Year: 2013
Type: letter
Abstract: In a recent editorial, Peto (2012) states that the ‘single measure of lifetime cumulative dose (dose rate times duration)’ is ‘unnecessary and scientifically unhelpful’, as there is ‘long-standing evidence that cancer risk at a given cumulative dose sometimes varies substantially with the duration of exposure.’ Further he also states ‘Science advances by developing and testing plausible models, not by regression analysis of gross deviations from models that are clearly wrong’; ‘Lung cancer risk is not proportional to pack-years’; and ‘modeling of the variation in ERR (excess relative risk) per pack-year in relation to … smoking rate … is unlikely to be biologically informative.’ He proffers two lung cancer-related examples: radon, where the ERR per working level month (WLM) increases with duration; and cigarette smoking. These diverse examples suggest that he intends his comments to apply universally to all exposures, and therefore: (i) cumulative exposure metrics are never useful for modelling risk; and (ii) variations of the disease and cumulative exposure association by duration (or equivalently exposure rate) are biologically uninformative. In our view, evidence strongly contradicts both statements.
Source: British Journal of Cancer
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.76
Authors: J H Lubin, N E Caporaso
Language: English
Subfield: Physiology
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $5,190
OpenAlex ID: W2093081192