medtigo Journal of Medicine

|Literature Review

| Volume 3, Issue 2

The Impact of Increased Ozone Depletion-Induced Radiation on Cancer Risk in Pregnant Women: A Review of Current Knowledge

Author Affiliations

medtigo J Med. |
Date - Received: Mar 11, 2025,
Accepted: Mar 14, 2025,
Published: Apr 03, 2025.

https://doi.org/10.63096/medtigo3062321

Abstract

This review article investigates the intricate relationship between increased ozone depletion-induced radiation, cancer risk, and pregnancy, with a focus on pregnant women as a vulnerable population. By examining the mechanisms of radiation-induced carcinogenesis and the physiological changes during pregnancy that may alter susceptibility, the article emphasizes the need for targeted research and public health strategies. Drawing on current knowledge and epidemiological evidence, the paper explores the impact of radiation exposure on cancer risk in pregnant women, emphasizing the need for proactive health strategies and preventive measures to safeguard maternal and fetal well-being. The implications for future research and practice are discussed, highlighting the importance of longitudinal studies, risk assessment models, intervention strategies, and health education initiatives to advance our understanding and enhance health outcomes in this critical area. By fostering collaboration and innovation, we aim to address the multifaceted challenges posed by radiation exposure and cancer risk in pregnant women, working towards a healthier future for all.

Keywords

Radiation, Ozone depletion, Ultraviolet-B, Cancer risk, Pregnant women.

Introduction

Ozone depletion has been a significant environmental concern since the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica in 1985.[1] The ozone layer plays a crucial role in protecting life on Earth from the harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV), particularly UV-B rays and ionizing radiation from the sun.[2,3] However, the depletion of this protective layer has led to increased exposure to ionizing radiation and UV-B radiation, posing potential risks to human health, which has been linked to various health effects, including cancer.[4,5] Elevated UV-B exposure is a well-established risk factor for skin cancers, including melanoma and non-melanoma types.[6] Of particular concern are vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, who may face heightened health impacts from this increased radiation due to the sensitive nature of fetal development.[7]

Understanding the implications of increased radiation on human health, especially in pregnant women, is of paramount importance. Pregnancy is a unique physiological state where the health of both the mother and the developing fetus must be carefully considered. The potential link between increased radiation due to ozone depletion and cancer risk in pregnant women raises significant questions about the long-term health outcomes for both mother and child.

The focus on cancer risk as a health outcome is crucial due to the severe implications of cancer on individuals and society. Exploring the relationship between ozone depletion-induced radiation and cancer risk in pregnant women can provide valuable insights into preventive measures and healthcare strategies to mitigate these risks.

During pregnancy, physiological changes such as hormonal fluctuations and altered immune responses may influence cancer susceptibility.[8] Therefore, understanding the impact of increased radiation (UV-B) exposure on cancer risk in pregnant women is crucial for safeguarding maternal and fetal health.

Therefore, we aim to elucidate the existing understanding of this complex issue and shed light on potential avenues for further research and intervention.

Ozone depletion and increased radiation exposure:
The ozone layer, located in the stratosphere, acts as Earth’s protective shield against harmful UV radiation from the sun.[9] It is composed of ozone molecules that absorb UV radiation from the sun, preventing it from reaching the Earth’s surface, as shown in Figure 1.[10] However, human activities ranging from the release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other halogenated gases have led to the depletion of the ozone layer, particularly over Antarctica.[11]

Regions Most Affected by UV radiation include the Antarctic and Southern Hemisphere due to the presence of polar stratospheric clouds that facilitate ozone destruction by chlorine and bromine compounds.[11] Countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and Chile experience higher UV radiation levels due to the ozone hole. Australia and New Zealand have some of the world’s highest skin cancer rates.[12] Also, in the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere, though less severe than Antarctica, episodic ozone depletion occurs over the Arctic, especially during cold winters. Countries in northern Europe, Canada, and Russia experience periodic increases in UV exposure.[13] Not excluding the high-altitude and equatorial regions, where UV intensity is higher in mountainous regions due to thinner atmospheric layers, affecting populations in the Andes, Himalayas, and Rocky Mountains, and countries in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia receive high UV exposure due to direct sunlight throughout the year.[14]

This depletion has resulted in an increase in UV radiation exposure, including ionizing radiation.[2] The increase in ionizing radiation exposure has been linked to various health effects, including skin cancer and cataracts.[15,16]

The link between ozone depletion and heightened levels of radiation is a concerning environmental phenomenon with potential implications for human health, particularly in vulnerable populations such as pregnant women.

