Residential Radon and Lung Cancer Risk in a High-exposure Area of Gansu Province, China

Zuoyuan Wang1, Jay H. Lubin2, Longde Wang3, Shouzhi Zhang1, John D. Boice, Jr.4,5, Hongxing Cui1, Shurong Zhang1, Susan Conrath6, Ying Xia1, Bing Shang1, Alina Brenner2, Suwen Lei1, Catherine Metayer2, Jisheng Cao1, Katherine W. Chen2, Shujie Lei1 and Ruth A. Kleinerman2

1 Laboratory of Industrial Hygiene, Ministry of Public Health, Beijing, China.
2 Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
3 Ministry of Health, Beijing, China.
4 International Epidemiology Institute, Rockville, MD.
5 Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
6 Indoor Environments Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
In the general population, evaluation of lung cancer risk from radon in houses is hampered by low levels of exposure and by dosimetric uncertainties due to residential mobility. To address these limitations, the authors conducted a case-control study in a predominantly rural area of China with low mobility and high radon levels. Included were all lung cancer cases diagnosed between January 1994 and April 1998, aged 30–75 years, and residing in two prefectures. Randomly selected, population-based controls were matched on age, sex, and prefecture. Radon detectors were placed in all houses occupied for 2 or more years during the 5–30 years prior to enrollment. Measurements covered 77% of the possible exposure time. Mean radon concentrations were 230.4 Bq/m3 for cases (n = 768) and 222.2 Bq/m3 for controls (n = 1,659). Lung cancer risk increased with increasing radon level (p < 0.001). When a linear model was used, the excess odds ratios at 100 Bq/m3 were 0.19 (95% confidence interval: 0.05, 0.47) for all subjects and 0.31 (95% confidence interval: 0.10, 0.81) for subjects for whom coverage of the exposure interval was 100%. Adjusting for exposure uncertainties increased estimates by 50%. Results support increased lung cancer risks with indoor radon exposures that may equal or exceed extrapolations based on miner data.

environment and public health; lung neoplasms; radiation; radon

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; GSD, geometric standard deviation


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Studies of underground miners demonstrate that exposure to radioactive radon gas and its decay products increases the risk of lung cancer (1Go). Although significant risks have been observed for miners exposed to low levels and receiving cumulative exposures comparable to those obtained by residing long term in houses with high levels of radon (2Go), direct demonstration of excess risks from residential radon is needed to confirm the risk of residential exposures and to affirm miner extrapolations.

Several case-control studies of residential radon have been conducted (3GoGoGoGoGoGoGoGoGoGoGo–14Go). Some studies have found no risk with indoor radon exposure, while others are consistent with increasing risk with increasing indoor exposure. Meta-analyses report a statistically significant excess risk from radon exposure (15Go, 16Go) but also indicate significant heterogeneity among studies, although such variability is expected (17Go, 18Go).

Low levels of exposure to residential radon, resulting in small excess risks, and uncertainties from reconstructing historic exposures have hampered evaluation of risk (3Go, 11Go, 19Go, 20Go). To address these limitations, we conducted a case-control study in an area of China where indoor radon concentrations are high and residential mobility is low.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Study area
The study was conducted in Pingliang and Qingyang, rural prefectures in Gansu Province, China, with an adult population of about 4 million. Prior to 1976, most residents lived in underground dwellings; however, since 1976, many have moved to aboveground houses. In our study population, 99 percent had lived in an underground dwelling sometime during their lives.

Underground dwellings consist of several rooms, each a tunnel 5–10 m long, constructed around an excavated courtyard. There are four basic designs: underground cave dwellings, open-cut cave dwellings, ground cave dwellings, and aboveground cave dwellings. Aboveground cave dwellings are constructed on the surface and have thick walls, high ceilings, and other characteristics that mimic underground types (21GoGo–23Go). People also live in standard aboveground dwellings with one or two stories, a single ridged roof and rectangular rooms, and multilevel apartments. A stove, which burns coal or other biomass, provides heating. The chimney is routed under a brick sleeping platform called a kang, then vented outside. Fuel is added to the firebox through an access door located either inside or outside the house.

