Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effects of confounding and effect-modifying lifestyle, environmental and medical factors on risk of radiation-associated cardiovascular disease

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 1601 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. It has been known for some considerable time that radiation is associated with excess risk of CVD. A recent systematic review of radiation and CVD highlighted substantial inter-study heterogeneity in effect, possibly a result of confounding or modifications of radiation effect by non-radiation factors, in particular by the major lifestyle/environmental/medical risk factors and latent period.

Methods

We assessed effects of confounding by lifestyle/environmental/medical risk factors on radiation-associated CVD and investigated evidence for modifying effects of these variables on CVD radiation dose–response, using data assembled for a recent systematic review.

Results

There are 43 epidemiologic studies which are informative on effects of adjustment for confounding or risk modifying factors on radiation-associated CVD. Of these 22 were studies of groups exposed to substantial doses of medical radiation for therapy or diagnosis. The remaining 21 studies were of groups exposed at much lower levels of dose and/or dose rate. Only four studies suggest substantial effects of adjustment for lifestyle/environmental/medical risk factors on radiation risk of CVD; however, there were also substantial uncertainties in the estimates in all of these studies. There are fewer suggestions of effects that modify the radiation dose response; only two studies, both at lower levels of dose, report the most serious level of modifying effect.

Conclusions

There are still large uncertainties about confounding factors or lifestyle/environmental/medical variables that may influence radiation-associated CVD, although indications are that there are not many studies in which there are substantial confounding effects of these risk factors.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide [1,2,3]. The main independent risk factors for CVD are cigarette smoking, hypertension, diabetes, obesity and elevated total cholesterol or elevated low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol [4,5,6]. It has been known for some considerable time that high dose radiotherapy is also associated with excess risk of CVD [7, 8]. More recently, it has become clear that there are also radiation-associated excess risks in the Life Span Study (LSS) of the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors [9, 10], and in a number of groups exposed at still lower levels of radiation dose and at lower dose rates [11]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies highlighted evidence of association between radiation exposure and CVD at high dose, and to a lesser extent at low dose, with some indications of differences in risk between acute and chronic exposures [12]. There was inter-study heterogeneity, possibly a result of confounding or modifications of radiation effect by other factors, which complicates a causal interpretation of these findings [12]. Although a number of studies assessed in the previous review adjusted for many of the major lifestyle risk factors, relatively few studies undertook investigation of the modifying effect of these risk factors on the radiation associated CVD.

In this paper we assess effects of confounding by lifestyle, environmental, and medical risk factors, and also investigate evidence for modifying effects of these variables on radiation dose response.

Methods

The data used are those assembled in a recent systematic review [12]. In brief, the review was conducted, and reported according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) (reg. no. 202036). PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science: Core Collection were used to systematically search the literature, with no limits applied (date, language), on 6th October 2022. We excluded animal studies, and any study without an abstract. The database search yielded a total of 15,098 articles.

Outcomes

CVD was defined as those causes of mortality and incidence with International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD10) codes I00-I99 (or equivalently the ICD 8th revision (ICD8) codes 390–458 or ICD 9th revision (ICD9) codes 390–459).

Main exposure

Only those studies with individual organ dosimetry that enable estimation of excess relative risk per unit absorbed dose in Gy (ERR/Gy) in relation to heart or brain dose or other closely related tissue doses were used.

Potentially confounding and effect modifying variables considered

We only used those studies in which there was adjustment for any factor other than the standard demographic risk factors (age, sex, year of birth etc.), and in which ERR/Gy were reported both with and without adjustment, or alternatively in which ERR/Gy were reported of the modifying effect on radiation response of these variables. In other words, to assess potential confounding a relative risk model had been fitted of the form \(RR=\exp\lbrack\beta V\rbrack(1+\alpha D)\;\) with adjustment for a potentially modifying variable \(V\) and also without adjustment for that potentially modifying variable \(V\). A modifying variable in a particular study was any variable \(V\) for which had been assessed the interactions with radiation dose, in other words in which a model had been fitted of the form \(RR\;=\;1+\alpha D\;\exp\lbrack\beta V\rbrack\) . In some cases the only reported effect was a p-value (e.g. of significance of modification). All these studies are listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Unadjusted or adjusted estimated excess relative risk of cardiovascular diseases in various therapeutically and diagnostically treated groups, exposed at moderate or high radiation doses and high dose rates. All analyses adjust for age
Full size table
Table 2 Unadjusted or adjusted estimated excess relative risks of cardiovascular diseases in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and in other groups with moderate- or low-dose radiation exposure, with mean dose generally < 0.5 Gy
Full size table

Methods to evaluate the effects of confounding and effect modifying variables

The methods employed to assess the effects of potential confounding variable are comparison of the fitted ERR unadjusted for the potential confounding variable, \(ERR_{unadj}\), and the ERR \(ERR_{adj\;\lbrack V\rbrack}\) adjusted for the confounding variable \(V\). We categorized those estimates in which adjustment for potential confounders resulted in changes of the following magnitudes:

  1. a)

    more than 50% difference, i.e., with ratio of estimates outside the interval [0.667, 1.5] – labelled *

  2. b)

    more than 100% difference, i.e., with ratio of estimates outside the interval [0.5, 2.0] – labelled **

  3. c)

    estimates with different signs, i.e. one positive, the other negative, labelled ***

Likewise any variable whose interaction with radiation dose resulted in the following degree of change in the ERR was labelled as follows:

  1. a)

    more than 50% difference, i.e., with ratio of estimates (with/without modification) outside the interval [0.667, 1.5] and the heterogeneity was statistically significant (p < 0.05) – labelled †

  2. b)

    more than 100% difference, i.e., with ratio of estimates (with/without modification) outside the interval [0.5, 2.0] and the heterogeneity was statistically significant (p < 0.05) – labelled ††

  3. c)

    estimates with different signs, i.e. one (with modification) positive, the other (without modification) negative or vice versa and the heterogeneity was statistically significant (p < 0.05), labelled †††

We specifically highlight the most serious discrepancies of both sorts (***, †††) in the text below. We describe these as potential confounders and potential effect modifiers, respectively. Table 3 reports those studies and results (taken from Tables 1, 2) in which one of these six categories of potentially confounding or modifying effects is observed. Table 4 separately reports effects of variation of latency.

Table 3 Unadjusted or adjusted estimated excess relative risk of cardiovascular diseases in various groups in which there is pronounced effect of adjustment for potential confounder variables, or significant variation by modifying factors. All analyses adjust for age
Full size table
Table 4 Variation with latency of estimated excess relative risks of cardiovascular diseases in occupationally and environmentally exposed groups
Full size table

Results

Of the total of 93 studies from the original systematic review and meta-analysis (detailed in Little et al. [12]), 43 studies satisfied the a priori selection criteria and were retained for this analysis.

