![radiologik dj in russian radiologik dj in russian](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-flDN7nerXIM/T35Exz8P95I/AAAAAAAAAE8/usByl6bjYZI/s1600/ARMANDO%2BY%2BNUEVO%2BEQUIPO%2B1.jpg)
Owing to the small number of childhood cancer cases reported by male RTs ( n=68), results are given for haematological malignancies (leukaemia and lymphoma), solid tumours, and overall childhood cancers only.Īpproximately 96% of cases and 95% of non-cases had parents who reported being white. Estimated preconception ovarian and testes dose exposures were categorized according to quartiles: 3.57 mGy testes: 15.27) with additional analyses for the offspring of males that divided the fourth quartile at the 95th percentile (>81.92 mGy).įor the offspring of female RTs, results are reported for the following childhood cancer outcomes: (1) leukaemia, (2) lymphoma, (3) solid tumours, and (5) all childhood cancers.
#Radiologik dj in russian skin
We excluded offspring who were born after 1984 ( n=23 123 the latest year for which estimated doses were available) had missing, incomplete, or inconsistent data on birth year, parent birth year, cancer diagnosis year, or death year ( n=2859) had reported Down's syndrome ( n=123) or had an ‘other cancer’ reported as a condition of the skin (other than sarcoma) or the cervix ( n=73) occurring during childhood (0–0.17 mGy, 0.18–1.0 mGy, and 0.01–12.6 mGy. The following information was reported on the second questionnaire for up to eight of their children: gender birth year the occurrence of cancer (no, yes, do not know) and its type (leukaemia, lymphoma, brain, or ‘other, specify’ the latter detail was entered into the data file verbatim) diagnosis year vital status and death year. The initial questionnaire was sent to 132 454 RTs and returned by 90 305 of them, a response rate of 68%, whereas 83% of RTs (70 859 out of 85 372) who responded to the first questionnaire returned the second one of which 132 118 offspring were enumerated. Briefly, three questionnaires were mailed to individuals registered with the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists during 1983–89, 1994–98, and 2004–08. Complete study details have been described elsewhere ( Boice et al, 1992 Doody et al, 1998 Mohan et al, 2002, 2003 Freedman et al, 2003 Sigurdson et al, 2003).
![radiologik dj in russian radiologik dj in russian](https://2id-events.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/FEMALE-DJ-3.jpg)
![radiologik dj in russian radiologik dj in russian](https://bestradio.fm/uploads/posts/2016-07/1468960947_djstation-russia.png)
![radiologik dj in russian radiologik dj in russian](https://www.weltklassejungs.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AdobeStock_41610813.jpeg)
The University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board and the United States National Cancer Institute approved all protocols for data use. To date, this is the largest study of childhood cancer risk in RT offspring. In addition, much effort was devoted to reconstructing probable dose levels during periods when workers were not routinely monitored ( Simon et al, 2006), allowing quantitative evaluation of parental exposures. As 73% USRT cohort participants are female, both preconception and in utero occupational radiation exposure effects on offspring cancer risk could be studied. The US radiologic technologist (USRT) cohort is one of the largest groups of occupationally exposed medical personnel assembled for study. The only study of childhood cancer incidence in the offspring of medical radiographers found no significant excess ( Roman et al, 1996). Radiation could increase offspring cancer risk through germline or in utero somatic mutations ( Doll and Wakeford, 1997 UNSCEAR, 2001 Prasad et al, 2004). Although cohort studies of medical radiation workers have reported increases in the incidence and mortality of skin cancer, breast cancer, and leukaemia, especially in individuals who started working before 1950 when both radiation doses and permitted levels of exposure were higher ( Yoshinaga et al, 2004), the risk of cancer in their offspring associated with parental occupational exposure is unclear ( Brenner et al, 2003). In conclusion, we found no convincing evidence of an increased risk of childhood cancer in the offspring of RTs in association with parental occupational radiation exposure.Įxposure to in utero diagnostic ionising radiation (IR) is generally considered to increase the risk of childhood cancer, including solid and haematological malignancies ( Brenner et al, 2003 Wakeford, 2004). Paternal preconception exposure to estimated cumulative doses above the 95th percentile ( ⩾82 mGy, n=6 cases) was associated with a non-significant risk of childhood cancer of 1.8 (95% CI 0.7–4.6). We examined the risk of childhood cancer (1.0 mGy vs no exposure were non-significantly elevated with HRs of 2.3, 1.8, and 2.7.