National Academies Press: OpenBook

Review of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report (2000)

Chapter: 2 Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report and Organization of the Committee

« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report and Organization of the Committee." National Academy of Sciences. 2000. Review of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9738.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report and Organization of the Committee." National Academy of Sciences. 2000. Review of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9738.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report and Organization of the Committee." National Academy of Sciences. 2000. Review of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9738.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report and Organization of the Committee." National Academy of Sciences. 2000. Review of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9738.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report and Organization of the Committee." National Academy of Sciences. 2000. Review of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9738.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report and Organization of the Committee." National Academy of Sciences. 2000. Review of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9738.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report and Organization of the Committee." National Academy of Sciences. 2000. Review of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9738.
×
Page 48

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

2 Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report and Organization of the Committee's Report The HTDS was conducted as an epidemiologic followup study of the prevalence of thyroid disease among those born in 1940-1946 in seven counties in the state of Washington. The counties were chosen for the likelihood of having residents who received high (Franklin, Adams, and Benton counties), intermediate (WalIa WalIa county), or low (Okanogan, Stevens, and Ferry counties) radiation doses to their thyroids from iodine- 13~ (13~:) released from the Hanford facilities. The research was conducted in two phases: a pilot study that was completed in 1994 and the full study, which is the subject of the Draft Final Report. It is well recognized that ~3~] is particularly important with respect to human exposure to radionuclides. That is because of the existence of the pasture-cow-milk-thyroid pathway: IT deposited on grass can be eaten by cows, be secreted into the cows' milk, be consumed by people, and result in substantial doses to the thyroid as it is efficiently taken up by this gland. On the basis of data from the atomic-bomb survivors and other studies of radiation exposure, as described in the background section of the HTDS Draft Final Report, young children are considered to be more sensitive to thyroid disease as a consequence of exposure to ~ The NRC committee uses the term "prevalence" loosely as a convenient way to refer to "cumulative incidence", which is what was actually assessed by the HTDS. 42

Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report 43 radiation than are older children or adults. Therefore, the HTDS focused on people who were young children at the time of the releases.The HTDS Draft Final Report comprises 10 sections and an executive summary, references, and several appendixes. Section ~ introduces the HTDS, which began in 1989 and was conducted by investigators at the FHCRC and the University of Washington under contract with CDC. Section IT provides background information on the Hanford nuclear site and activities that led to the establishment of this epidemiologic study. Of particular importance was the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction (HEDR) project, which was started in 1987 to develop estimates of radiation doses that people might have received from Hanford operations. Radiation doses to the thyroid from IT have been the main ones. The HEDR results were critical for the dose-response analyses conducted in the HTDS. Section TI also includes descriptions of the various thyroid diseases and other conditions that were studied as possible outcomes of irradiation from internally deposited inlet. Section Ill discusses several objectives of the HTDS. The primary objective was to determine whether thyroid morbidity was increased among persons exposed to ~3~} released Tom the Hanford nuclear site in 1944-1957. Section {V provides information on the study design. it discusses why the eligibility criteria were related to place and time of birth. An evaluable participant was defined as one who could be located and for whom sufficient information on thyroid disease and for determining radiation dose could be obtained. Outcome criteria, which define diagnostic criteria for various thyroid and parathyroid diseases and other changes, are also provided. Section V summarizes the field procedures and methods and the results of data collection, including detailed information on how the cohort was defined and its members were identified, how study subjects were traced and recruited, how telephone interviews were conducted, and how doses were estimated. Attempts were made to determine vital status and to