Significant ozone layer depletion has been observed over the past decades, particularly over the Antarctic region.[17] A 1% decrease in ozone concentration can lead to approximately a 2% increase in UV-B radiation at the Earth’s surface.[18] The most pronounced depletion occurs over the Polar Regions, but mid-latitude areas are also affected. For example, during the Antarctic ozone hole period, UV-B levels can increase by up to 40% in affected areas.[17]

The mechanisms by which ozone depletion contributes to elevated levels of radiation exposure involve the thinning of the ozone layer, allowing greater penetration of UV radiation into the Earth’s atmosphere. This influx of UV radiation then interacts with molecules in the atmosphere, leading to the production of reactive oxygen species and other compounds that can amplify the generation of radiation at the surface.[19]

The status of ozone depletion and its trends indicate a complex interplay of natural and anthropogenic factors influencing the ozone layer’s stability. While international efforts have been made to reduce the emission of ozone-depleting substances, such as the Montreal Protocol, Kigali (2016), London (1990), Copenhagen (1992), and Beijing (1999) Amendments, and the impact on ozone layer recovery and radiation exposure, such as the global ozone levels increasing by 1–3% per decade since 2000 and UV Index (UVI) stabilization, ongoing monitoring is essential to assess the effectiveness of these mitigation strategies and their impact on increased radiation exposure.[20-22]

In summary, the intricate relationship between ozone depletion and increased radiation exposure underscores the need for continued research and vigilance in protecting the ozone layer to safeguard human health, particularly in vulnerable populations like pregnant women.

Ozone depletion-induced radiation and cancer risk:
Ionizing radiation, a form of high-energy radiation capable of ionizing atoms and molecules, poses potential risks to human health, including an increased likelihood of developing cancer.[23] It is a known carcinogen, and exposure to it has been linked to various types of cancer, including leukemia, thyroid cancer, and breast cancer.[24] The effects of ionizing radiation on human cells are well-documented, with exposure leading to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage, mutations, and alterations in cellular function that can contribute to the initiation and progression of cancer.[25] The risk of cancer from ionizing radiation exposure depends on various factors, including the dose and duration of exposure, as well as individual susceptibility.[4]

Globally, skin cancer is one of the most common cancers, with millions of cases diagnosed annually. Increased UV-B exposure due to ozone depletion has been linked to a rise in photoaging and skin cancer cases, as shown in Figure 2.[26] UV-B radiation induces direct DNA damage and mutations, which can initiate carcinogenesis.[27] It also suppresses the immune system, impairing the body’s ability to identify and eliminate cancer cells.[28-30]

The tumor suppressor gene p53 is commonly mutated following UV-B exposure. Research indicates that UV-B-induced skin tumors exhibit a higher frequency of p53 mutations compared to those induced by other UV wavelengths.[31] UV-B radiation often leads to transition mutations at dipyrimidine sequences containing cytosine. These mutations are characteristic of UV-B-induced DNA damage.[32] The mutations induced by UV-B radiation are closely linked to the development of skin cancers, including melanoma and non-melanoma types. Chronic UV-B exposure leads to the accumulation of DNA damage, which, if unrepaired, can result in malignant transformations.[33]

The mechanisms through which ozone depletion-induced radiation increases cancer risk involve the induction of DNA breaks, chromosomal rearrangements, and the generation of reactive oxygen species that can promote oncogenic pathways and cellular transformation. It can also induce immunosuppression, reducing the body’s ability to combat emerging cancer cells, as shown in Figure 3.[34] The cumulative impact of these molecular changes over time can elevate the probability of cancer development in exposed individuals.