Study subjects
Beginning in June 1995 and following approval by institutional review boards, we identified all persons aged 30–75 years who were diagnosed with lung cancer between January 1994 and April 1998 and lived in the two prefectures. Cases were ascertained from each prefecture hospital, a company hospital located at a nearby oilfield, 15 county hospitals, and local clinics. We also reviewed records from antituberculosis stations and from hospitals in the large nearby cities of Lanzhou, Xian, Baoji, and Yinchuan to identify lung cancers diagnosed in residents of the two prefectures.

On the basis of clinical/radiologic symptoms suggestive of lung cancer or pathologic evidence, 1,209 possible cases were identified. An expert panel of pathologists, radiologists, and clinicians from the Gansu Department of Health reviewed all diagnoses. The panel excluded 271 subjects because of insufficient supporting evidence or incorrect diagnosis, leaving 938 cases. Of those cases, 43 could not be located, 6 were outside the age range, and 3 had moved from the area; therefore, 886 cases remained (656 males, 230 females). Diagnoses of lung cancer were based on clinical/radiologic criteria for 533 cases (60 percent) and on pathologic evidence for 353 cases (40 percent). Among the clinically/radiologically identified cases, 414 (78 percent) died before the study period ended.

We randomly selected 1,968 controls from a list of all persons included in the 1990 population census and frequency matched on age in 1995 to cases in 5-year age groups, within categories of sex and prefecture. The number of controls in each stratum was based on twice the expected number of lung cancers derived from a 1991 medical records review. Among controls, 6 refused to be interviewed, 23 had moved from the area, 62 could not be located, 73 died before 1994, 4 became cases, and 35 were not interviewed for other reasons. The study enrolled 1,310 male and 455 female controls.

After informed consent was obtained, interviews were conducted at home or at the hospital by trained interviewers using a closed-form, structured questionnaire. We asked questions on demographic characteristics, smoking habits, diet and cooking practices, and occupational, residential, and medical histories. If a subject was deceased or was too ill to participate, the interview was conducted with his or her next of kin, usually the spouse. Surrogates provided information for 481 (54 percent) cases and 71 (4 percent) controls.

Radon measurements
Interviewers placed two 1-year alpha-track detectors in each respondent's house (Track-etch; TechOps-Landauer, Glenwood, Illinois), one in the living area and one in the sleeping area. Detectors were placed in all former houses in the study area that the subject occupied for 2 or more years during the previous 30 years. For quality assurance, we placed colocated detectors in 20 percent of the houses.

We conducted a substudy to investigate variation in radon levels within and between rooms, between dwellings, and over time to provide data to adjust for exposure variability. We placed six 1-year alpha-track detectors in each room (two each at the front, middle, and back) of 55 houses during 3 consecutive years, starting in July 1996. A total of 1,654 detectors were placed in one to five rooms of each house (mean, 2.3 rooms/house).

Assignment of radon exposure
We defined reference age as age at diagnosis for a case and at interview for a control. We designated 5–30 years prior to the reference age as the time-relevant exposure period most related to lung cancer risk (1Go). For nearly all cases (881 of 886) and controls (1,761 of 1,765), at least one radon measurement was available. For 88 percent (775 of 881) of cases and 95 percent (1,669 of 1,765) of controls, at least one measurement was within the exposure window from 1.9 (for cases) and 1.6 (for controls) mean eligible residences per subject.

For analysis, we used time-weighted average radon concentration within the exposure window measured in becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3), using number of years resident as weights. (Becquerel is an international unit of radioactivity; 1 Bq = 1 disintegration per second.) Two controls had elevated radon values (1,554 and 1,676 Bq/m3) that were more than 40 percent higher than the next-largest value and were omitted from our analyses, although this exclusion had little impact on inference. We imputed values for gaps in residential histories due to missing measurements or for less than 2 years of occupancy by using mean radon concentration in the houses of controls, within house type and prefecture (24Go). Alternatives, such as mean radon level within prefecture, made little difference. To adjust variances for imputation, we selectively computed estimates by using multiple imputation (25Go, 26Go), but variance correction proved unnecessary because of high coverage of the exposure window.