Of the 50 studies that were omitted, the high dose radiotherapeutic studies (of the type shown in Table 1) in many cases [55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79] had information on many lifestyle and environmental variables, but only presented one type of analysis (generally fully adjusted); however, there were some high dose studies in which there was little or no information on potential confounders [80, 81]. The Danish study of Lorenzen et al. [82] was omitted as it is largely subsumed by the Nordic study of Darby et al. [19]. There was a similar situation for the lower dose studies (of the type shown in Table 2), which in some cases had rich lifestyle information but only presented a single type of analysis [83,84,85,86,87,88] although in many instances the lower dose studies that were omitted had little or no information, apart from crude markers of socioeconomic status [54, 89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111]. Of the final selected studies, 22 were of groups exposed to substantial doses of medical radiation for therapy or diagnosis (Table 1). The remaining 21 studies were of groups exposed at much lower levels of dose and/or dose rate (Tables 2 and 3). There is substantial overlap in the populations studied in some of these groups. For example three of the studies relate to various CVD endpoints in the LSS [9, 10, 37], and there are various studies of a number of CVD endpoints in the Mayak nuclear workers [40,41,42,43,44,45,46].

Effects of adjustment for potential confounding variables

Very few studies suggested substantial effects of adjustment for lifestyle, environmental, or medical risk factors. In the Rochester study of Adams et al. [34] the unadjusted ERR/Gy for coronary heart disease was 0.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.20), and the ERR/Gy adjusted for sex, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking and hypertension was -0.03 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.10) (Tables 1 and 3). In the LSS the unadjusted ERR/Gy for hypertensive heart disease incidence was 0.01 (95% CI -0.08 to 0.10), and the ERR/Gy adjusted for smoking and drinking was -0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09) [9] (Tables 2 and 3). In the French uranium miners case–control study of Drubay et al. [48] the unadjusted ERR/Gy for all CVD was 0.4 (95% CI -1.8 to 3.0), and adjusted for smoking, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, resting heart rate, chronic kidney disease, hyperuricemia, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase was -0.7 (95% CI -3.2 to 2.9) (Tables 2 and 3). The unadjusted ERR/Gy for hypertension, or CVD excluding cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) and some other endpoints in the Korean medical diagnostic workers were 0.3 (95% CI -6.9 to 9.6) and 1.3 (95% CI -5.0 to 9.0), whereas for the same endpoints adjusted for sex, smoking, alcohol intake, BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol and blood glucose the ERR/Gy were -1.8 (95% CI -8.3 to 6.8) and -0.5 (95% CI -6.3 to 6.7), respectively [51] (Tables 2 and 3).

Modifying effects of radiation

There are only two studies reporting the most serious level of modifying effect, those of the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS) workers by Gillies et al. [39] and the Korean medical diagnostic worker study of Cha et al. [51] (Tables 2 and 3). Gillies et al. [39] reported markedly higher risks for females, with ERR/Gy of 4.22 (90% CI 1.72 to 7.21) for all CVD, 6.17 (90% CI 2.44 to 10.92) for ischemic heart disease (IHD), and 2.67 (90% CI < 0 to 9.79) for CeVD, compared with ERR/Gy for males for the same endpoints of 0.20 (90% CI 0.07 to 0.36), 0.16 (90% CI -0.01 to 0.34), and 0.48 (90% CI 0.10 to 0.91), respectively; these differences were highly significant for all CVD (p = 0.005) and IHD (p = 0.004), but not for CeVD (p > 0.50) (Tables 2 and 3). Gillies et al. [39] also reported modifications by attained age and duration of employment, and although some of these were substantial for certain groups (Tables 2 and 3) none were statistically significant (p > 0.10). The Korean worker study of Cha et al. [51] also reported markedly higher ERR/Gy for females, with CVD ERR/Gy of 42.1 (95% CI 3.0 to 99.2) compared with ERR/Gy for males of -0.7 (95% CI -7.6 to 7.6). This study also reported significant modifications of ERR/Gy for CVD in relation to age, birth year, year started work and years worked (Tables 2 and 3). There were similar indications of heterogeneity for all these variables for hypertension and CVD excluding CeVD and other CVD (ICD10 I70-I83, I85-99). The French Childhood Cancer Study of Mansouri et al. [16] reported marked discrepancies with treatment status by anthracyclines (cardiotoxic anticancer drugs), with an ERR/Gy of 0.44 (95% CI 0.18 to 1.12) for those not treated compared with an ERR/Gy of 0.09 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.22) for those treated with anthracyclines (Table 1). They also reported that “HF [heart failure] risk increased with each category of age, with ERR/Gy values for the MHD [mean heart dose] of 0.06, 0.33, 0.38 and 0.48 in those aged < 15, 15–25, 25–35, and ≥ 35 years, respectively” [16]. The Netherlands-NKI-Rotterdam breast cancer case control study of Jacobse et al. [22] reported borderline significant modifications in risk by age at exposure (ERR/Gy age < 45 = 0.242 (95% CI 0.044 to 0.823), age 45–49 = 0.111 (95% CI 0.012 to 0.401), age 50–70 = 0.025 (95% CI -0.014 to 0.119), heterogeneity p = 0.07) (Table 1). In no other high radiation dose studies (reported in Table 1) were any modifying effects reported [17,18,19, 22, 23]. In the LSS, there are significant modifying effects on CeVD risk of attained age and age at exposure [10, 11], with ERR decreasing in each case with increases in each variable, but no such modifications in ERR by any of these variables when the investigators used only CVD as outcome; Little et al. [11] reported a change in ERR/Gy per year of age at exposure by -0.050 (95% CI -0.099, -0.015) for stroke and by -0.012 (95% CI -0.041, 0.018) for heart disease. There is a borderline significant effect (p = 0.022) of sex on heart disease but not for stroke (p > 0.9) [11].

Although not reported in Table 2, because the analysis was not generally aligned with that of the main analysis (using a lag of 5 years, and wherever possible dose < 4 Gy), there is analysis of the Mayak worker data by sex, attained age and duration of employment group; there was no statistically significant heterogeneity (p > 0.1) in effect suggested by these analyses [41, 42, 44,45,46].

Modifying effects of latency

Table 4 shows the modifying effects of latency. There is very little variation of ERR/Gy with lag, although there is a slight tendency for ERR/Gy to increase with increasing lag period.

Modifying effects in animal data

Table 5 illustrates what little is known about potential modifying factors from radiobiological animal data. There is some evidence of the modifying effects of age at exposure and chemotherapy in certain systems.

Table 5 Effect of modifying variables on absolute risk in radiobiological animal data
Full size table

Discussion

We have assessed effects of confounding by lifestyle, environmental or medical risk factors on radiation-associated CVD, using data assembled for a recent systematic review [12]. We found only limited evidence that adjustment for potential confounding made substantial difference to risk estimates. Only in four studies, in a group treated in childhood for hemangioma [34], in the LSS [9] and in two groups of nuclear workers [48, 51], were the adjusted and unadjusted ERR substantially different (Tables 1, 2 and 3). However, it was hard to assess whether these variables were true confounders of the association between radiation and CVD; there were also substantial uncertainties in all of these studies, so that not much weight can be attached.