In a study examining the effects of UV-B radiation on HaCaT keratinocytes, UV-B doses of 20 and 40 mJ/cm² were applied, and Cyclobutene Pyrimidine Dimers (CPD) formation was measured 24 hours post-irradiation. The study demonstrated that CPDs were efficiently induced by these UV-B doses.[35] Another study investigated the biological markers induced by UV-B exposure at 50 mJ/cm² in normal human skin or reconstructed skin in vitro. The study detected CPDs immediately after exposure, indicating that this UV-B dose effectively induces CPD formation.[36] The formation of 800–1,200 CPDs per cell at 50 mJ/cm² UV-B exposure can contribute to DNA damage, potentially leading to mutations, apoptosis, or carcinogenesis if not efficiently repaired.

Research indicates that UV-B exposure leads to increased mutation frequencies in skin cells, with a significant proportion of these mutations being C→T transitions, characteristic of pyrimidine dimer formation. For instance, a study observed that with a UV-B dose of 200 J/m² (equivalent to 20 mJ/cm²), the induced mutation frequency was 68 times higher than the spontaneous mutation frequency.[37] Extrapolating from these findings, a UV-B dose of 100 mJ/cm² could reasonably result in mutation frequencies on the order of 1–2 × 10⁻⁵ mutations per base pair.

Epidemiological evidence on the association between increased radiation exposure and cancer risk further supports the link between radiation exposure and carcinogenesis.[38-41] Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to the effects of ozone depletion-induced radiation due to the sensitive nature of fetal development.[7]

In understanding the intricate relationship between ozone depletion-induced radiation and cancer risk, it is essential to consider the dose-response relationship, radiation quality, and individual susceptibility factors that can influence the likelihood of cancer development following exposure. By elucidating these mechanisms, we can better comprehend the impact of ozone depletion-induced radiation on human health and inform strategies for cancer prevention and risk management.

Pregnant women and cancer risk:
Pregnancy, a transformative period characterized by unique physiological changes, presents distinct considerations when assessing cancer risk in women. The coexistence of pregnancy and cancer poses challenges in diagnosis, treatment, and management, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of the risks and consequences associated with both conditions.[42-44]

Factors that increase cancer risk in pregnant women include hormonal fluctuations that can affect skin sensitivity, immune system alterations, and changes in cellular proliferation rates, all of which can influence the development and progression of cancer during pregnancy.[45,46] The interplay between maternal and fetal health further complicates the assessment of cancer risk, as treatment decisions must weigh potential benefits for the mother against potential risks to the developing fetus.

Current knowledge on the effects of ionizing radiation on fetal development and childhood cancer risk underscores the importance of minimizing radiation exposure during pregnancy. Studies have shown that prenatal exposure to ionizing radiation as high as (>0.5 Gy) to the embryo or fetus increases the risk of cancer, particularly leukemia and brain cancer, highlighting the need for caution in medical procedures and environmental exposures that may involve ionizing radiation.[47-50] The risk of cancer from ionizing radiation exposure during pregnancy depends on various factors, including the dose and duration of exposure, as well as individual susceptibility.[4]

While UV-B is non-ionizing, understanding these effects provides insight into potential risks and underscores the need for further research. By exploring the intersection of pregnancy, cancer risk, and ozone depletion-induced radiation exposure, we can gain insights into the complex interplay of these factors and inform strategies to mitigate risks and optimize health outcomes for pregnant women and their offspring.

Impact of ozone depletion on cancer risk in pregnant women:
Ozone depletion in the Earth’s atmosphere can lead to increased exposure to UV radiation, which includes both UV-A and UV-B radiation. It has been linked to an elevated risk of certain types of cancer, including skin cancer.[51,52] This is a particular concern for pregnant women, as they may be more susceptible to the damaging effects of UV radiation due to the physiological changes associated with pregnancy,y such as increased blood volume and altered immune function.[53,54] It is important for pregnant women to be aware of the potential risks associated with increased UV radiation exposure due to ozone depletion and to take appropriate precautions.