Statistical analysis
We computed odds ratios adjusted for age, sex, prefecture, tobacco use, and, where appropriate, other factors by using unconditional logistic regression (27Go). We calculated 95 percent Wald confidence intervals for odds ratios and used a score statistic for tests of trend. We also fitted a linear model, odds ratio(x) = 1 + ß x, in which x was the mean radon level and ß was the excess odds ratio per becquerel/cubic meter. We computed likelihood-based confidence intervals for estimates of ß. Homogeneity of ß across categories of other factors was evaluated by using a likelihood ratio test.

Three important sources of error in assessing radon exposure were 1) detector measurement error, 2) use of contemporary measurements to estimate radon levels throughout the house and in prior years, and 3) missing radon values. Detector error was relatively small and was ignored. Estimation of radon induced classical error, while missing data induced Berkson error (3Go, 19Go). To adjust for error, we restricted data to subjects for whom coverage of the exposure window was 70 percent or higher, thus minimizing Berkson error, so that classical error predominated.

Specifically, suppose that Xi was the true, but unobserved radon concentration in the ith house within the exposure period, Pi was the proportion of years spent in the ith house, and Zi was the estimated concentration. Further suppose that true radon exposure for a person was 25 times {sum}iPiXi, while observed radon exposure was 25 times {sum}iPiZi. We assumed that each Xi was lognormally and independently distributed with parameters µ and {sigma}2 and that Ui was a multiplicative random error, independent of Xi and lognormally distributed with parameters 0 and {tau}2. Then, Zi = Xi x Ui and is lognormally distributed with parameters µ and {sigma}2 1 {tau}2. Measurement data obtained from houses in the full study provided estimates of µ and {sigma}2 + {tau}2, while the radon substudy provided an estimate of {tau}2.

For houses included in the substudy, arithmetic means were 366.5, 338.4, 378.1, 361.0, and 343.2 Bq/m3 for underground cave dwellings, open-cut cave dwellings, ground cave dwellings, aboveground cave dwellings, and standard aboveground dwellings, respectively. The corresponding geometric means (and geometric standard deviations (GSDs)) were 338.7 Bq/m3 (1.52), 314.2 Bq/m3 (1.50), 347.6 Bq/m3 (1.52), 336.0 Bq/m3 (1.48), and 311.2 Bq/m3 (1.58). Apartments were not included in the substudy. Houses had not been modified extensively, so we estimated {tau}2 by assuming that uncertainties resulted from random variations in radon concentration within houses and over time and that residential mobility was unrelated to radon, conditional on housing type. Use of a component of variance analysis estimated {tau}2 as 0.16, or a GSD of about 1.5 for the error distribution. We evaluated a range of GSDs—1.25, 1.5, and 1.6 (or coefficients of variation of 0.23, 0.42, and 0.50)—to investigate the sensitivity of the error on the excess odds ratio.

Under our assumptions, the true value given the observed value, denoted Xi|Zi, was lognormally distributed with parameters (µ {tau}2 + log(Zi) {sigma}2)/({tau}2 + {sigma}2) and {tau}2 {sigma}2/({tau}2 + {sigma}2) (18Go). We used a Monte Carlo approach to evaluate error. For each subject's house, we randomly sampled from the Xi|Zi distribution, computed a "true" time-weighted average radon concentration, and estimated the excess odds ratio per becquerel/cubic meter. This process was repeated 1,000 times to obtain the empirical distribution of the estimated ß and its 95 percent confidence interval. This approach was less formal than the one used by Reeves et al. (19Go) but was similar to the Lagarde et al. approach (20Go).


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Demographic and other risk factors
There were 768 cases (563 males and 205 females) and 1,659 controls (1,232 males and 427 females) for whom radon measurements and data on the primary adjustment factors were available. Although matching criteria included age, controls were older than cases (table 1). Controls were selected from a list of all persons included in the 1990 population census on the basis of their age in 1995. Ages were slightly higher than anticipated because controls were generally interviewed after cases and enrollment was extended for 6 additional months.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Distribution of subjects and odds ratios* for lung cancer by categories of demographic variables, Gansu Province, China, 1994–1998

 
Cases had more education, higher incomes, and fewer cattle, and they were more likely to own a color television and a refrigerator. We adjusted for ownership of a color television and for number of cattle, both representing socioeconomic factors, and for age, sex, and prefecture.

