Abstract P3-06-01: Occupational exposure to ionizing radiation in female physicians and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Recent advancements in health technologies have enabled minimally invasive procedures with the increasing use of ionizing radiation for radioscopy and fluoroscopy by orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, urologists, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, and plastic surgeons. Concurrently, there appears to be an increased incidence of breast cancer among these professionals. In addition to various other risk factors to which they are exposed, it is likely that ionizing radiation also plays a role in carcinogenesis. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted to evaluate the prevalence of breast cancer in female physicians exposed to ionizing radiation in the workplace. Methods: This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol and was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024553635). PubMed, Embase, and LILACS databases were searched. Also, reference lists from other articles were searched. Mesh terms used were: breast neoplasms, physicians and prevalence. Articles that described the prevalence of breast cancer among female physicians exposed to ionizing radiation in the workplace were included. We restricted the publication languages to English, Spanish, or Portuguese. Article screening was performed independently by two evaluators (MM and YR) using the Rayyan platform. Methodological quality assessment and biases of included studies were assesed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. All statistical analyses were performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) Web v. 8.0.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration). Results: As of January 2024, 2597 studies were retrieved, with seven studies meeting the inclusion criteria. One study was excluded due to duplicate data. Six cohort studies were included, evaluating a total of 34,744 female participants, including 8,103 female physicians exposed to ionizing radiation, and 26,641 participants in the control group, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years (ranging from 10 to 30 years). According to the NOS instrument, five studies were rated as good and one as fair. Meta-analysis assessment revealed an increased risk among female physicians exposed to ionizing radiation in the workplace, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.84 (95% CI 1.11 to 3.06; p = 0.02; I2 = 71%; six studies; 34,744 participants). A sensitivity analysis excluding the study rated as fair showed that the risk of breast cancer in the exposed group still increased, with an OR of 1.42 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.89; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; five studies; 23,854 participants). Conclusions: Female physicians exposed to ionizing radiation during procedures such as radioscopy or fluoroscopy, appear to have an increased risk for breast cancer compared to female physicians not exposed to radiation. However, currently, there are no mandatory regulations for measuring radiation exposure, recommendations for the use of protective equipment according to the physician's body type, or specific screening policies for these professionals. Therefore, the assessment of this exposure and the associated increased risk of breast cancer should be further investigated to enhance worker safety measures and to guide specific screening strategies. Citation Format: Milena Martello Cristófalo, Yedda Nunes Reis, Jonathan Yugo Maesaka, Bruna Salani Mota, José Maria Soares-Jr, Edmund Chada Baracat, Michail Ignatiadis. Occupational exposure to ionizing radiation in female physicians and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024; 2024 Dec 10-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(12 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-01.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,018 | 0,035 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».