During pregnancy, estrogen and progesterone levels may increase 10- to 20-fold compared to non-pregnant levels.[55] This suggests a potential protective effect; however, elevated levels of estrogen and progesterone can alter downstream signaling pathways, affecting DNA repair processes and cell proliferation rates. These changes can influence the mutational landscape following initial DNA damage, thereby impacting cancer development and progression.

While UV-B radiation is a well-established risk factor for skin cancer, there is also growing evidence that exposure to ionizing radiation, such as UV-C radiation, can have detrimental effects on the health of pregnant women and their developing fetuses.

The stratospheric ozone layer, primarily located between 15–35 km above the Earth’s surface, plays a critical role in absorbing nearly all UV-C and a significant portion of UV-B radiation.[56] However, human activities have contributed to ozone layer depletion, potentially allowing more UV radiation, including some UV-C, to reach the Earth’s surface.

Studies have shown that ozone depletion can result in higher levels of UV-C radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, which is particularly concerning for pregnant women. UV-C radiation is the most energetic and damaging form of UV radiation, and it has been linked to an increased risk of various types of cancer, including skin cancer, thyroid cancer, and leukemia.[57]

UV-C causes direct DNA strand breaks and the formation of CPDs, increasing the risk of mutations and skin cancer.[58] Increased exposure can cause photokeratitis (corneal inflammation) and cataracts, leading to vision impairment and immune suppression, making individuals more susceptible to infections.[59,60]

A study found that exposure to UV-C radiation during pregnancy can lead to DNA damage in the cells of the developing fetus, which can potentially increase the risk of cancer later in life. The researchers noted that the rapidly dividing cells of the fetus are particularly vulnerable to the damaging effects of UV-C radiation.[61] In addition, pregnant women living in areas with higher levels of UV radiation due to ozone depletion had a significantly higher risk of developing both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers.[62] The researchers suggested that this increased risk is likely due to the combined effects of both UV-A/UV-B and UV-C radiation exposure.

While these quantitative insights provide a framework for understanding the potential interplay between UV‑B/UV-C induced DNA damage and pregnancy-related physiological shifts, further targeted studies are essential to comprehensively delineate these relationships in human populations.

While extensive research on UV-C exposure during pregnancy and its effect on fetal development is limited, increased ozone depletion and the release of UV-C radiation into the environment pose a great harm to exposed pregnant women and call for extensive research.

Ozone depletion remains a critical environmental issue, and while UV-C radiation is currently blocked by the atmosphere, any significant ozone thinning could pose severe risks to human health and the ecosystems in which pregnant women are most vulnerable. Continued global efforts in ozone protection are essential to prevent potential exposure to harmful UV-C radiation.

To mitigate the risks associated with increasing ozone depletion-induced radiation exposure during pregnancy, experts recommend that pregnant women take precautions such as avoiding unnecessary exposure to UV radiation, using protective clothing and sunscreen, and seeking shade, when possible, especially during peak UV hours to protect the health of both the mother and the developing fetus. However, the magnitude of this risk is still uncertain and requires further research.

Implications for future research and practice:
While there is evidence that ozone depletion can increase the risk of cancer in pregnant women, there are still significant knowledge gaps that need to be addressed. Further research is needed to quantify the magnitude of this risk and to understand the mechanisms by which ozone depletion-induced radiation increases cancer risk. Additionally, there is a need for more studies on the effects of ozone depletion on fetal development and childhood cancer risk.