Most men smoked (92.3 percent), but most women did not (10.4 percent). The odds ratio for ever smokers compared with never smokers was 1.69 (95 percent confidence interval (CI): 1.2, 2.4) and was similar for males and females. Empirical analyses indicated that the increase in the logarithm of the odds ratio per manufactured cigarette smoked per day was one third the increase per liang (50 g) of tobacco smoked per month in hand-rolled cigarettes and about the same per liang of tobacco smoked per month in a pipe. We used these results to create cigarette-equivalents per day by summing number of cigarettes smoked per day, 3.0 times liang per month smoked in hand-rolled cigarettes, and liang per month smoked in pipes. Among smokers, cases and controls smoked 17.9 and 12.9 cigarette-equivalents per day for 30.3 and 29.7 years, respectively. We also created a smoking risk variable to account for duration and number of cigarette-equivalents smoked per day (table 2). Odds ratios increased with increasing tobacco exposure and were homogeneous by sex.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Distribution of subjects, odds ratios,* and 95% confidence intervals by categories of smoking risk, Gansu Province, China, 1994–1998

 
Radon measurements
Radon detector values for 3,188 houses measured are displayed in figure 1, panel A. The arithmetic mean was 222.9 Bq/m3, the geometric mean was 176.2 Bq/m3, and the GSD was 2.08. Radon levels varied according to the style of the house; arithmetic means were 306.0, 299.4, 238.7, 274.9, 207.2, and 69.0 Bq/m3 for underground cave dwellings, open-cut cave dwellings, ground cave dwellings, aboveground cave dwellings, standard aboveground dwellings, and apartments, respectively. Detector measurements exhibited less skewness compared with the estimated lognormal distribution (figure 1, panel A). This pattern was similar when houses were classified by indoor smokiness, type of fuel used (coal, firewood, and sticks and twigs), and housing type (not shown).



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 1. Probability plot, arithmetic mean (AM), geometric mean (GM), and geometric standard deviation (GSD) for all radon detector values (panel A) and for radon values less than or equal to (panel B) or greater than (panel C) 150 Bq/m3 for the indoor radon study conducted in Gansu Province, China, 1994–1998. Estimates of AM, GM, and GSD for panels B and C reflect unconditional lognormal distributions.

 
We hypothesized that ventilation reduced radon levels while increasing variability. Figure 1 shows that concentrations of less than (panel B) and more than (panel C) 150 Bq/m3 were consistent with a lognormal distribution, with greater variability at lower concentrations. For comparison with panel A, arithmetic means and geometric means in panels B and C show values for the unconditional lognormal distributions.

Radon exposure
Mean radon concentrations for cases and controls were 230.4 and 222.2 Bq/m3, respectively, and those for 81.6 percent of cases and 76.3 percent of controls were at or above 150 Bq/m3. Odds ratios increased significantly with increasing concentration (p < 0.001) (table 3, figure 2). The test for departure from linearity was not significant (p = 0.10). The estimated excess odds ratio at 100 Bq/m3 was 0.19 (95 percent CI: 0.05, 0.47).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3. Odds ratios* for lung cancer, by time-weighted average radon concentration, for exposures 5–30 years prior to the referent age, Gansu Province, China, 1994–1998

 


View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 2. Odds ratios (OR) for categories of radon concentration located at means within category and the fitted linear excess odds ratio model (solid line), with 95% confidence limits (dashed lines), for the indoor radon study conducted in Gansu Province, China, 1994–1998.

 
Coverage of the exposure window ranged from 8 to 100 percent, with a mean of 76.7 percent (71.6 percent for cases and 79.1 percent for controls). We restricted data by coverage, assuming that greater coverage indicated improved exposure assessment and thus reduced misclassification. Among subjects for whom coverage was 70 percent or higher (463 cases and 1,143 controls with 98.1 percent coverage), 90 percent or higher (398 cases and 1,069 controls with 99.8 percent coverage), or 100 percent (366 cases and 1,045 controls) at 100 Bq/m3, the excess odds ratios were 0.22 (95 percent CI: 0.06, 0.54), 0.26 (95 percent CI: 0.08, 0.66), and 0.31 (95 percent CI: 0.10, 0.81), respectively.