44 Review of the HTDS Draft Final Report trace and contact all the living among the 5,199 eligible potential participants. The section also provides information on scheduling, clinical investigations, interviews, medical reviews, determination of final diagnoses, and management of medical records. Section VT discusses three special considerations related to the conduct of the HTDS. The first was an assessment of the feasibility of conducting a similar health study in the nine American Indian tribes and nations near the Hanford site; it discusses the steps taken to determine the feasibility and the decision that such a study would have insufficient statistical power to detect an increase in thyroid disease caused by Hanford releases. The second was a CDC-appointed advisory committee; it discusses the role of this committee in the design and conduct of the study, the schedule and locations of committee meetings, and the openness of the meetings to the public. The third was provision of information to the public throughout the whole HTDS process; it describes the approaches used such as newsletters, fact sheets, and a telephone line to keep the public informed of the activities and results ofthe HTDS. Section VIT describes the statistical methods used in the HTDS analyses. The information provided is related generally to the tests of the statistical significance of exposure-response relationships for various thyroid diseases, including an examination of possible confounding or effect-modifying factors. The data collected were in three categories: process information, characteristics of living evaluable participants, and analyses of exposures and outcomes. The analytic methods used to summarize the data are described in detail, as are the calculations made to examine uncertainties in dose. The possible confounding or effect- modifying factors included sex, age at first exposure to ill, ethnicity, smoking, and other radiation exposures. With respect to the last factor, exposure to 13~} in fallout from weapons tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) is given particular attention.

Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report 45 Section VITI presents the results of the HTDS. Given first are the characteristics of the 3,441 living evaluable study participants, including year of birth, age at examination, race or ethnic origin, medical radiation exposure, occupational history, and smoking history. Radiation doses to the thyroid from Hanford AT are summarized on the basis of calculations derived with the CIDER computer program developed as part of the HEDR project; these calculations were based on a person living "in area" or "out of area" from December 1944 to the end of 1957. For each study participant, 100 dose estimates were calculated, and the median of the 100 estimates was used as the best estimate of the person's dose. The implications of the number of persons studied and their calculated thyroid doses relative to the statistical power of the HTDS results are discussed. These dose values were used with a large number of outcome variables to conduct dose-response analyses. The outcome variables consisted of 11 categories of thyroid disease, ultrasonographically detected abnormalities, hyperparathyroidism, and various thyroid-related laboratory tests. Definitions are provided for each outcome variable, as are the results of the dose-response analyses. Some of the diagnoses were rare (for example, there were only 20 thyroid cancers); others were common. For none was the dose-response trend statistically significantly positive; and for several, the estimate of the linear slope was negative. in addition to the basic analyses, results of alternative dose-response analyses and other factors are presented. Infonnation is also given on the patterns of mortality in the HTDS cohort. Section TX discusses the results of the HTDS. It first summarizes the study accomplishments, including the identification and location of members of the cohort. Other aspects discussed include telephone interviews, medical evaluations of the cohort, and the successful location of a large proportion of the related medical records. Results of the dose-response analyses are summarized: there was no relationship between thyroid radiation dose from Hanford and the cumulative incidence of any of the 13 primary outcomes even when alternative analytic approaches were

46 Review of the HTDS Draft Final Report used. The section discusses the possible influences exerted by such factors as the definition and selection of the cohort, the definition or misclassification of outcomes, the estimation of thyroid radiation dose, and uncertainty. It compares HTDS results with findings in other populations that were subject to irradiation of the thyroid, including the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors, Marshall island residents exposed to fallout from the Castle-Bravo test, residents of Utah exposed to ]3~{ from atmospheric releases from the NTS, and people who lived near the Chernobyl nuclear reactor at the time of its catastrophic release of radionuclides. Section X discusses communication of the HTDS results with the public. it summarizes ways that the HTDS staff used to maintain open and frequent communication, including public meetings, presentations at scientific meetings, interviews, fact sheets, and a toll-free 800 number. The remainder of this section is devoted to plans for communicating the study results to five targeted groups: study participants, the public and the mass media, the scientific community, the regional medical community. and government officials and agencies. To provide a thorough and balanced review of the Draft Final Report and its communication to the public, the subcommittee undertook a number of activities. We met on February 4-5, 1999, in Atlanta, Georgia, on March 29-30, 1999, in Augusta, Georgia, and on August 30-31, 1999 in Washington, DC, to review the report; during the same period, we requested additional information from the HTDS and HEDR investigators. We met in Spokane, Washington, on June 18-19, 1999, at an all-day open public meeting on June 19, attended by about 60 people. We heard from various experts and members of the public who wanted to present information regarding the HTDS Draft Final Report. During the clay, 14 experts and interested members of the public invited by the subcommittee some at the suggestion of citizen action groups presented their views in person and through conference calls. Many of them also provided written statements. In addition, four public-corrunent sessions allowed any member of