Moving forward, it is essential to prioritize the following considerations to advance our understanding and enhance health outcomes in this vulnerable population:

  • Longitudinal studies: Conducting longitudinal studies that track the health outcomes of pregnant women exposed to increased radiation due to ozone depletion can provide valuable insights into the long-term effects on maternal and fetal health. By following cohorts over time, researchers can elucidate the trajectory of cancer risk and other health outcomes associated with radiation exposure during pregnancy.
  • Risk assessment models: Developing comprehensive risk assessment models that integrate factors such as radiation dose, gestational age, maternal health status, and genetic susceptibility can enhance our ability to predict and mitigate cancer risk in pregnant women. These models can inform personalized healthcare approaches tailored to individual risk profiles and optimize preventive strategies.
  • Intervention strategies: Designing targeted intervention strategies aimed at reducing ozone depletion-induced radiation exposure in pregnant women, whether through lifestyle modifications, environmental policies, or medical guidelines, can help minimize cancer risk and promote maternal and fetal well-being. Implementing evidence-based interventions grounded in research findings is crucial for translating knowledge into actionable practices.
  • Health education and awareness: Enhancing health education and awareness initiatives focused on the risks of ozone depletion-induced radiation exposure during pregnancy can empower women to make informed decisions regarding their health and that of their unborn child. Educating healthcare providers, policymakers, and the public about the implications of ozone depletion-induced radiation exposure is key to fostering a culture of prevention and proactive healthcare.

By embracing these avenues for future research and practice, we can advance our understanding of the complex interplay between increased ozone depletion-induced radiation, cancer risk, and pregnancy, and work towards comprehensive strategies that prioritize the health and safety of pregnant women and their offspring. Through collaborative efforts across disciplines and sectors, we can catalyze positive change and create a healthier future for generations to come.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the intricate relationship between ozone depletion-induced increased radiation, cancer risk, and pregnancy underscores the need for further research and proactive health strategies to safeguard the well-being of pregnant women and their offspring. Understanding the mechanisms by which increased ozone depletion-induced radiation influences cancer risk, particularly in the context of pregnancy, is essential for informing preventive measures and healthcare interventions that can mitigate potential adverse outcomes.

By examining the current knowledge on the impact of increased radiation due to ozone depletion on cancer risk in pregnant women, we have gained valuable insights into the complexities of this issue and the importance of holistic approaches to maternal and fetal health. Continued research efforts, coupled with public health initiatives and policy interventions, are vital in addressing the multifaceted challenges posed by increased ozone depletion-induced radiation exposure and cancer risk in vulnerable populations.

As we strive to enhance our understanding of these interrelated factors, we pave the way for evidence-based practices that prioritize the health and safety of pregnant women, ensuring optimal outcomes for both current and future generations. By fostering a culture of inquiry and innovation, we can advance our knowledge and capabilities in addressing the intricate nexus of environmental influences, health disparities, and cancer risk, ultimately working towards a healthier and more resilient society.

In essence, the pursuit of knowledge and the quest for answers to pressing questions in the realm of health, radiation, and environmental science serve as catalysts for progress and transformation, shaping a future where informed decision-making and compassionate care are paramount.