There were 297 histologically confirmed cases of lung cancer. The excess odds ratios for an exposure level of 100 Bq/m3 were 0.14 (95 percent CI: –0.03, 0.54) when confirmed cases were used and 0.20 (95 percent CI: 0.03, 0.55) when clinically diagnosed cases were used. Neither excess odds ratio differed significantly from the overall value of 0.19.

Table 4 shows the odds ratios for radon within categories of various other factors. There was no significant variation in radon effects by any factor except type of house. In addition, we found a suggestion of declining effects with reference age. Type of house, smokiness, and coal referred to the house in which a subject lived the longest, but results were similar for the current house. Heterogeneity was found in the excess odds ratio by type of house, with no trend for subjects living in standard aboveground dwellings or apartments. This difference in trend by house type was reduced when smoking and housing type were included as stratification variables and data were restricted. The excess odds ratios at 100 Bq/m3 (and p values for homogeneity) for underground and standard housing types were 0.33 and 0.03 (p = 0.15), 0.32 and 0.10 (p = 0.35), and 0.35 and 0.17 (p = 0.54) when coverage of the exposure window was 70 percent or higher, 90 percent or higher, and 100 percent, respectively.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 4. Odds ratios* for lung cancer by time-weighted radon concentration, Gansu Province, China, 1994–1998

 
Next of kin were interviewed for 54.2 percent of the cases and 4.0 percent of the controls. When data were limited to subject respondents, the excess odds ratio estimate at 100 Bq/m3 was 0.24 (95 percent CI: 0.03, 0.80), similar to the overall excess odds ratio estimate of 0.19.

Adjustment for uncertainty about radon exposure
Among subjects for whom coverage of the exposure window was 70 percent or higher, the excess odds ratios at 100 Bq/m3, adjusted for error GSDs of 1.25, 1.5, and 1.6, were 0.27 (95 percent CI: 0.03, 0.69), 0.32 (95 percent CI: 0.08, 1.37), and 0.59 (95 percent CI: 0.14, 2.73), respectively, in contrast to the unadjusted estimate of 0.22 (95 percent CI: 0.06, 0.54). Excess odds ratio estimates, as well as the widths of the confidence intervals, increased with greater exposure error.


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
This large case-control study of lung cancer was carried out in an area of low residential mobility and high radon concentration. Mean radon concentration among the controls in our study was similar to that found in a study in Finland (9Go); about twice the mean concentration of radon in the Sweden national (7Go), Winnipeg, Canada (5Go), and Shenyang, China (14Go) studies; and about five times the US national mean (28Go). The overall excess odds ratio at 100 Bq/m3 was 0.19 (95 percent CI: 0.05, 0.47). Adjustment for our best estimate of exposure uncertainty increased the excess odds ratio at 100 Bq/m3 by about 50 percent.

There have been several case-control studies of residential radon and lung cancer in which long-term detectors were used (3GoGoGoGoGoGoGoGoGoGoGo–14Go). Meta-analyses of those studies estimated an excess odds ratio of 0.1–0.2 at 100 Bq/m3 (3Go, 15Go, 16Go). Extrapolations based on results from miners exposed to low radon concentrations result in excess odds ratios of about 0.12 (2Go), similar to the combined estimate and slightly lower than the unadjusted estimate in our study.

Risk estimates from meta-analyses of residential studies and from pooled miner analyses do not account for errors in exposure assessment. Stability of our population may indicate improved exposure assessment, resulting in the higher excess odds ratio estimates. At 100 Bq/m3, estimates of excess odds ratios were 0.22, 0.26, and 0.31 when data were limited to subjects for whom coverage of the exposure window was 70 percent or higher, 90 percent or higher, and 100 percent, respectively.