We also investigated evidence for modifying effects of these variables on CVD radiation dose response, again using data assembled for the systematic review [12]. There are fewer suggestions of the most serious level of modifying effect, with age at exposure modifications in the same direction reported in two studies [11, 16], although for different disease endpoints. In the study of Mansouri et al. [16] there were substantial modifying effects of anthracycline exposure (Tables 1, 2 and 3). In the LSS and in two groups of nuclear workers there are significant modifying effects of sex [11, 39, 51], although for discrepant endpoints. However, in most of the studies reported here no analysis has been reported of modifying effects of these or any other variable (Tables 1, 2 and 3). There is little variation of ERR with lagging period, although there is a slight tendency for ERR/Gy to increase with increasing lag period. (Table 4).

The radiobiological animal data has rather less information (Table 5). The metrics used are heterogeneous, and in general the internal dose trends (ERR/Gy) used in the epidemiological data given in Tables 1, 2 and 3 are not given. Indeed, in most studies there is only a single irradiated group, and the relative effects of the extra covariate on the radiation-associated relative risk (irradiated vs control) difficult to determine. Given the heterogeneity in endpoints used and in the animal systems employed one should probably not attach much weight to these findings.

Assessment of outcomes is a complication, as mortality outcomes could be less accurate than studies of incidence. In incidence studies, medical and lifestyle factors are more likely to be collected, as reported in our systematic review [12]. Pooling mortality and incidence data could explain part of the heterogeneity of the summarized results observed in the meta-analysis. Indeed, summarized risks were significantly higher for mortality endpoints compared with those of incidence in the meta-analysis [12]. An additional complication in many of the studies presented, particularly of the LSS [9,10,11, 37], groups of nuclear workers (IARC 15-country and INWORKS nuclear worker studies [38, 39], Mayak nuclear workers [40,41,42, 44,45,46]) is the overlap in subjects included, a feature also of the systematic review from which they were drawn [12]. It is very likely that there is inter-study heterogeneity of effect in the present study, reflecting the heterogeneity that was observed in the systematic review from which it is drawn [12]. Some part of the heterogeneity in the previous review is clearly driven by differences in endpoint sensitivity, by age at exposure, by dose and dose rate, and as noted above mortality vs incidence, but even after accounting for the effect of these heterogeneity remained [12]. Such heterogeneity complicates any causal interpretation of the results presented.

Confounding is likely to be specific to each study and the effects of adjustment could rarely be generalized to other studies. Residual confounding could be an issue, if the potential confounding variable is measured with substantial error. Effect modification is likely to be much more easily compared between studies, although the evidence assembled here does not suggest that even for such easily and reliably measured variables as sex and age at exposure there are consistent effects within studies (Tables 1, 2 and 3). These differences in modifying effect between cohort may reflect the play of chance, but it is also possible that there are underlying differences between the cohorts. Medical and lifestyle factors are differently available in the studies considered, with more detailed information among studies of radiotherapeutic exposure, where radiation doses are high to moderate. However, the number of patients included in these medical studies is generally rather small, limiting study of specific endpoints. In contrast, in studies on workers or in general population, generally few potential confounding variables can be collected as the large number of people recruited and the way of collecting the information does not usually allow such information to be obtained. In our systematic review [12], among the lower dose studies with detailed information on lifestyle factors and a large number of included people there were only a few occupational cohorts, principally the Mayak worker cohort [40,41,42, 44,45,46], the Semipalatinsk cohort [53], and, with a rather smaller number of people included, the French nuclear fuel cycle workers [47, 48] and the Korean radiation worker cohorts [51, 52]. For the purposes of maximizing statistical power, specific CVD outcomes are analyzed together, but potential confounders could act differently on the different outcomes and their specific effect could be unseen in a pooled analysis of heterogeneous outcomes.

As summarized in Tables 1, 2 and 3, in general many epidemiological studies now have quite rich lifestyle, environmental and medical information. As highlighted in the Results there are over 30 other studies that clearly have such cofactor information, although in all cases best use has not been made of this in the publications for the purposes of assessing effects of potential confounding factors or effect modifying factors.

A limitation of our analysis is that statistical significance cannot be attached to the difference made by potentially confounding factors, since the reported coefficients would necessarily be highly correlated, and from the published data this correlation is impossible to determine. We therefore judge that this has to remain as we describe it in the Methods, based simply on the size and sign of the coefficients. However, as we outline in the Methods, one of the criteria for risk modifying factors is based on statistical significance. Clearly the particular levels of magnitude we chose to determine the seriousness of potentially confounding variables, likewise the levels of difference made by risk modifying factors are both somewhat arbitrary. Another limitation of the analysis is the degree of overlap in two particular studies, specifically two of the most important and informative ones, the LSS [9, 10, 37] and the Mayak workers [40,41,42,43,44,45,46], although not in any of the other studies listed in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. However, given the form of the analysis, bias would not result from this. At most there would be a tendency for findings (of potential confounding or risk modification) to be inflated by these correlated findings. As may be inferred from the results presented in Tables 3 and 4, there is little evidence for this, although the Mayak worker data do show a similar direction of effect made by adjustment to two overlapping mortality endpoints, IHD and all CVD [41].

In many studies in which adjustment is made for certain covariates, these are assayed at a number of time points and this information is then used to adjust for health endpoints after that point. Some of these covariates may also affect competing risks, for example cancer, and it is possible that they may affect both baseline CVD risk as well as radiation-associated excess risk; however, the evidence we have presented (Tables 1, 2 and 3) does not suggest that this is likely. Competing risks may well not be independent of CVD, so that the censoring they introduce will be informative. In this case consideration may have to be given to non-standard ways of analyzing the data. There are a number of statistical methods to assess effects of two or more competing risks [126]. One of the most popular is the so-called subdistribution hazard of Fine and Gray [127].

In summary, because of the multifactorial etiology of CVD, medical and lifestyle factors are clearly crucial variables to take into account in analysis of the dose response of these endpoints. The heterogeneity of the studied populations and of the type of exposure and dosimetry complicates drawing conclusions on the impact of medical and lifestyle factors on the dose response relationship between exposure to radiation and CVD. Nevertheless, we found a large number of studies in which there is information on effect of adjusting for certain lifestyle/environmental/medical variables, although in the larger number of studies previously assessed this information was not available, even if the relevant variables had clearly been assessed. We found limited evidence of potential confounding of radiation effects on CVD (Tables 1, 2 and 3); substantial differences were made by adjustment in four studies, but the uncertainties in all cases were substantial, so that little weight can be attached. There is much less information on potential modifying variables of radiation effect; nevertheless there is some evidence of the effects of age at exposure and sex, although not always in the same endpoints in different studies. However, in most of the studies reported here no analysis was reported of modifying effects of these or any other variable (Tables 1, 2 and 3). There is little evidence of modification resulting from variation in lagging period (Table 4). Efforts should be made to include in future studies as much as possible precise information on these variables and if available specific analysis on their impact on the dose response relationship should be assessed. It is important that analyses of radiation-associated CVD clearly demonstrate the effect of adjustment for the available lifestyle/environmental/medical variables, and also assess the potential modifying effect of these variables on the radiation dose response.