References

  1. Farman JC, Gardiner BG, Shanklin JD. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature. 1985;315(6016):207-210. doi:10.1038/315207a0
    Crossref | Google Scholar
  2. Madronich S, McKenzie RL, Björn LO, Caldwell MM. Changes in biologically active UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1998;46(1-3):5-19. doi:10.1016/s1011-1344(98)00182-1
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  3. Gad SC. Encyclopedia of Toxicology. 3 rd Elsevier; 2014.
    Encyclopedia of Toxicology
  4. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. 2000. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation
  5. Montzka S, Reimann S, Engel A, et al. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No. 52. 2011.
    Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No. 52
  6. World Health Organization. Children suffer most from the effects of ozone depletion. 2003.
    Children suffer most from the effects of ozone depletion
  7. National Research Council (US) Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR V). Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Beir V. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1990.
    Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Beir V
  8. Morelli S, Mandal M, Goldsmith LT, Kashani BN, Ponzio NM. The maternal immune system during pregnancy and its influence on fetal development. Res Rep Biol. 2015:171. doi:10.2147/rrb.s80652
    Crossref | Google Scholar
  9. The Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer.
    The Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer
  10. Brasseur GP, Orlando JJ, Tyndall GS, eds. Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Change. Oxford University Press. 1999.
    Atmospheric chemistry and global change
  11. Solomon S. Stratospheric ozone depletion: A review of concepts and history. Rev Geophys. 1999;37(3):275-316. doi:10.1029/1999rg900008
    Crossref | Google Scholar
  12. World Health Organization. Solar ultraviolet radiation: Global burden of disease from solar ultraviolet radiation. 2006.
    Solar ultraviolet radiation: Global burden of disease from solar ultraviolet radiation
  13. NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory (CSL). NOAA CSL: Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2022.
    Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2022
  14. Blumthaler M, Ambach W, Ellinger R. Increase in solar UV radiation with altitude. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1997;39(2):130-134. doi:10.1016/s1011-1344(96)00018-8
    Crossref | Google Scholar
  15. World Health Organization. Ionizing radiation and health effects. 2023.
    Ionizing radiation and health effects
  16. de Gruijl FR, van der Leun JC. Environment and health: 3. Ozone depletion and ultraviolet radiation. CMAJ. 2000;163(7):851-855.
    Environment and health: 3. Ozone depletion and ultraviolet radiation
  17. Wuebbles, Donald. Ozone depletion. Encyclopedia Britannica.
    Ozone depletion
  18. Government of Canada, Canada S. Statistics: Power from Data! Case study: Ozone layer depletion and Montréal Protocol. 2002.
    Case study: Ozone layer depletion and the Montréal Protocol
  19. Mannan M, Al-Ghamdi SG. Complementing the circular economy with life cycle assessment: deeper understanding of economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Handbook of Smart Materials, Technologies, and Devices: Applications of Industry 4.0. Elsevier; 2022. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-819817-9.00032-6
    Crossref | Google Scholar
  20. UN Environment Programme. About Montreal protocol. 2018.
    About Montreal protocol
  21. Salawitch RJ, Fahey DW, Hegglin MI, McBride LA, Tribett WR, Doherty SJ. Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer: 2018 Update. World Meteorological Organization; 2019.
    Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer: 2018 Update 
  22. Norval M, Lucas RM, Cullen AP, et al. The human health effects of ozone depletion and interactions with climate change. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2011;10(2):199-225. doi:10.1039/c0pp90044c
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  23. NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. 2015.
    NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States
  24. Vaiserman A, Koliada A, Zabuga O, Socol Y. Health Impacts of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: Current Scientific Debates and Regulatory Issues. Dose Response. 2018;16(3):1559325818796331. doi:10.1177/1559325818796331
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  25. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Ionizing radiation, Part I, X- and gamma (γ)- radiation and neutrons. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2000;75 Pt 1:1-448.
    Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: X- and Gamma (γ)-Radiation, and Neutrons
  26. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Health and environmental effects of ozone layer depletion. Updated March 10, 2025.
    Health and environmental effects of ozone layer depletion
