methods used. There were also borderline significant (p = 0.102) modifying effects of gender on the radiation dose trend, but no significant modifying effects of age at time of accident, or age at screening as modifiers of dose response (p>0.2). CONCLUSIONS:In summary, the relatively small contribution of unshared classical dose error in the current study results in comparatively modest effects on the regression parameters.