IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v25y2005i2p243-252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis in Assessment of the Thyroid Cancer Risk Related to Chernobyl Fallout in Eastern France

Author

Listed:
  • Olivier Catelinois
  • Dominique Laurier
  • Pierre Verger
  • Agnès Rogel
  • Marc Colonna
  • Marianne Ignasiak
  • Denis Hémon
  • Margot Tirmarche

Abstract

The increase in the thyroid cancer incidence in France observed over the last 20 years has raised public concern about its association with the 1986 nuclear power plant accident at Chernobyl. At the request of French authorities, a first study sought to quantify the possible risk of thyroid cancer associated with the Chernobyl fallout in France. This study suffered from two limitations. The first involved the lack of knowledge of spontaneous thyroid cancer incidence rates (in the absence of exposure), which was especially necessary to take their trends into account for projections over time; the second was the failure to consider the uncertainties. The aim of this article is to enhance the initial thyroid cancer risk assessment for the period 1991–2007 in the area of France most exposed to the fallout (i.e., eastern France) and thereby mitigate these limitations. We consider the changes over time in the incidence of spontaneous thyroid cancer and conduct both uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. The number of spontaneous thyroid cancers was estimated from French cancer registries on the basis of two scenarios: one with a constant incidence, the other using the trend observed. Thyroid doses were estimated from all available data about contamination in France from Chernobyl fallout. Results from a 1995 pooled analysis published by Ron et al. were used to determine the dose‐response relation. Depending on the scenario, the number of spontaneous thyroid cancer cases ranges from 894 (90% CI: 869–920) to 1,716 (90% CI: 1,691–1,741). The number of excess thyroid cancer cases predicted ranges from 5 (90% UI: 1–15) to 63 (90% UI: 12–180). All of the assumptions underlying the thyroid cancer risk assessment are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Olivier Catelinois & Dominique Laurier & Pierre Verger & Agnès Rogel & Marc Colonna & Marianne Ignasiak & Denis Hémon & Margot Tirmarche, 2005. "Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis in Assessment of the Thyroid Cancer Risk Related to Chernobyl Fallout in Eastern France," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 243-252, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:2:p:243-252
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00586.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00586.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00586.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sander Greenland, 2001. "Sensitivity Analysis, Monte Carlo Risk Analysis, and Bayesian Uncertainty Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(4), pages 579-584, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sander Greenland, 2005. "Multiple‐bias modelling for analysis of observational data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 267-306, March.
    2. Richard R. Lester & Laura C. Green & Igor Linkov, 2007. "Site‐Specific Applications of Probabilistic Health Risk Assessment: Review of the Literature Since 2000," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 635-658, June.
    3. Sander Greenland, 2004. "Bounding Analysis as an Inadequately Specified Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1085-1092, October.
    4. Sander Greenland, 2005. "Discussion on "Statistical Issues Arising in the Women's Health Initiative"," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(4), pages 920-921, December.
    5. Paul Gustafson, 2006. "Sample size implications when biases are modelled rather than ignored," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(4), pages 865-881, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:2:p:243-252. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.