English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To the Editor:  We took a great interest in reading the paper that analyzed cancer risks of residents living near nuclear power plants (NPPs) in South Korea (the KREEC-R Study) (1). This is the first and the only prospective cohort study on this topic in Korea, and even one of the few worldwide.  The KREEC-R group concluded that there was no epidemiological evidence to support an increased cancer risk due to radiation from NPPs, and suggested that "radiological study results or surveillance data of radiation doses around NPPs could be well documented for risk estimation of radio-inducible cancers, instead of long-term epidemiological study results."  However, before reaching such conclusions, we suggest the following limitations of the study should be addressed first.  First, the control groups of the study are not comparable to the exposed group in many ways, especially in socioeconomic status. According to the detailed technical report of this study (2), at least 10% of the male participants in the exposed and control groups did not graduate elementary school, while the national average figure for males older than 19 years is only 3.3% (derived from the 2,000 census). In addition, 28.7% of the exposed, 20.0% of the intermediate control ('control-1'), and 9.4% of the remote control ('control-2') group had a college degree or higher, while 28.1% of male adults in the nation did so. Overall, the cohort members were in lower socioeconomic positions than the national average, and this gap was especially large for the remote control group. It is well known that a lower socioeconomic position is associated with an increased cancer risk (3, 4). If the baseline cancer risk of the control group was higher than that of the general population as well as that of the exposed group, then the relative risk of the exposed group with reference to the control group could have been underestimated.  Second, if the key independent variable of this study was the time living near NPPs as a proxy for cumulative radiation exposure, the exposure time (time at risk) and eligibility criteria should have been defined differently. Before the enrollment of cohort members, NPPs had already begun operation; for example, the first NPP in Korea (Gori #1 plant) started commercial operation in 1978 (2). As the KREEC-R study had enrolled the members with a series of baseline surveys between 1992 and 2005, some participants could have been exposed for up to 27 years even before their enrollment in the cohort. Consequently, by excluding all cancer cases in the baseline survey, the study had effectively removed those who might have developed NPPs related cancer before the baseline survey. In fact, according to the technical report (2), the KREEC-R group identified 150 and 377 prevalent cases for the exposed and unexposed cohorts, respectively; these numbers are not negligible compared to the newly developed cases of 705 and 1,593 during the follow-up period. The valid way should have been to exclude only those who developed cancer before their exposure, that is, residence near NPPs, or before the midst of the minimum latency period (5, 6).  Third, if one constructs multivariate models by selecting covariates based only on statistical association (or significance), variables of known risks could have been omitted (7, 8). For example, none of smoking or drinking variables was included in the multivariate Cox proportional hazard models for females because the authors relied exclusively on statistical significance for selecting covariates. In addition, it was not appropriate to use the same multivariate model with the same but limited covariates repeatedly for different types of cancer despite the known heterogeneity of the risk factors across various cancers.  Fourth, the gender difference in cancer epidemiology is a well-known fact (9, 10, 11). Even if the exact mechanism is not clear, it cannot be disregarded as a "self-contradictory" (1) phenomenon. There are many ways to explain the difference, including differences in exposure, biological response, or access to health care, and the study finding of increased cancer risk in only one gender should be explored and explained more cautiously.  Finally, before we reach any conclusion about health effects from NPPs, we have to examine the most vulnerable group. However, the KREEC-R study had targeted only adults older than 19 years. It is well known that children and adolescents are more sensitive to ionizing radiation. Children should have been the main subjects of studies of the environmental cancer risk (12), and even the U.S. National Research Council recommended a record-linkage based case-control study of cancers in children born near nuclear facilities (6).  Considering these limitations, we believe that further studies are warranted, including re-analysis of the existing data, before drawing a hasty conclusion that epidemiologic studies are no longer necessary.

Re: Cancer Risk in Adult Residents Near Nuclear Power Plants in Korea: A Cohort Study of 1992-2010