Citation, DOI, disclosures and article data
At the time the article was created Jeremy Jones had no recorded disclosures.View Jeremy Jones's current disclosures
Stochastic effects occur by chance and can be compared to deterministic effects which result in a direct effect. Cancer induction and radiation induced hereditary effects are the two main examples of stochastic effects.
Cancer induction as a result of exposure to radiation is thought by most to occur in a stochastic manner: there is no threshold point and the risk increases in proportionally with dose. Although the exact model which predicts the stochastic effects of radiation is contentious, numerous models do exist including:
linear-no threshold model: the risk of cancer induction increases linearly with no threshold dose (this is currently the accepted model by the International Commission on Radiological Protection) 5
linear-quadratic model: the risk of cancer induction increases in a quadratic-linear function
bystander effect: model of radiobiological damage (so-called epigenetic) related to the damage that cells not directly irradiated suffer due to molecular signals (e.g. reactive oxygen and nitrogen species and cytokines) arriving from irradiated cells present in the same tissue or in other tissues of the same organism 6-9.
Although the risk increases with dose, the severity of the effects do not; the patient will either develop cancer or they will not.
Statistical power of current epidemiologic studies
It is important to note that individual studies that explore radiation-induced carcinogenesis as a result of low doses (<100mGy) have low statistical power and overall are not statistically significant 10.
- 1. Penelope Allisy-Roberts, Jerry R. Williams. Farr's Physics for Medical Imaging. ISBN: 9780702028441
- 2. Philip Palin Dendy, Brian Heaton. Physics for Diagnostic Radiology, Third Edition. ISBN: 9780750305914
- 3. Lall R, Ganapathy S, Yang M, Xiao S, Xu T, Su H, Shadfan M, Asara JM, Ha CS, Ben-Sahra I, Manning BD, Little JB, Yuan ZM. Low-dose radiation exposure induces a HIF-1-mediated adaptive and protective metabolic response. Cell death and differentiation. 21 (5): 836-44. doi:10.1038/cdd.2014.24 - Pubmed
- 4. Lall R, Ganapathy S, Yang M, Xiao S, Xu T, Su H, Shadfan M, Asara JM, Ha CS, Ben-Sahra I, Manning BD, Little JB, Yuan ZM. Low-dose radiation exposure induces a HIF-1-mediated adaptive and protective metabolic response. Cell death and differentiation. 21 (5): 836-44. doi:10.1038/cdd.2014.24 - Pubmed
- 5. Seong KM, Seo S, Lee D, Kim MJ, Lee SS, Park S, Jin YW. Is the Linear No-Threshold Dose-Response Paradigm Still Necessary for the Assessment of Health Effects of Low Dose Radiation?. (2016) Journal of Korean medical science. 31 Suppl 1: S10-23. doi:10.3346/jkms.2016.31.S1.S10 - Pubmed
- 6. Yahyapour R, Motevaseli E, Rezaeyan A, Abdollahi H, Farhood B, Cheki M, Najafi M, Villa V. Mechanisms of Radiation Bystander and Non-Targeted Effects: Implications to Radiation Carcinogenesis and Radiotherapy. (2018) Current radiopharmaceuticals. 11 (1): 34-45. doi:10.2174/1874471011666171229123130 - Pubmed
- 7. Mariotti LG, Bertolotti A, Ranza E, Babini G, Ottolenghi A. Investigation of the mechanisms underpinning IL-6 cytokine release in bystander responses: the roles of radiation dose, radiation quality and specific ROS/RNS scavengers. (2012) International journal of radiation biology. 88 (10): 751-62. doi:10.3109/09553002.2012.703365 - Pubmed
- 8. Havaki S, Kotsinas A, Chronopoulos E, Kletsas D, Georgakilas A, Gorgoulis VG. The role of oxidative DNA damage in radiation induced bystander effect. (2015) Cancer letters. 356 (1): 43-51. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2014.01.023 - Pubmed
- 9. Klammer H, Mladenov E, Li F, Iliakis G. Bystander effects as manifestation of intercellular communication of DNA damage and of the cellular oxidative status. (2015) Cancer letters. 356 (1): 58-71. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2013.12.017 - Pubmed
- 10. Shore R, Beck H, Boice J et al. Recent Epidemiologic Studies and the Linear No-Threshold Model For Radiation Protection—Considerations Regarding NCRP Commentary 27. Health Phys. 2019;116(2):235-46. doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000001015 - Pubmed