Three recent studies with enhanced exposure assessments also suggest that the risk of lung cancer may be higher than previously estimated. A study of Missouri women based exposure on CR-39 surface measurement devices and reported an excess odds ratio of 0.63 (95 percent CI: 0.1, 1.9) at 100 Bq/m3 (11Go). These devices measure emissions from polonium-210 embedded in glass artifacts, such as picture frames and mirrors, which may better reflect historical exposure than contemporary air measurements, since the artifact serves as a continuous recording device. An Iowa study enrolled only long-term (20 years or more) residents, thereby minimizing uncertainties resulting from residential mobility (12Go). The exposure assessment included measurements throughout each house, residential occupancy, and time spent in other buildings and outdoors (29Go). The estimated excess odds ratios at 100 Bq/m3 ranged from 0.16 (95 percent CI: 0.0, 0.6) for all subjects to 0.33 (95 percent CI: 0.02, 1.23) for living subjects. A study in Finland enrolled residents of 20 years or more and estimated the excess odds ratio at 100 Bq/m3 as 0.11 (95 percent CI: 0.9, 1.3) (4Go).

Precise characterization of exposure error and adjustment of risk estimates are problematic. Previous adjustments increased excess odds ratio estimates by about 50–100 percent. In a southwest England study, the estimate of the excess odds ratio at 100 Bq/m3 increased after adjustment from 0.08 (95 percent CI: –0.03, 0.20) to 0.12 (95 percent CI: –0.05, 0.33) for all subjects and from 0.14 (95 percent CI: 0.01, 0.29) to 0.24 (95 percent CI: –0.01, 0.56) for subjects among whom coverage of the exposure window was complete (3Go). Depending on error assumptions, excess odds ratio estimates in a Swedish study increased from 0.10 to 0.15–0.20 (20Go). Our best estimate of uncertainty increased the excess odds ratio by about 50 percent.

Our evaluation of exposure misclassification did not account for time spent in the house. Subjects reported spending about half their time indoors during adulthood. For males and females, mean occupancy during their adult years was 11.8 (49 percent) and 11.9 (50 percent) hours per day during summer months and 12.8 (53 percent) and 13.7 (57 percent) hours per day during winter months, respectively. Because most subjects were farmers, time not spent in their houses was likely spent outdoors. For our subjects, the length of occupancy was less than the assumed 60–90 percent found in North American and European studies (30Go). In our data, occupancy was related to reference age, increasing 1–1.5 hours between ages 40 and 70 years. However, we had no data on the variation in occupancy throughout life, which changes substantially during adulthood (12Go).

To our knowledge, there has been only one other large study of radon and lung cancer in China (14Go). That study, carried out in the northern industrial city of Shenyang, included 308 lung cancer cases and 356 controls. Odds ratios for all radon categories were less than one and were nonsignificant. The absence of significant findings may reflect the urban location, the higher levels of outdoor air pollution, or lower radon levels, which were measured in only a single house per subject. Subjects reported a median of 24 years of residency, which represents 19 years in the 5–30-year exposure-relevant period, and a median radon level of 85 Bq/m3, about 60 percent lower than in our study. For subjects in our study who had occupied their current house for at least 5 years, mean coverage was 28 of the previous 30 years, which represents 23 years during the exposure-relevant period.

Analyses of miners have suggested that the relative risk trend for radon is higher for never smokers and younger persons (1Go). Indoor radon studies, including the current one, show inconsistent patterns of risk by smoking status and age (table 5). Excess odds ratios seemed to decline with increasing attained age in the Finland-II (4Go), Missouri-I (8Go), Missouri-II (11Go), southwest England (3Go), and Stockholm, Sweden (6Go) studies and suggestively in our study, but they did not vary in the Finland-I (9Go) and Iowa (12Go) studies. Data from the Stockholm study and living respondents in the Missouri-I study provide only suggestive evidence for a greater odds ratio trend with radon exposure for never smokers.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 5. Summary of excess odds ratios at a radon concentration of 100 Bq/m3 and 95% confidence intervals overall and within categories of effect modification factors in published residential radon studies, with p values for results of tests of homogeneity of excess odds ratios across categories

 
Reasons for the differences in risk patterns for miners and residentially exposed subjects are unclear. Comparative dosimetry suggests an approximate equivalence between dose to target tissue for a given exposure in mines and in houses (31Go). However, dosimetry comparisons do not take into account other differences in the two environments, such as exposure to other lung carcinogens and lung irritants in mines. Another possible reason for the differences is low power in individual studies to evaluate subtle variations, since residential risks are small and exposures are estimated with uncertainty (18Go).