  27. Subramanian S. The mechanism of DNA damage by UV radiation. News-Medical. 10 April 2018.
    The Mechanism of DNA Damage by UV Radiation
  28. Katiyar SK. UV-induced immune suppression and photocarcinogenesis: chemoprevention by dietary botanical agents. Cancer Lett. 2007;255(1):1-11. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2007.02.010
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  29. Tang X, Yang T, Yu D, Xiong H, Zhang S. Current insights and future perspectives of ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure: Friends and foes to the skin and beyond the skin. Environ Int. 2024;185(108535):108535. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2024.108535
    Crossref | Google Scholar
  30. Schuch AP, Moreno NC, Schuch NJ, Menck CFM, Garcia CCM. Sunlight damage to cellular DNA: Focus on oxidatively generated lesions. Free Radic Biol Med. 2017;107:110-124. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2017.01.029
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  31. Yogianti F, Kunisada M, Ono R, Sakumi K, Nakabeppu Y, Nishigori C. Skin tumours induced by narrowband UVB have higher frequency of p53 mutations than tumours induced by broadband UVB independent of Ogg1 genotype. Mutagenesis. 2012;27(6):637-643. doi:10.1093/mutage/ges029
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  32. Pfeifer GP, You YH, Besaratinia A. Mutations induced by ultraviolet light. Mutat Res. 2005;571(1-2):19-31. doi:10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2004.06.057
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  33. David L. Mitchell, Rüdiger Greinert, et al. Effects of Chronic Low-Dose Ultraviolet B Radiation on DNA Damage and Repair in Mouse Skin. Cancer Res. 1999; 59 (12): 2875–2884.
    Effects of Chronic Low-Dose Ultraviolet B Radiation on DNA Damage and Repair in Mouse Skin
  34. Yu ZW, Zheng M, Fan HY, Liang XH, Tang YL. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation: a double-edged sword in cancer development and therapy. Mol Biomed. 2024;5(1):49. doi:10.1186/s43556-024-00209-8
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  35. Hegedűs C, Juhász T, Fidrus E, et al. Cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers from UVB exposure induce a hypermetabolic state in keratinocytes via mitochondrial oxidative stress. Redox Biol. 2021;38:101808. doi:10.1016/j.redox.2020.101808
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  36. Bernerd F, Marionnet C, Duval C. Solar ultraviolet radiation induces biological alterations in human skin in vitro: relevance of a well-balanced UVA/UVB protection. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2012;78 Suppl 1:S15-23. doi:10.4103/0378-6323.97351
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  37. Rünger TM, Kappes UP. Mechanisms of mutation formation with long-wave ultraviolet light (UVA): Mutation formation with UVA. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2008;24(1):2-10. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0781.2008.00319.x
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  38. Ali YF, Cucinotta FA, Ning-Ang L, Zhou G. Cancer risk of low dose ionizing radiation. Front Phys. 2020;8. doi:10.3389/fphy.2020.00234 Crossref | Google Scholar
  39. Shore RE, Beck HL, Boice JD, et al. Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear nonthreshold model and radiation protection. J Radiol Prot. 2018;38(3):1217-1233. doi:10.1088/1361-6498/aad348
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  40. Klokov D, Applegate K, Badie C, et al. International expert group collaboration for developing an adverse outcome pathway for radiation induced leukemia. Int J Radiat Biol. 2022;98(12):1802-1815. doi:10.1080/09553002.2022.2117873
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  41. Seibold P, Auvinen A, Averbeck D, et al. Clinical and epidemiological observations on individual radiation sensitivity and susceptibility. Int J Radiat Biol. 2020;96(3):324-339. doi:10.1080/09553002.2019.1665209
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  42. Jacobs IA, Chang CK, Salti GI. Coexistence of pregnancy and cancer. Am Surg. 2004;70(11):1025-1029.
    Coexistence of pregnancy and cancer
  43. Arup G, Shravan N. Cancer and Pregnancy in the Post-Roe v. Wade Era: A Comprehensive Review. Curr Oncol. 2023;30(11):9448-9457. doi:10.3390/curroncol30110684
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  44. Mumtaz A, Otey N, Afridi B, et al. Breast cancer in pregnancy: a comprehensive review of diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Transl Breast Cancer Res, 2024; 5: 21. doi:10.21037/tbcr-24-26
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  45. Troisi R, Bjørge T, Gissler M, et al. The role of pregnancy, perinatal factors and hormones in maternal cancer risk: a review of the evidence. J Intern Med. 2018;283(5):430-445. doi:10.1111/joim.12747
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  46. Holtan SG, Creedon DJ, Haluska P, Markovic SN. Cancer and pregnancy: parallels in growth, invasion, and immune modulation and implications for cancer therapeutic agents. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(11):985-1000. doi:10.1016/S0025-6196(11)60669-1
