Cancer epidemiological situation near nuclear facilities

Relevance. Development of nuclear technologies and their wide application in medicine, power engineering and industry is always associated with health risks both for employees of nuclear facilities and for the population living in the vicinity of such facilities. Adequate assessment of such risks is possible only on the basis of the results of health monitoring of the personnel of potentially hazardous nuclear facilities and the population living in the vicinity of such facilities. One of the topical directions of research within the framework of such monitoring is assessment of specific morbidity and mortality from malignant neoplasms (MN) (C00-C97 according to ICD-10).
Intention. To analyze the main medico-statistical indicators of MN-related morbidity and mortality over time among the personnel of nuclear industry and nuclear power plants and the population living near such facilities, as well as the general population of Russia in 2012-2018.
Methodology. We analyzed basic medical and statistical indicators of the morbidity among the personnel of potentially hazardous nuclear facilities and the population with MN living in the vicinity of such facilities; the data was obtained from the Federal Center for Information Technologies of Extreme Problems of the Federal Medical and Biological Agency (FMBA) of Russia. The results were compared with MN incidence in Russia using data from P.A. Herzen Moscow Cancer Research Institute, a branch of the National Medical Research Center for Radiology of the Russian Ministry of Health.
Results and Discussion. There is an increase in MN primary incidence rate in the medical institutions of the FMBA and the Ministry of Health of Russia. The congruence of the trends is strongly positive and statistically significant (r = 0.932; p < 0.001), which may indicate a unidirectional influence of factors contributing to MN development in patients of FMBA and Russian Ministry of Health institutions. The average annual rates of primary morbidity (354.2 8.9) per 100,000 people, mortality (158.5 ± 4.2) per 100,000 people and one-year mortality (19.6 ± 0.5) % of patients registered in FMBA medical organizations were statistically significantly lower than those in Russia - (398.0 ± 8.5) per 100,000 population, (200.5 ± 0.6) per 100,000 population and (24.0 ± 0.6) %, respectively. The trend of MN-related mortality rate in the Russian population approached a straight horizontal line, i.e. showed a tendency to stability, in patients of FMBA indicators increased. There was a decrease in one-year MN-related mortality rate and an increase in 5-year survival rate in the departments under consideration.
Conclusion. The results of the study may become the basis for developing medical and social rehabilitation measures for employees of the enterprises serviced by FMBA medical organizations, as well as for attached contingents. Continuous monitoring and analysis of oncological morbidity on a personal level using registry technologies are necessary in the areas with potentially hazardous nuclear facilities.

1. Demin V.F., Birjukov A.P., Sedankin M.K., Solov’ev V.Ju. Specifika riska radiogennogo raka dlja professional’nyh rabotnikov [Specific risk of radiogenic cancer for professionals]. Medicinskaja radiologija i radiacionnaja bezopasnost’ [Medical radiology and radiation safety]. 2020. Vol. 65, N 2. Pp. 17–20. DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2020-65-2-17-20. (In Russ.)

2. Zlokachestvennye novoobrazovanija v Rossii v 2018 godu (zabolevaemost’ i smertnost’) [Malignant tumors in Russia in 2018 (morbidity and mortality)]. Eds.: A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinskij, G.V. Petrova. Moskva. 2019. 250 p. (In Russ.)

3. Il’in L.A., Ivanov A.A., Kochetkov O.A. [et al.]. Tehnogennoe obluchenie i bezopasnost’ cheloveka [Technogenic irradiation and human security]. Ed. L.A. Il’in. Moskva. 2006. 303 p. (In Russ.)

4. Korovkina Je.P., Birjukov A.P. Faktory kancerogennogo riska u personala radiacionno opasnyh predprijatij i naselenija prilegajushhih territorij, obsluzhivaemyh uchrezhdenijami zdravoohranenija FMBA Rossii [Factors of carcinogenic risk in employees of radiation-hazardous enterprises and population of adjacent areas which served by health care institutions of the Federal Medical and Biological Agency]. Issledovanija i praktika v medicine [Research’n Practical Medicine Journal]. 2019. Vol. 9, N S1. Pp. 157. DOI: 10.17709/2409-2231-2019-6-S1. (In Russ.)

5. Meshkov N.A. Prioritetnye faktory riska okruzhajushhej sredy v razvitii onkopatologii [Primary environmental risk factors for cancer]. Nauchnyj al’manah [Science Almanac]. 2016. N 5-3. Pp. 309–315. DOI: 10.17117/na.2016.05.03.309. (In Russ.)

6. Planirovanie i razvitie sistemy populjacionnoj registracii zlokachestvennyh novoobrazovanij [Planning and development of systems registration of malignant neoplasms of population]. VOZ: tehnicheskaja publikacija MAIR, N 43 [WHO: Technical publication of IARC]. Zheneva. 2016, 45 p. (In Russ.)

7. Puzin S.N., Shurgaja M.A, Muteva T.A. [et al.]. Vozrastnaja struktura i uroven’ povtornoj invalidnosti vsledstvie zlokachestvennyh novoobrazovanij vzroslogo naselenija v Rossijskoj Federacii v dinamike za 2005–2014 gg. [Dynamics of age structure and level of re-recognized disability due to cancer in adult population in the Russian Federation in 2005–2014]. Rossijskij onkologicheskij zhurnal [Russian journal of oncology]. 2015. N 6. Pp. 34–38. (In Russ.)

8. Samojlov A.S., Udalov Ju.D., Trofimenko Ju.G. [et al.]. Populjacionnyj rakovyj registr FMBA Rossii: analiz raboty za 2003–2016 gg. [Population cancer register of FMBA of Russia. Analysis of work for 2003–2016]. Issledovanija i praktika v medicine [Research’n Practical Medicine Journal]. 2018. Vol. 5, N S2. Pp. 150. DOI: 10.17709/2409-2231-2018-5-S2. (In Russ.)

9. Solov’ev V.Ju., Bushmanov A.Ju., Barabanova A.V. [et al.]. Analiz professional’noj prinadlezhnosti postradavshih v radiacionnyh incidentah na territorii byvshego SSSR [Occupational membership analysis of victims of radiation accidents on the territory of the former USSR]. Mediko-biologicheskie i sotsial’no-psikhologicheskie problemy bezopasnosti v chrezvychaynykh situatsiyakh [Medico-Biological and Socio-Psychological Problems of Safety in Emergency Situations]. 2011. N 1. Pp. 5–9. (In Russ.)

10. Tukov A.R., Shafranskij I.L., Birjukov A.P., Prohorova O.N. Ocenka radiacionnoj bezopasnosti trebuet korrektnyh jepidemiologicheskih dannyh [Radiation safety assessment requires correct epidemiological data]. Jadernaja i radiacionnaja bezopasnost’ [Nuclear and Radiation Safety Journal]. 2019. N 4. Pp. 22–29. DOI: 10.26277/SECNRS.2019.94.4.003. (In Russ.)

11. Hill A.B. The environment and disease: association or causation? 1965. J. R. Soc. Med. 2015. Vol. 108, N 1. Pp. 32–37. DOI: 10.1177/0141076814562718.

12. Richardson D.B., Cardis E., Daniel R.D. [et. al.]. Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS). BMJ. 2015. Vol. 351. Art. h5359. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h5359.

13. Shore R., Fleck F. Lessons from Fukushima: scientists need to communicate better. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation. 2013. Vol. 91. N 6. Pp. 396–397. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.13.030613.