Because miner studies included males only, these studies are uninformative about radon risks for females. Risk extrapolations to females for residential exposures have relied on the assumption of equivalent susceptibility (1Go). There is evidence from the Finland-II (4Go) and southwest England (3Go) studies that the excess odds ratio for radon is higher for males than for females; however, our study suggests no such difference (table 5). The question of differential effects by sex remains unresolved.

A potential confounder in our study was indoor air pollution, since most subjects used coal, wood, or sticks in a stove or kang for cooking and heating. In April 1995, we measured particle-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and air exchange rate in 25 dwellings (22Go, 32Go). Ventilation rates were high, averaging 1.5 air exchanges per hour, and resulted in pollutant levels that were episodic and elevated only during stove use. Except for carbon monoxide and PM10, mean values were below US Ambient Air Quality Standards (for more information, refer to the following Internet Web site: http://www.epa.gov/airs/criteria.html). We did not have air pollutant measurements for each study house; however, odds ratios for radon did not vary significantly with level of indoor smokiness as reported by the respondent. Odds ratio trends for radon were similar by house type after we included smoking risk and house type as stratification variables.

Information on more than half of our cases came from their next of kin, who may have been less knowledgeable about life events, raising the possibility that results might have been affected by differential misclassification. However, odds ratios were similar after adjustment for source of information or when data were restricted to subject respondents only.

In conclusion, radon concentrations were high in our study, exceeding those found in most previous indoor studies, and the population was stable and rural. Results provide evidence that high levels of residential radon increase the risk of lung cancer and support the findings from meta-analyses of indoor studies and from miners. In addition, our estimates suggest that effects of residential radon may equal or exceed miner-based estimates, which are currently used to evaluate risk.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was partially supported by Interagency Agreement Y01-CP5-0260 between the US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Cancer Institute.

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Drs. Jiguo Shi, Yuelan Kang, Datong Zhao, Fuhui Du, and Yucheng Wang for identifying lung cancer cases, and they thank the many local investigators from Pingliang and Qingyang Prefectures for their assistance with data collection. The authors also thank all those persons who contributed to part of the project as well as Margaret Pacious and Lew Gaul of WESTAT, Inc. for program management and data processing support for this study.


    NOTES
 
Correspondence to Dr. Jay H. Lubin, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, EPS/8042, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-7244 (e-mail: lubinj{at}exchange.nih.gov).


