- Email: [email protected]
Carcinogenic effects of space radiation assessed
Where on the web Carcinogenic effects of space radiation assessed www.nsbri.org/Radiation/ISS-EXP.html Radiation is a major hazard during long space missions. Leaving the Earth’s surface exposes people to a wide range of radiation particles and energies that can cause cancer. Now, three experiments are underway at the international space station that aim to quantify the risks. The Radiation and long-term space flight web page, although a bit densely written, provides a fascinating glimpse of these projects. The first, from the USA, is the ‘phantom torso’ experiment (see image). Radiation exposure studies at the erstwhile Mir space station and during US shuttle missions were limited to tissue-level exposures; by contrast, the phantom torso can calculate organ-level dose equivalents, which are needed to accurately assess cancer risks. Described as a “tissuemuscle plastic equivalent anatomical model of a male head and torso,” the phantom torso contains dosimeters in the head, neck, heart, stomach, and colon areas that provide real-time
exposure measurements. A counter placed near the torso measures external radiation exposure, while another device measures particle energy and direction. A second experiment, from Germany, uses dosimetric mapping technology to study the radiation which causes damage to the station’s protective shield. High-energy particles that penetrate the station ‘leave tracks’ on plastic strips within detector packages; these are subsequently analysed on the ground. The third experiment, from Japan, uses a Bonner ball neutron detector to collect continuous neutron measurements over a 6-month period. As noted on the website, neutron radiation is known to penetrate and affect living tissue – in particular, bone marrow. In addition to providing details and images on these ongoing experiments, the website contains links to earlier dosimetric mapping experiments, to a Japanese website
The ‘phantom torso’ experiment
about the neutron detector, and to a rather upbeat and exceptionally clear explanation of how the Bonner ball works. Marilynn Larkin
The Cochrane Collaboration http://www.cochrane.org Many readers will have heard of the Cochrane Collaboration, but may not know just how impressive an endeavour it is. It aims to “prepare, maintain, and promote the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of health-care interventions”. Archie Cochrane was a British epidemiologist who first recognised the importance of systematic reviews of clinical trials. Thirty years on, the collaboration covers an extensive range of topics in depth, and the website provides an overview of its activities. The main output of the collaboration is the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, published on CD. The abstracts of all these reviews are available on the Cochrane website. The collaboration is organised into review groups, each with a particular topic area, including oncology specialties.
THE LANCET Oncology Vol 2 August 2001
Each group has a coordinator and its own website. Here, the completed reviews and protocols for that topic area are listed. A structured abstract of each completed review is available. The date of the most recent substantive amendment is noted, so you know how up to date the abstract is. My only criticism is the lack of identification of which trials are included in the abstract – a list of references for each review would be a great asset. Although most of the reviews tend to be about treatment efficacies, some cover more diverse topics, such as strategies to increase breast screening participation rates and a comparison of collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples. In addition to the specialty groups, there are groups of individuals involved in developing methods for systematic reviews. These include not
only statistical methods, but also those measuring, for example, quality of life, and using data from nonrandomised studies. Not all these groups have website links, but a contact name is given. There are numerous useful links. The reviewers’ handbook provides advice to those preparing a systematic review, but would also be a useful tool for anyone requiring an overview of a systematic approach to interpreting epidemiological reviews. There is a comprehensive list of email discussion groups available, which anyone with an interest in evidence-based health can join. In summary, there is very little on which the Cochrane website can be faulted. It is easy to navigate, very impressive on content and would be certain to have impressed Archie Cochrane. Mona Okasha
521
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.
exposure measurements. A counter placed near the torso measures external radiation exposure, while another device measures particle energy and direction. A second experiment, from Germany, uses dosimetric mapping technology to study the radiation which causes damage to the station’s protective shield. High-energy particles that penetrate the station ‘leave tracks’ on plastic strips within detector packages; these are subsequently analysed on the ground. The third experiment, from Japan, uses a Bonner ball neutron detector to collect continuous neutron measurements over a 6-month period. As noted on the website, neutron radiation is known to penetrate and affect living tissue – in particular, bone marrow. In addition to providing details and images on these ongoing experiments, the website contains links to earlier dosimetric mapping experiments, to a Japanese website
The ‘phantom torso’ experiment
about the neutron detector, and to a rather upbeat and exceptionally clear explanation of how the Bonner ball works. Marilynn Larkin
The Cochrane Collaboration http://www.cochrane.org Many readers will have heard of the Cochrane Collaboration, but may not know just how impressive an endeavour it is. It aims to “prepare, maintain, and promote the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of health-care interventions”. Archie Cochrane was a British epidemiologist who first recognised the importance of systematic reviews of clinical trials. Thirty years on, the collaboration covers an extensive range of topics in depth, and the website provides an overview of its activities. The main output of the collaboration is the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, published on CD. The abstracts of all these reviews are available on the Cochrane website. The collaboration is organised into review groups, each with a particular topic area, including oncology specialties.
THE LANCET Oncology Vol 2 August 2001
Each group has a coordinator and its own website. Here, the completed reviews and protocols for that topic area are listed. A structured abstract of each completed review is available. The date of the most recent substantive amendment is noted, so you know how up to date the abstract is. My only criticism is the lack of identification of which trials are included in the abstract – a list of references for each review would be a great asset. Although most of the reviews tend to be about treatment efficacies, some cover more diverse topics, such as strategies to increase breast screening participation rates and a comparison of collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples. In addition to the specialty groups, there are groups of individuals involved in developing methods for systematic reviews. These include not
only statistical methods, but also those measuring, for example, quality of life, and using data from nonrandomised studies. Not all these groups have website links, but a contact name is given. There are numerous useful links. The reviewers’ handbook provides advice to those preparing a systematic review, but would also be a useful tool for anyone requiring an overview of a systematic approach to interpreting epidemiological reviews. There is a comprehensive list of email discussion groups available, which anyone with an interest in evidence-based health can join. In summary, there is very little on which the Cochrane website can be faulted. It is easy to navigate, very impressive on content and would be certain to have impressed Archie Cochrane. Mona Okasha
521
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.