Availability of data and materials

All data used are listed in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4.

References

  1. World Health Organization (WHO): WHO Health statistics and information systems https://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortality_rawdata/en/. World Health Organization (WHO); 2019.

  2. The top 10 causes of death. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death#:~:text=The%20world's%20biggest%20killer%20is,8.9%20million%20deaths%20in%202019.

  3. Cardiovascular diseases https://www.who.int/health-topics/cardiovascular-diseases#tab=tab_1.

  4. Wilson PWF, D’Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97(18):1837–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dhingra R, Vasan RS. Age as a risk factor. Med Clin North America. 2012;96(1):87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, Dans T, Avezum A, Lanas F, McQueen M, Budaj A, Pais P, Varigos J, Lisheng L. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet. 2004;364(9438):937–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Adams MJ, Hardenbergh PH, Constine LS, Lipshultz SE. Radiation-associated cardiovascular disease. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003;45(1):55–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Nonstochastic effects of ionizing radiation. Publication 41. Annals ICRP. 1984;14(3):1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yamada M, Wong FL, Fujiwara S, Akahoshi M, Suzuki G. Noncancer disease incidence in atomic bomb survivors, 1958–1998. Radiat Res. 2004;161(6):622–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shimizu Y, Kodama K, Nishi N, Kasagi F, Suyama A, Soda M, Grant EJ, Sugiyama H, Sakata R, Moriwaki H, et al. Radiation exposure and circulatory disease risk: Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivor data, 1950–2003. BMJ. 2010;340:b5349.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Little MP, Azizova TV, Bazyka D, Bouffler SD, Cardis E, Chekin S, Chumak VV, Cucinotta FA, de Vathaire F, Hall P, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of circulatory disease from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation and estimates of potential population mortality risks. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(11):1503–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Little MP, Azizova TV, Richardson DB, Tapio S, Bernier MO, Kreuzer M, Cucinotta FA, Bazyka D, Chumak V, Ivanov VK, et al. Ionising radiation and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2023;380:e072924.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Mulrooney DA, Hyun G, Ness KK, Ehrhardt MJ, Yasui Y, Duprez D, Howell RM, Leisenring WM, Constine LS, Tonorezos E, et al. Major cardiac events for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1970 and 1999: report from the childhood cancer survivor study cohort. BMJ. 2020;368:l6794.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Tukenova M, Guibout C, Oberlin O, Doyon F, Mousannif A, Haddy N, Guérin S, Pacquement H, Aouba A, Hawkins M, et al. Role of cancer treatment in long-term overall and cardiovascular mortality after childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(8):1308–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Haddy N, Diallo S, El-Fayech C, Schwartz B, Pein F, Hawkins M, Veres C, Oberlin O, Guibout C, Pacquement H, et al. Cardiac diseases following childhood cancer treatment: cohort study. Circulation. 2016;133(1):31–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mansouri I, Allodji RS, Hill C, El-Fayech C, Pein F, Diallo S, Schwartz B, Vu-Bezin G, Veres C, Souchard V, et al. The role of irradiated heart and left ventricular volumes in heart failure occurrence after childhood cancer. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(4):509–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van Nimwegen FA, Schaapveld M, Cutter DJ, Janus CPM, Krol AD, Hauptmann M, Kooijman K, Roesink J, van der Maazen R, Darby SC, et al. Radiation dose-response relationship for risk of coronary heart disease in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(3):235–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van Nimwegen FA, Ntentas G, Darby SC, Schaapveld M, Hauptmann M, Lugtenburg PJ, Janus CPM, Daniels L, van Leeuwen FE, Cutter DJ, Aleman BMP. Risk of heart failure in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma: effects of cardiac exposure to radiation and anthracyclines. Blood. 2017;129(16):2257–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, Bennet AM, Blom-Goldman U, Brønnum D, Correa C, Cutter D, Gagliardi G, Gigante B, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(11):987–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roos CTG, van den Bogaard VAB, Greuter MJW, Vliegenthart R, Schuit E, Langendijk JA, van der Schaaf A, Crijns APG, Maduro JH. Is the coronary artery calcium score associated with acute coronary events in breast cancer patients treated with radiotherapy? Radiother Oncol. 2018;126(1):170–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van den Bogaard VAB, Spoor DS, van der Schaaf A, van Dijk LV, Schuit E, Sijtsema NM, Langendijk JA, Maduro JH, Crijns APG. The importance of radiation dose to the atherosclerotic plaque in the left anterior descending coronary artery for radiation-induced cardiac toxicity of breast cancer patients? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;110(5):1350–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jacobse JN, Duane FK, Boekel NB, Schaapveld M, Hauptmann M, Hooning MJ, Seynaeve CM, Baaijens MHA, Gietema JA, Darby SC, et al. Radiation dose-response for risk of myocardial infarction in breast cancer survivors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103(3):595–604.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Boekel NB, Duane FK, Jacobse JN, Hauptmann M, Schaapveld M, Sonke GS, Gietema JA, Hooning MJ, Seynaeve CM, Maas A, et al. Heart failure after treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22(2):366–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baaken D, Merzenich H, Schmidt M, Bekes I, Schwentner L, Janni W, Wöckel A, Mayr M, Mose S, Merz T, et al. A nested case-control study on radiation dose-response for cardiac events in breast cancer patients in Germany. The Breast. 2022;65:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Chung SY, Oh J, Chang JS, Shin J, Kim KH, Chun K-H, Keum KC, Suh C-O, Kang S-M, Kim YB. Risk of cardiac disease in patients with breast cancer: impact of patient-specific factors and individual heart dose from three-dimensional radiation therapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;110(2):473–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim K, Chung SY, Oh C, Cho I, Kim KH, Byun HK, Yoon HI, Oh J, Chang JS. Automated coronary artery calcium scoring in patients with breast cancer to assess the risk of heart disease following adjuvant radiation therapy. The Breast. 2022;65:77–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Dess RT, Sun Y, Matuszak MM, Sun G, Soni PD, Bazzi L, Murthy VL, Hearn JWD, Kong FM, Kalemkerian GP, et al. Cardiac events after radiation therapy: combined analysis of prospective multicenter trials for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(13):1395–402.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Xue J, Han C, Jackson A, Hu C, Yao H, Wang W, Hayman J, Chen W, Jin J, Kalemkerian GP, et al. Doses of radiation to the pericardium, instead of heart, are significant for survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2019;133:213–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Atkins KM, Bitterman DS, Chaunzwa TL, Williams CL, Rahman R, Kozono DE, Baldini EH, Aerts HJWL, Tamarappoo BK, Hoffmann U, et al. Statin use, heart radiation dose, and survival in locally advanced lung cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2021;11(5):e459–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Atkins KM, Rawal B, Chaunzwa TL, Lamba N, Bitterman DS, Williams CL, Kozono DE, Baldini EH, Chen AB, Nguyen PL, et al. Cardiac radiation dose, cardiac disease, and mortality in patients with lung cancer. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(23):2976–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yegya-Raman N, Wang K, Kim S, Reyhan M, Deek MP, Sayan M, Li D, Patel M, Malhotra J, Aisner J, et al. Dosimetric predictors of symptomatic cardiac events after conventional-dose chemoradiation therapy for inoperable NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13(10):1508–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Liao J, Liu T, Zhang H, Cai F, Chen J, Dang J. The role of postoperative radiation therapy for completely resected stage III thymoma and effect of higher heart radiation dose on risk of cardiovascular disease: A retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2018;53:345–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Boursi B, Luxenburg O, Novikov I, Cohen A. Childhood exposure to low to moderate doses of ionizing radiation and the risk of vascular diseases. Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(3):423–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Adams MJ, Fisher SG, Lipshultz SE, Shore RE, Constine LS, Stovall M, Dozier A, Thevenet-Morrison K, Block R, Schwartz RG, Pearson TA. Risk of coronary events 55 years after thymic irradiation in the Hempelmann cohort. Cardio-Oncol. 2018;4:1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tran V, Zablotska LB, Brenner AV, Little MP. Radiation-associated circulatory disease mortality in a pooled analysis of 77,275 patients from the Massachusetts and Canadian tuberculosis fluoroscopy cohorts. Sci Rep. 2017;7:44147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Shrestha S, Bates JE, Liu Q, Smith SA, Oeffinger KC, Chow EJ, Gupta AC, Owens CA, Constine LS, Hoppe BS, et al. Radiation therapy related cardiac disease risk in childhood cancer survivors: Updated dosimetry analysis from the childhood cancer survivor study. Radiother Oncol. 2021;163:199–208.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Takahashi I, Cologne J, Haruta D, Yamada M, Takahashi T, Misumi M, Fujiwara S, Matsumoto M, Kihara Y, Hida A, Ohishi W. Association between prevalence of peripheral artery disease and radiation exposure in the atomic bomb survivors. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(23):e008921.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Vrijheid M, Cardis E, Ashmore P, Auvinen A, Bae JM, Engels H, Gilbert E, Gulis G, Habib R, Howe G, et al. Mortality from diseases other than cancer following low doses of ionizing radiation: results from the 15-Country Study of nuclear industry workers. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(5):1126–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gillies M, Richardson DB, Cardis E, Daniels RD, O’Hagan JA, Haylock R, Laurier D, Leuraud K, Moissonnier M, Schubauer-Berigan MK, et al. Mortality from circulatory diseases and other non-cancer outcomes among nuclear workers in France, the United Kingdom and the United States (INWORKS). Radiat Res. 2017;188(3):276–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Azizova TV, Grigoryeva ES, Haylock RGE, Pikulina MV, Moseeva MB. Ischaemic heart disease incidence and mortality in an extended cohort of Mayak workers first employed in 1948–1982. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1054):20150169.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Azizova TV, Bannikova MV, Grigoryeva ES, Briks KV, Hamada N. Mortality from various diseases of the circulatory system in the Russian Mayak nuclear worker cohort: 1948–2018. J Radiol Prot. 2022;42(2):021511.