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. National Research Council. Health effects of exposure to radon: Committee on Health Risks of Exposure to Radon (BEIR VI). Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.
  2. Lubin JH, Tomasek L, Edling C, et al. Estimating lung cancer mortality from residential radon using data for low exposures of miners. Radiat Res 1997;147:126–34. (Comments published in Radiat Res 1997;147:135–7).[ISI][Medline]
  3. Darby S, Whitley E, Silcocks P, et al. Risk of lung cancer associated with residential radon exposure in southwest England: a case-control study. Br J Cancer 1998;78:394–408.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Auvinen A, Makelainen I, Hakama M, et al. Indoor radon exposure and risk of lung cancer: a nested case-control study in Finland. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:966–72. (Erratum published in J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:401–2).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Letourneau EG, Krewski D, Choi NW, et al. Case-control study of residential radon and lung cancer in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:310–22.[Abstract]
  6. Pershagen G, Liang ZH, Hrubec Z, et al. Residential radon exposure and lung cancer in Swedish women. Health Phys 1992;63:179–86.[ISI][Medline]
  7. Pershagen G, Akerblom G, Axelson O, et al. Residential radon exposure and lung cancer in Sweden. N Engl J Med 1994;330:159–64.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Alavanja MC, Brownson RC, Lubin JH, et al. Residential radon exposure and lung cancer among nonsmoking women. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1829–37.[Abstract]
  9. Ruosteenoja E, Makelainen I, Rytomaa T, et al. Radon and lung cancer in Finland. Health Phys 1996;71:185–9.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Schoenberg JB, Klotz JB, Wilcox HB, et al. Case-control study of residential radon and lung cancer among New Jersey women. Cancer Res 1990;50:6520–4.[Abstract]
  11. Alavanja MC, Lubin JH, Mahaffey JA, et al. Residential radon exposure and risk of lung cancer in Missouri. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1042–8.[Abstract]
  12. Field RW, Steck DJ, Smith BJ, et al. Residential radon gas exposure and lung cancer: the Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study. Am J Epidemiol 2000;151:1091–102.[Abstract]
  13. Kreienbrock L, Kreuzer M, Gerken M, et al. Case-control study on lung cancer and residential radon in western Germany. Am J Epidemiol 2001;153:42–52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Blot WJ, Xu ZY, Boice JD Jr, et al. Indoor radon and lung cancer in China. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:1025–30.[Abstract]
  15. Lubin JH, Boice JD Jr. Lung cancer risk from residential radon: meta-analysis of eight epidemiologic studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:49–57. (Comments published in J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:4–6, 663–5).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Lubin J. Indoor radon and risk of lung cancer. Radiat Res 1999;151:105–7.[ISI]
  17. Lubin JH, Samet JM, Weinberg C. Design issues in epidemiologic studies of indoor exposure to Rn and risk of lung cancer. Health Phys 1990;59:807–17.[ISI][Medline]
  18. Lubin JH, Boice JD Jr, Samet JM. Errors in exposure assessment, statistical power and the interpretation of residential radon studies. Radiat Res 1995;144:329–41.[ISI][Medline]
  19. Reeves GK, Cox DR, Darby SC, et al. Some aspects of measurement error in explanatory variables for continuous and binary regression models. Stat Med 1998;17:2157–77.[ISI][Medline]
  20. Lagarde F, Pershagen G, Akerblom G, et al. Residential radon and lung cancer in Sweden: risk analysis accounting for random error in the exposure assessment. Health Phys 1997;72:269–76. (Comments published in Health Phys 1997;73:272–3, 393–5).[ISI][Medline]
  21. Golany GS. Chinese earth-sheltered dwellings. Indigenous lessons for modern urban design. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1992.
  22. Ligman B, Shaughnessy R, Kleinerman R, et al. Indoor air pollution characterization of underground dwellings in China. In: Woods JE, Grimsrud DT, Boschi N, eds. Proceedings of healthy buildings/indoor air quality '97. Vol 3. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Press, 1997:51–6.
  23. Wang ZY, Lubin JH, Wang LD, et al. Radon measurements in underground dwellings from two prefectures in China. Health Phys 1996;70:192–8.[ISI][Medline]
  24. Weinberg CR, Moledor ES, Umbach DM, et al. Imputation for exposure histories with gaps, under an excess relative risk model. Epidemiology 1996;7:490–7.[ISI][Medline]
  25. Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.
  26. Schafer JL. Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London, United Kingdom: Chapman & Hall, 1997.
  27. Preston DL, Lubin JH, Pierce DA, et al. Epicure user's guide. Seattle, WA: HiroSoft International Corporation, 1996.
  28. US Environmental Protection Agency. National residential radon survey: summary report. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. (EPA 402-R-92-011).
  29. Steck DJ, Field RW, Lynch CF. Exposure to atmospheric radon. Environ Health Perspect 1999;107:123–7.[ISI][Medline]
  30. Francis EA. Patterns of building occupancy for the general public. NRPB Memorandum129. Chilton, United Kingdom: National Radiological Protection Board, 1986.
  31. National Research Council. Panel on Dosimetric Assumptions Affecting the Application of Radon Risk Estimates. Comparative dosimetry of radon in homes & mines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.
  32. Shaughnessy R, Ligmann B, Fisher E, et al. Exploratory survey of combustion-related particle concentrations in cave dwellings in China. In: Woods JE, Grimsrud DT, Boschi N, eds. Proceedings of healthy buildings/indoor air quality '97. Vol 3. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Press, 1997:57–62.
Received for publication June 13, 2001. Accepted for publication September 18, 2001.