K Steenland1, L Stayner, J Deddens. 1. Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA. nsteenl@sph.emory.edu
Abstract
AIMS: To extend mortality follow up from 1987 to 1998 for cohort of 18 235 men and women exposed to ethylene oxide. METHODS: Standard mortality follow up, life table and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 2852 deaths, compared with 1177 in the earlier 1987 follow up. There was no overall excess of haematopoietic cancers combined or of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. However, internal exposure-response analyses found positive trends for haematopoietic cancers which were limited to males (15 year lag). The trend in haematopoietic cancer was driven by lymphoid tumours (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, myeloma, lymphocytic leukaemia), which also have a positive trend with cumulative exposure for males with a 15 year lag. Haematopoietic cancer trends were somewhat weaker in this analysis than trends in the earlier follow up, and analyses restricted to the post-1987 data did not show any significant positive trends (exposure levels dropped sharply in the early 1980s). Breast cancer did not show any overall excess, although there was an excess in the highest cumulative exposure quartile using a 20 year lag. Internal exposure-response analyses found positive trend for breast cancer using the log of cumulative exposure with a 20 year lag. CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence of any excess cancer mortality for the cohort as a whole, with the exception of bone cancer based on small numbers. Positive exposure-response trends for lymphoid tumours were found for males only. Reasons for the sex specificity of this effect are not known. There was also some evidence of a positive exposure-response for breast cancer mortality.
AIMS: To extend mortality follow up from 1987 to 1998 for cohort of 18 235 men and women exposed to ethylene oxide. METHODS: Standard mortality follow up, life table and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 2852 deaths, compared with 1177 in the earlier 1987 follow up. There was no overall excess of haematopoietic cancers combined or of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. However, internal exposure-response analyses found positive trends for haematopoietic cancers which were limited to males (15 year lag). The trend in haematopoietic cancer was driven by lymphoid tumours (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, myeloma, lymphocytic leukaemia), which also have a positive trend with cumulative exposure for males with a 15 year lag. Haematopoietic cancer trends were somewhat weaker in this analysis than trends in the earlier follow up, and analyses restricted to the post-1987 data did not show any significant positive trends (exposure levels dropped sharply in the early 1980s). Breast cancer did not show any overall excess, although there was an excess in the highest cumulative exposure quartile using a 20 year lag. Internal exposure-response analyses found positive trend for breast cancer using the log of cumulative exposure with a 20 year lag. CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence of any excess cancer mortality for the cohort as a whole, with the exception of bone cancer based on small numbers. Positive exposure-response trends for lymphoid tumours were found for males only. Reasons for the sex specificity of this effect are not known. There was also some evidence of a positive exposure-response for breast cancer mortality.
Authors: K Steenland; A Mannetje; P Boffetta; L Stayner; M Attfield; J Chen; M Dosemeci; N DeKlerk; E Hnizdo; R Koskela; H Checkoway Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: N L Harris; E S Jaffe; J Diebold; G Flandrin; H K Muller-Hermelink; J Vardiman; T A Lister; C D Bloomfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kyle Steenland; Elizabeth Whelan; James Deddens; Leslie Stayner; Elizabeth Ward Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: L Hagmar; H Welinder; K Lindén; R Attewell; S Osterman-Golkar; M Törnqvist Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 1991 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Gary M Marsh; Kara A Keeton; Alexander S Riordan; Elizabeth A Best; Stacey M Benson Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Andrea Hartwig; Michael Arand; Bernd Epe; Sabine Guth; Gunnar Jahnke; Alfonso Lampen; Hans-Jörg Martus; Bernhard Monien; Ivonne M C M Rietjens; Simone Schmitz-Spanke; Gerlinde Schriever-Schwemmer; Pablo Steinberg; Gerhard Eisenbrand Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 5.153
Authors: Kevin D Shield; D Maxwell Parkin; David C Whiteman; Jürgen Rehm; Vivian Viallon; Claire Marant Micallef; Paolo Vineis; Lesley Rushton; Freddie Bray; Isabelle Soerjomataram Journal: Curr Epidemiol Rep Date: 2016-08-01
Authors: Kenneth T Bogen; Patrick J Sheehan; Ciriaco Valdez-Flores; Abby A Li Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Melissa J Vincent; Jordan S Kozal; William J Thompson; Andrew Maier; G Scott Dotson; Elizabeth A Best; Kenneth A Mundt Journal: Dose Response Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 2.658
Authors: Eduardo P Olaguer; Amy Robinson; Susan Kilmer; James Haywood; Doreen Lehner Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 3.390