  42. Azizova TV, Haylock RGE, Moseeva MB, Bannikova MV, Grigoryeva ES. Cerebrovascular diseases incidence and mortality in an extended Mayak worker cohort 1948–1982. Radiat Res. 2014;182(5):529–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Azizova TV, Moseeva MB, Grigoryeva ES, Hamada N. Incidence risks for cerebrovascular diseases and types of stroke in a cohort of Mayak PA workers. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2022;61(1):5–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Azizova TV, Grigorieva ES, Hunter N, Pikulina MV, Moseeva MB. Risk of mortality from circulatory diseases in Mayak workers cohort following occupational radiation exposure. J Radiol Prot. 2015;35(3):517–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Azizova TV, Bannikova MV, Grigorieva ES, Bagaeva YP, Azizova EV. Risk of lower extremity arterial disease in a cohort of workers occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation over a prolonged period. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2016;55(2):147–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Azizova T, Briks K, Bannikova M, Grigoryeva E. Hypertension incidence risk in a cohort of Russian workers exposed to radiation at the Mayak Production Association over prolonged periods. Hypertension. 2019;73(6):1174–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bouet S, Davesne E, Samson E, Jovanovic I, Blanchardon E, Challeton-de Vathaire C, Richardson DB, Leuraud K, Laurier D, Laurent O. Analysis of the association between ionizing radiation and mortality in uranium workers from five plants involved in the nuclear fuel production cycle in France. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019;92(2):249–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Drubay D, Caër-Lorho S, Laroche P, Laurier D, Rage E. Mortality from circulatory system diseases among French uranium miners: a nested case-control study. Radiat Res. 2015;183(5):550–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Boice JD Jr, Cohen SS, Mumma MT, Hagemeyer DA, Chen H, Golden AP, Yoder RC, Dauer LT. Mortality from leukemia, cancer and heart disease among U.S. nuclear power plant workers, 1957–2011. Int J Radiat Biol. 2022;98(4):657–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Elgart SR, Little MP, Chappell LJ, Milder CM, Shavers MR, Huff JL, Patel ZS. Radiation exposure and mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer in early NASA astronauts. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):8480.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Cha ES, Zablotska LB, Bang YJ, Lee WJ. Occupational radiation exposure and morbidity of circulatory disease among diagnostic medical radiation workers in South Korea. Occup Environ Med. 2020;77(11):752–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Park S, Lee DN, Jin YW, Cha ES, Jang W-I, Park S, Seo S. Non-cancer disease prevalence and association with occupational radiation exposure among Korean radiation workers. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):22415.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Markabayeva A, Bauer S, Pivina L, Bjorklund G, Chirumbolo S, Kerimkulova A, Semenova Y, Belikhina T. Increased prevalence of essential hypertension in areas previously exposed to fallout due to nuclear weapons testing at the Semipalatinsk Test Site, Kazakhstan. Environ Res. 2018;167:129–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Krestinina LY, Silkin SS, Degteva M, Akleyev AV. Risk of death from circulatory system diseases in a Ural population cohort exposed to accidental radiation between 1950 and 2015. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena. 2019;12(1):52–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mueller S, Fullerton HJ, Stratton K, Leisenring W, Weathers RE, Stovall M, Armstrong GT, Goldsby RE, Packer RJ, Sklar CA, et al. Radiation, atherosclerotic risk factors, and stroke risk in survivors of pediatric cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86(4):649–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Fullerton HJ, Stratton K, Mueller S, Leisenring WW, Armstrong GT, Weathers RE, Stovall M, Sklar CA, Goldsby RE, Robison LL, Krull KR. Recurrent stroke in childhood cancer survivors. Neurology. 2015;85(12):1056–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Mulrooney DA, Armstrong GT, Huang S, Ness KK, Ehrhardt MJ, Joshi VM, Plana JC, Soliman EZ, Green DM, Srivastava D, et al. Cardiac outcomes in adult survivors of childhood cancer exposed to cardiotoxic therapy: a cross-sectional Study. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(2):93–101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Haddy N, Mousannif A, Tukenova M, Guibout C, Grill J, Dhermain F, Pacquement H, Oberlin O, El-Fayech C, Rubino C, et al. Relationship between the brain radiation dose for the treatment of childhood cancer and the risk of long-term cerebrovascular mortality. Brain. 2011;134(Pt 5):1362–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. El-Fayech C, Haddy N, Allodji RS, Veres C, Diop F, Kahlouche A, Llanas D, Jackson A, Rubino C, Guibout C, et al. Cerebrovascular diseases in childhood cancer survivors: role of the radiation dose to Willis circle arteries. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97(2):278–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Cutter DJ, Schaapveld M, Darby SC, Hauptmann M, van Nimwegen FA, Krol ADG, Janus CPM, van Leeuwen FE, Aleman BMP. Risk of valvular heart disease after treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(4):djv008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Hahn E, Jiang H, Ng A, Bashir S, Ahmed S, Tsang R, Sun A, Gospodarowicz M, Hodgson D. Late cardiac toxicity after mediastinal radiation therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma: contributions of coronary artery and whole heart dose-volume variables to risk prediction. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(5):1116–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Moignier A, Broggio D, Derreumaux S, Beaudre A, Girinsky T, Paul JF, Drubay D, Lefkopoulos D, Franck D, Aubert B, et al. Coronary stenosis risk analysis following Hodgkin lymphoma radiotherapy: A study based on patient specific artery segments dose calculation. Radiother Oncol. 2015;117(3):467–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Killander F, Wieslander E, Karlsson P, Holmberg E, Lundstedt D, Holmberg L, Werner L, Koul S, Haghanegi M, Kjellen E, et al. No increased cardiac mortality or morbidity of radiation therapy in breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery: 20-year follow-up of the randomized SweBCGRT Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;107(4):701–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Abraham A, Sanghera KP, Gheisari F, Koumna S, Riauka T, Ghosh S, Warkentin H, Gabos Z, Chafe S, Tankel K, et al. Is radiation-induced cardiac toxicity reversible? Prospective evaluation of patients with breast cancer enrolled in a phase 3 randomized controlled trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022;113(1):125–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Errahmani MY, Locquet M, Spoor D, Jimenez G, Camilleri J, Bernier M-O, Broggio D, Monceau V, Ferrières J, Thariat J, et al. Association between cardiac radiation exposure and the risk of arrhythmia in breast cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a case-control study. Front Oncol. 2022;12:892882.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Zureick AH, Grzywacz VP, Almahariq MF, Silverman BR, Vayntraub A, Chen PY, Gustafson GS, Jawad MS, Dilworth JT. Dose to the left anterior descending artery correlates with cardiac events after irradiation for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022;114(1):130–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Tagami T, Almahariq MF, Balanescu DV, Quinn TJ, Dilworth JT, Franklin BA, Bilolikar A. Usefulness of coronary computed tomographic angiography to evaluate coronary artery disease in radiotherapy-treated breast cancer survivors. Am J Cardiol. 2021;143:14–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wang K, Eblan MJ, Deal AM, Lipner M, Zagar TM, Wang Y, Mavroidis P, Lee CB, Jensen BC, Rosenman JG, et al. Cardiac toxicity after radiotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: Pooled analysis of dose-escalation trials delivering 70 to 90 Gy. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(13):1387–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Wang K, Pearlstein KA, Patchett ND, Deal AM, Mavroidis P, Jensen BC, Lipner MB, Zagar TM, Wang Y, Lee CB, et al. Heart dosimetric analysis of three types of cardiac toxicity in patients treated on dose-escalation trials for Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2017;125(2):293–300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Lee CC, Zheng H, Soon YY, Foo LL, Koh WY, Leong CN, Vellayappan B, Tey JCS, Tham IWK. Association between radiation heart dosimetric parameters, myocardial infarct and overall survival in stage 3 non-small cell lung cancer treated with definitive thoracic radiotherapy. Lung Cancer. 2018;120:54–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Borkenhagen JF, Bergom C, Rapp CT, Klawikowski SJ, Rein LE, Gore EM. Dosimetric predictors of cardiotoxicity in thoracic radiotherapy for lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2019;20(6):435–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Chen L, Ta S, Wu W, Wang C, Zhang Q. Prognostic and added value of echocardiographic strain for prediction of adverse outcomes in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer after radiotherapy. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2019;45(1):98–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Cho S-G, Kim Y-H, Park H, Park KS, Kim J, Ahn S-J, Bom H-S. Prediction of cardiac events following concurrent chemoradiation therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer using FDG PET. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36(5):439–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Ni L, Koshy M, Connell P, Pitroda S, Golden DW, Al-Hallaq H, Hubert G, Kauffman G, McCall A, Malik R. Heart V5 predicts cardiac events in unresectable lung cancer patients undergoing chemoradiation. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11(6):2229–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Wang X, Palaskas NL, Yusuf SW, Abe JI, Lopez-Mattei J, Banchs J, Gladish GW, Lee P, Liao Z, Deswal A, Lin SH. Incidence and onset of severe cardiac events after radiotherapy for esophageal cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2020;15(10):1682–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Cai G, Li C, Yu J, Meng X. Heart dosimetric parameters were associated with cardiac events and overall survival for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy. Front Oncol. 2020;10:153.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Dorth JA, Patel PR, Broadwater G, Brizel DM. Incidence and risk factors of significant carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic survivors of head and neck cancer after radiotherapy. Head Neck. 2014;36(2):215–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. van Aken ESM, van der Laan HP, Bijl HP, van den Bosch L, van den Hoek JGM, Dieters M, Steenbakkers RJHM, Langendijk JA. Risk of ischaemic cerebrovascular events in head and neck cancer patients is associated with carotid artery radiation dose. Radiother Oncol. 2021;157:182–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Little MP, Kleinerman RA, Stovall M, Smith SA, Mabuchi K. Analysis of dose response for circulatory disease after radiotherapy for benign disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(5):1101–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Green DM, Grigoriev YA, Nan B, Takashima JR, Norkool PA, D’Angio GJ, Breslow NE. Congestive heart failure after treatment for Wilms’ tumor: A report from the National Wilms’ Tumor Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(7):1926–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Maraldo MV, Giusti F, Vogelius IR, Lundemann M, van der Kaaij MA, Ramadan S, Meulemans B, Henry-Amar M, Aleman BM, Raemaekers J, et al. Cardiovascular disease after treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma: an analysis of nine collaborative EORTC-LYSA trials. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2(11):e492-502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Lorenzen EL, Rehammar JC, Jensen M-B, Ewertz M, Brink C. Radiation-induced risk of ischemic heart disease following breast cancer radiotherapy in Denmark, 1977–2005. Radiother Oncol. 2020;152:103–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Nakashima E, Akahoshi M, Neriishi K, Fujiwara S. Systolic blood pressure and systolic hypertension in adolescence of atomic bomb survivors exposed in utero. Radiat Res. 2007;168(5):593–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Tatsukawa Y, Nakashima E, Yamada M, Funamoto S, Hida A, Akahoshi M, Sakata R, Ross NP, Kasagi F, Fujiwara S, Shore RE. Cardiovascular disease risk among atomic bomb survivors exposed in utero, 1978–2003. Radiat Res. 2008;170(3):269–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Kreuzer M, Dufey F, Sogl M, Schnelzer M, Walsh L. External gamma radiation and mortality from cardiovascular diseases in the German WISMUT uranium miners cohort study, 1946–2008. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2013;52(1):37–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Tatarenko O. Expert evaluation of cases of myocardial infarction in the Chernobyl clean-up workers with hypertension. Kardiologija v Belarusi. 2018;10(4):470–6.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Krasnikova LI, Buzunov VO, Solonovitch SI. Radiation and non-radiation factors impact on development of cerebrovascular diseases in the Chornobyl clean-up workers. The epidemiological study results. Probl Radiats Med Radiobiol. 2013;18:89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Semenova Y, Rakhimova I, Nurpeissov T, Alikeyeva G, Khaibullin T, Kovalchuk V, Ainabekova Y, Yurkovskaya O, Glushkova N, Pivina L, et al. Epidemiology of stroke and transient ischemic attacks in the population of the territories adjacent to the former Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site, Kazakhstan. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2022;61(1):17–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Takahashi I, Shimizu Y, Grant EJ, Cologne J, Ozasa K, Kodama K. Heart disease mortality in the Life Span Study, 1950–2008. Radiat Res. 2017;187(3):319–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Little MP, Pawel D, Misumi M, Hamada N, Cullings HM, Wakeford R, Ozasa K. Lifetime mortality risk from cancer and circulatory disease predicted from the Japanese atomic bomb survivor Life Span Study data taking account of dose measurement error. Radiat Res. 2020;194(3):259–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Zielinski JM, Ashmore PJ, Band PR, Jiang H, Shilnikova NS, Tait VK, Krewski D. Low dose ionizing radiation exposure and cardiovascular disease mortality: cohort study based on Canadian national dose registry of radiation workers. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2009;22(1):27–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Zhang W, Haylock RGE, Gillies M, Hunter N. Mortality from heart diseases following occupational radiation exposure: analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers (NRRW) in the United Kingdom. J Radiol Prot. 2019;39(2):327–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Hinksman CA, Haylock RGE, Gillies M. Cerebrovascular disease mortality after occupational radiation exposure among the UK national registry for radiation workers cohort. Radiat Res. 2022;197(5):459–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Zablotska LB, Fenske N, Schnelzer M, Zhivin S, Laurier D, Kreuzer M. Analysis of mortality in a pooled cohort of Canadian and German uranium processing workers with no mining experience. