PURPOSE: The aim was to identify the scope of the epidemiology literature reviewed regarding the risk of cancer as related to occupational exposure to pesticides and to compare regulatory toxicity results where feasible. METHODS: Review studies of breast, lung, prostate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and colorectal cancer were identified from the published literature from 2010 to 2020 using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Epidemiology observations were first assessed and then compared against carcinogenicity profiles derived from regulatory toxicology studies. RESULTS: Several active ingredients were associated with specific cancer but overall, there was neither strong nor consistent epidemiologic data supportive of a positive association between pesticide exposure in occupational settings and cancer. Authors noted common themes related to the heterogeneity of exposure, study design, control for confounders, and the challenge to collect these data reliably and validly with an adequate sample size. Toxicology studies in laboratory animals that assessed carcinogenic potential did not reveal cancer outcomes that were concordant with reported epidemiologic findings. CONCLUSIONS: Farming and pesticides represent diverse exposures that are difficult to quantify in epidemiologic studies. Going forward, investigators will need creative and novel approaches for exposure assessment. Integration of epidemiologic and toxicological studies with attention to biological plausibility, mode of toxicological action and relevance to humans will increase the ability to better assess associations between pesticides and cancer.
PURPOSE: The aim was to identify the scope of the epidemiology literature reviewed regarding the risk of cancer as related to occupational exposure to pesticides and to compare regulatory toxicity results where feasible. METHODS: Review studies of breast, lung, prostate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and colorectal cancer were identified from the published literature from 2010 to 2020 using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Epidemiology observations were first assessed and then compared against carcinogenicity profiles derived from regulatory toxicology studies. RESULTS: Several active ingredients were associated with specific cancer but overall, there was neither strong nor consistent epidemiologic data supportive of a positive association between pesticide exposure in occupational settings and cancer. Authors noted common themes related to the heterogeneity of exposure, study design, control for confounders, and the challenge to collect these data reliably and validly with an adequate sample size. Toxicology studies in laboratory animals that assessed carcinogenic potential did not reveal cancer outcomes that were concordant with reported epidemiologic findings. CONCLUSIONS: Farming and pesticides represent diverse exposures that are difficult to quantify in epidemiologic studies. Going forward, investigators will need creative and novel approaches for exposure assessment. Integration of epidemiologic and toxicological studies with attention to biological plausibility, mode of toxicological action and relevance to humans will increase the ability to better assess associations between pesticides and cancer.
Authors: Jonathan D Nilles; Dooyoung Lim; Michael P Boyer; Brittany D Wilson; Rebekah A Betar; Holly A Showalter; Darren Liu; Elitsa A Ananieva Journal: Environ Geochem Health Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 4.609