Abstract
A re-analysis has been carried out of thirty-two case-control and two ecological studies concerning the influence of radon, a radioactive gas, on the risk of lung cancer. Three mathematically simplest dose-response relationships (models) were tested: constant (zero health effect), linear, and parabolic (linear-quadratic). Health effect end-points reported in the analysed studies are odds ratios or relative risk ratios, related either to morbidity or mortality. In our preliminary analysis, we show that the results of dose-response fitting are qualitatively (within uncertainties, given as error bars) the same, whichever of these health effect end-points are applied. Therefore, we deemed it reasonable to aggregate all response data into the so-called Relative Health Factor and jointly analysed such mixed data, to obtain better statistical power. In the second part of our analysis, robust Bayesian and classical methods of analysis were applied to this combined dataset. In this part of our analysis, we selected different subranges of radon concentrations. In view of substantial differences between the methodology used by the authors of case-control and ecological studies, the mathematical relationships (models) were applied mainly to the thirty-two case-control studies. The degree to which the two ecological studies, analysed separately, affect the overall results when combined with the thirty-two case-control studies, has also been evaluated. In all, as a result of our meta-analysis of the combined cohort, we conclude that the analysed data concerning radon concentrations below ~1000 Bq/m3 (~20 mSv/year of effective dose to the whole body) do not support the thesis that radon may be a cause of any statistically significant increase in lung cancer incidence.