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2018;91(1):91–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Lane RSD, Frost SE, Howe GR, Zablotska LB. Mortality (1950–1999) and cancer incidence (1969–1999) in the cohort of Eldorado uranium workers. Radiat Res. 2010;174(6):773–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Anderson JL, Bertke SJ, Yiin J, Kelly-Reif K, Daniels RD. Ischaemic heart and cerebrovascular disease mortality in uranium enrichment workers. Occup Environ Med. 2021;78(2):105–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Golden AP, Ellis ED, Cohen SS, Mumma MT, Leggett RW, Wallace PW, Girardi D, Watkins JP, Shore RE, Boice JD. Updated mortality analysis of the Mallinckrodt uranium processing workers, 1942–2012. Int J Radiat Biol. 2022;98(4):701–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Boice JD Jr, Cohen SS, Mumma MT, Ellis ED, Cragle DL, Eckerman KF, Wallace PW, Chadda B, Sonderman JS, Wiggs LD, et al. Mortality among mound workers exposed to polonium-210 and other sources of radiation, 1944–1979. Radiat Res. 2014;181(2):208–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Boice JD, Cohen SS, Mumma MT, Chen H, Golden AP, Beck HL, Till JE. Mortality among U.S. military participants at eight aboveground nuclear weapons test series. Int J Radiat Biol. 2022;98(4):679–700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Boice JD Jr, Cohen SS, Mumma MT, Golden AP, Howard SC, Girardi DJ, Ellis ED, Bellamy MB, Dauer LT, Samuels C, et al. Mortality among workers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1943–2017. Int J Radiat Biol. 2022;98(4):722–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Gillies M, Haylock RGE. Mortality and cancer incidence 1952–2017 in United Kingdom participants in the United Kingdom’s atmospheric nuclear weapon tests and experimental programmes. J Radiol Prot. 2022;42(2):021507.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Boice JD Jr, Cohen SS, Mumma MT, Howard SC, Yoder RC, Dauer LT. Mortality among medical radiation workers in the United States, 1965–2016. Int J Radiat Biol. 2023;99(2):183–207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Ivanov VK, Maksioutov MA, Chekin SY, Petrov AV, Biryukov AP, Kruglova ZG, Matyash VA, Tsyb AF, Manton KG, Kravchenko JS. The risk of radiation-induced cerebrovascular disease in Chernobyl emergency workers. Health Phys. 2006;90(3):199–207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Ivanov VK. Late cancer and noncancer risks among Chernobyl emergency workers of Russia. Health Phys. 2007;93(5):470–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Kashcheev VV, Chekin SY, Maksioutov MA, Tumanov KA, Menyaylo AN, Kochergina EV, Kashcheeva PV, Gorsky AI, Shchukina NV, Karpenko SV, Ivanov VK. Radiation-epidemiological study of cerebrovascular diseases in the cohort of Russian recovery operation workers of the Chernobyl accident. Health Phys. 2016;111(2):192–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Kashcheev VV, Chekin SY, Karpenko SV, Maksioutov MA, Menyaylo AN, Tumanov KA, Kochergina EV, Kashcheeva PV, Gorsky AI, Shchukina NV, et al. Radiation risk of cardiovascular diseases in the cohort of Russian emergency workers of the Chernobyl accident. Health Phys. 2017;113(1):23–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Chekin SY, Maksyutov MA, Kashcheyev VV, Karpenko SV, Tumanov KA, Korelo AM, Kochergina YV, Zelenskaya NS, Lashkova OY, Shchukina NV, Ivanov VK. Effect of dose uncertainty on the assessment of the radiation risk of nononcological diseases among Russian workers involved in cleaning up the consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP). Radiat Risk. 2022;31:21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Shafransky IL, Tukov AR, Sidorin IV, Prokhorova ON, Kalinina MV. Analysis of the risk of death from ischemic heart disease among the liquidators of the consequences of the accident at Chernobyl NPP and workers in the nuclear industry. Radiat Risk. 2020;29(3):129–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Grosche B, Lackland DT, Land CE, Simon SL, Apsalikov KN, Pivina LM, Bauer S, Gusev BI. Mortality from cardiovascular diseases in the Semipalatinsk historical cohort, 1960–1999, and its relationship to radiation exposure. Radiat Res. 2011;176(5):660–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Martin S, Ségala C. Epidemiological study of mortality among workers exposed to tritium in France. Radiat Res. 2021;195(3):284–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Rage E, Caër-Lorho S, Drubay D, Ancelet S, Laroche P, Laurier D. Mortality analyses in the updated French cohort of uranium miners (1946–2007). Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2015;88(6):717–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Sridharan V, Johnson KA, Landes RD, Cao M, Singh P, Wagoner G, Hayar A, Sprick ED, Eveld KA, Bhattacharyya A, et al. Sex-dependent effects of genetic upregulation of activated protein C on delayed effects of acute radiation exposure in the mouse heart, small intestine, and skin. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0252142.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Stewart FA, Heeneman S, Te Poele J, Kruse J, Russell NS, Gijbels M, Daemen M. Ionizing radiation accelerates the development of atherosclerotic lesions in ApoE-/- mice and predisposes to an inflammatory plaque phenotype prone to hemorrhage. Am J Pathol. 2006;168(2):649–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Andruska N, Schlaak RA, Frei A, Schottstaedt AM, Lin CY, Fish BL, Gasperetti T, Mpoy C, Pipke JL, Pedersen LN, et al. Differences in radiation-induced heart dysfunction in male versus female rats. Int J Radiat Biol. 2023;99(7):1096–108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Chmielewski-Stivers N, Petit B, Ollivier J, Monceau V, Tsoutsou P, Quintela Pousa A, Lin X, Limoli C, Vozenin M-C. Sex-specific differences in toxicity following systemic paclitaxel treatment and localized cardiac radiotherapy. Cancers. 2021;13(16):3973.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Lenarczyk M, Kronenberg A, Mader M, North PE, Komorowski R, Cheng Q, Little MP, Chiang IH, LaTessa C, Jardine J, Baker JE. Age at exposure to radiation determines severity of renal and cardiac disease in rats. Radiat Res. 2019;192(1):63–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Mitchel REJ, Hasu M, Bugden M, Wyatt H, Hildebrandt G, Chen YX, Priest ND, Whitman SC. Low-dose radiation exposure and protection against atherosclerosis in ApoE-/- mice: the influence of P53 heterozygosity. Radiat Res. 2013;179(2):190–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Fajardo LF, Eltringham JR, Steward JR. Combined cardiotoxicity of adriamycin and x-radiation. Lab Invest. 1976;34(1):86–96.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Eltringham JR, Fajardo LF, Stewart JR. Adriamycin cardiomyopathy: enhanced cardiac damage in rabbits with combined drug and cardiac irradiation. Radiology. 1975;115(2):471–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Myers CJ, Lu B. Decreased survival after combining thoracic irradiation and an anti-PD-1 Antibody correlated with increased T-cell infiltration into cardiac and lung tissues. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99(5):1129–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Yan B, Hooper DC, Yuan Z, Wang C, Chen Y, Lu B. Autoantibodies drive heart damage caused by concomitant radiation and PD-1 Blockade. Cancer Immunol Res. 2023;11(4):546–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Du S, Zhou L, Alexander GS, Park K, Yang L, Wang N, Zaorsky NG, Ma X, Wang Y, Dicker AP, Lu B. PD-1 modulates radiation-induced cardiac toxicity through cytotoxic T lymphocytes. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13(4):510–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Seemann I, te Poele JA, Song JY, Hoving S, Russell NS, Stewart FA. Radiation- and anthracycline-induced cardiac toxicity and the influence of ErbB2 blocking agents. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;141(3):385–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Sridharan V, Thomas CJ, Cao M, Melnyk SB, Pavliv O, Joseph J, Singh SP, Sharma S, Moros EG, Boerma M. Effects of local irradiation combined with sunitinib on early remodeling, mitochondria, and oxidative stress in the rat heart. Radiother Oncol. 2016;119(2):259–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Kotla S, Zhang A, Imanishi M, Ko KA, Lin SH, Gi YJ, Moczygemba M, Isgandarova S, Schadler KL, Chung C, et al. Nucleus-mitochondria positive feedback loop formed by ERK5 S496 phosphorylation-mediated poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase activation provokes persistent pro-inflammatory senescent phenotype and accelerates coronary atherosclerosis after chemo-radiation. Redox Biol. 2021;47:102132.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP. Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation. 2016;133(6):601–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Statist Assoc. 1999;94(2):496–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the detailed and helpful comments of the three referees. The work of MPL was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics.