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  47. Wakeford R. The risk of childhood cancer from intrauterine and preconceptional exposure to ionizing radiation. Environ Health Perspect. 1995;103(11):1018-1025. doi:10.1289/ehp.951031018
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  48. Doll R, Wakeford R. Risk of childhood cancer from fetal irradiation. Br J Radiol. 1997;70:130-139. doi:10.1259/bjr.70.830.9135438 PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  49. World Health Organization. Radiation: Ionizing radiation. 2020.
    Radiation: Ionizing radiation
  50. Lukoff J, Olmos J. Minimizing Medical Radiation Exposure by Incorporating a New Radiation “Vital Sign” into the Electronic Medical Record: Quality of Care and Patient Safety. Perm J. 2017;21:17-007. doi:10.7812/TPP/17-007
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  51. Thrift AP, Gudenkauf FJ. Melanoma Incidence Among Non-Hispanic Whites in All 50 US States From 2001 Through 2015. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112(5):533-539. doi:10.1093/jnci/djz153
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  52. Watson M, Holman DM, Maguire-Eisen M. Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure and Its Impact on Skin Cancer Risk. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2016;32(3):241-254. doi:10.1016/j.soncn.2016.05.005
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  53. Brent RL. The effect of embryonic and fetal exposure to x-ray, microwaves, and ultrasound: counseling the pregnant and nonpregnant patient about these risks. Semin Oncol. 1989;16(5):347-368.
    The effect of embryonic and fetal exposure to x-ray, microwaves, and ultrasound: counseling the pregnant and nonpregnant patient about these risks
  54. Botyar M, Khoramroudi R. Ultraviolet radiation and its effects on pregnancy: A review study. J Family Med Prim Care. 2018;7(3):511-514. doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_311_17
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  55. High-dose estrogen therapy. 2024.
    High-dose estrogen therapy
  56. NASA Science. Aura’s Ozone. 2024.
    Aura’s Ozone
  57. Ramos CCR, Roque JLA, Sarmiento DB, et al. Use of ultraviolet-C in environmental sterilization in hospitals: A systematic review on efficacy and safety. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2020;14(6):52-65.
    Use of ultraviolet-C in environmental sterilization in hospitals: A systematic review on efficacy and safety
  58. Setlow RB. The wavelengths in sunlight are effective in producing skin cancer: a theoretical analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974;71(9):3363-3366. doi:10.1073/pnas.71.9.3363
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  59. World Health Organization. Ultraviolet radiation. 2022.
    Ultraviolet radiation
  60. Kripke ML. Effects of UV radiation on the immune system: consequences for UV carcinogenesis. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1979;121(A):589-598. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-3593-1_49
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  61. Mesa R, Bassnett S. UV-B-induced DNA damage and repair in the mouse lens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(10):6789-6797. doi:10.1167/iovs.13-12644
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar
  62. Olsen CM, Wilson LF, Green AC, et al. Cancers in Australia attributable to exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation and prevented by regular sunscreen use. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2015;39(5):471-476. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12470
    PubMed | Crossref | Google Scholar

Acknowledgments

Not reported

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author Information

Corresponding Author:
Amiegbereta Edwin Ehis
Department of Physics
Dennis Osadebay University, Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria
Email: edwin.amiegbereta@dou.edu.ng

Co-Authors:
Nwabuoku Augustine Onyema
Department of Physics
Dennis Osadebay University, Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria

Amiegbereta Unyenhikhoshe Patience
Department of Public Health
Institute of Health Sciences, Research and Administration, Nigeria

Authors Contributions

Amiegbereta Edwin Ehis was responsible for conceptualization, literature review, reviewing, and editing. Nwabuoku Augustine Onyema contributed to reviewing and editing. Amiegbereta Unyenhikhoshe Patience handled the literature review, reviewing, and editing.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Guarantor

None

DOI

https://doi.org/10.63096/medtigo3062321

Cite this Article

Amiegbereta EE, Nwabuoku AO, Amiegbereta UP. The impact of increased ozone depletion-induced radiation on cancer risk in pregnant women: A review of current knowledge. medtigo J Med. 2025;3(2):e3062321. doi:10.63096/medtigo3062321 Crossref

ALTMETRICS

Citations 1

Cite This