Overview of the HTDS Draft Final Report 47 the public to have his or her views heard on a variety of subjects in the HTDS Draft Final Report. (Appendix A contains the agenda and a list of speakers.) To gather additional information for the communication section of our report, we conducted telephone interviews with two journalists in the Pacific Northwest area, the HTDS principal investigator, members of the CDC scientific and media staff in Atlanta, and several members of citizen advisory groups in the Hanford region. We also examined various communication- planning materials that were made available by CDC. Because the HTDS was an epidemiologic study with substantial public-health implications and because there was intense public interest in the Draft Final Report, the subcommittee felt that the study and the draft report should be thoroughly reviewed both for its technical aspects and for its effectiveness and balance in communicating to the public. We therefore went beyond the six questions that were posed by CDC and considered additional issues pertaining to scientific quality. Consequently, the main body of our report is not organized around the six questions from CDC, although responses to them are given in chapter 9 and summarized in the executive summary. The executive summary also provides conclusions and recommendations regarding the HTDS Draft Final Report. The subcommittee's review of the HTDS Draft Final Report is organized around five main themes: · Epidemiologic design and methods and clinical procedures. · Dosimetry. Analysis of results. .

48 Review of the HTDS Draft Final Report Statistical power and interpretation. Communication of results.

Next: 3 Evaluation of Epidemiologic and Clinical Methods »
Review of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $90.00 Buy Ebook | $69.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In 1986, officials of the US Department of Energy revealed that the Hanford Atomic Products Operations in Richland, Washington, had been releasing radioactive material, in particular iodine-131, into the environment over a period of years. This information, which confirmed the suspicions of some people in the Pacific Northwest about what they called the Hanford Reservation or just Hanford, created quite a stir. Both the US Congress and citizens of the Northwest became keenly interested in knowing whether these radiation releases had caused human health effects. They were particularly concerned about whether Hanford releases of iodine-131 had led to an increase in thyroid disease among the population of the area.

In 1988, Congress ordered a study of the human health effects of exposure to the iodine-131 released from Hanford. Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the study was carried out by the Seattle-based Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center over the last decade. The study examined estimate of exposure of the thyroid and rates of thyroid disease because iodine-131 concentrates in the thyroid and that organ would be the best indicator of radiation damage in the population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) asked the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS-NRC) to give an independent appraisal of the study methodology, results, and interpretation and of the communication of the study results to the public.

Review of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Draft Final Report constitutes the response of the NRC subcommittee to that request. To respond to the charge, the NRC subcommittee felt that it needed to go beyond the specific questions addressed to it by CDC and develop a broad understanding and critique of the HTDS and the Draft Final Report. As part of those activities, the subcommittee solicited comments from outside experts and members of the public primarily in a public meeting held in Spokane, Washington, in June 1999, where 14 scientists and members of the public made formal presentations to the subcommittee about various aspects of the Draft Final Report. Other members of the public also spoke during four open-comment sessions at the meeting. In addition, efforts were made to evaluate all information materials prepared for the public and additional CDC communication plans. Information was gathered through interviews with journalists, members of concerned citizen groups in the Hanford region, members of the CDC scientific and media staff in Atlanta, and the HTDS investigators.

In this summary, the main points follow the structure of our report and are presented under several headings: epidemiologic and clinical methods and data collection, dosimetry, statistical analyses, statistical power and interpretation of the study, and communication of the study results to the public. We then provide a brief synopsis of our response to the questions raised by CDC.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!