Funding

The work of Mark Little was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mark P. Little, Marjan Boerma and Marie-Odile Bernier to be regarded as joint first authors.

  2. Andrew J. Einstein and Nobuyuki Hamada to be regarded as joint last authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Room 7E546, 9609 Medical Center Drive MSC 9778, Bethesda, MD, 20892-9778, USA

    Mark P. Little

  2. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Campus, Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK

    Mark P. Little

  3. Division of Radiation Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA

    Marjan Boerma

  4. Institut de Radioprotection et de Sureté Nucléaire, Fontenay Aux Roses, France

    Marie-Odile Bernier

  5. Clinical Department, Southern Urals Biophysics Institute, Chelyabinsk Region, Ozyorskoe Shosse 19, Ozyorsk, 456780, Russia

    Tamara V. Azizova

  6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th St 2nd floor, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA

    Lydia B. Zablotska

  7. Seymour, Paul, and Gloria Milstein Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, and Department of Radiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA

    Andrew J. Einstein

  8. Biology and Environmental Chemistry Division, Sustainable System Research Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), 1646 Abiko, Chiba 270-1194, Japan

    Nobuyuki Hamada

Authors
  1. Mark P. Little
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marjan Boerma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marie-Odile Bernier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tamara V. Azizova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lydia B. Zablotska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andrew J. Einstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nobuyuki Hamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by MPL. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MPL and all authors commented on subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark P. Little.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval is not required, as all data used are in the public domain. Consent to participate in the study is not required, as all data used are in the public domain.

Consent for publication

Consent to publish is not required, as all data used are in the public domain.

Competing interests

Andrew Einstein has received speaker fees from Ionetix; has received consulting fees from WL Gore & Associates; has received authorship fees from Wolters Kluwer Healthcare–UpToDate; and has received grants to his institution from Attralus, Canon Medical Systems, Eidos Therapeutics, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, Roche Medical Systems, WL Gore & Associates, and XyloCor Therapeutics; none of these are related to the present work. No other authors report conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Little, M.P., Boerma, M., Bernier, MO. et al. Effects of confounding and effect-modifying lifestyle, environmental and medical factors on risk of radiation-associated cardiovascular disease. BMC Public Health 24, 1601 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18701-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18701-9

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us