Cohort mortality study of garment industry workers exposed to formaldehyde: Update and internal comparisons

Meyers, Alysha R.; Pinkerton, Lynne E.; Hein, Misty J.

doi:10.1002/ajim.22199

Cited by 33 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The interpretation of an association between FA exposure and NPC mortality is neither consistent with the available data from the most recent mortality update of the FA cohort nor with other research findings from this cohort, other large cohort studies [29-31] and the series of publications by the current authors. The NCI publications [3,20] that contain incorrect data from the incomplete 1994 mortality follow-up should be retracted entirely or corrected via published errata in the corresponding journals.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

“…The odds ratio for NPC among embalmers was 0.10 (95% CI = 0.01-1.20), despite the fact that embalmers were reported to have the highest peak exposure to FA of any known occupation [28]. Also, the recent update of the NIOSH garment industry worker cohort [29] was not mentioned by Beane Freeman et al [6] but only the older publication [30]. Interestingly, Meyers and colleagues still found no NPC deaths although follow-up of this FA exposed cohort was extended by 10 years to 2008 (number of expected deaths = 1.33).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Issues of methods and interpretation in the National Cancer Institute formaldehyde cohort study

Marsh

Morfeld

Collins

et al. 2014

Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified formaldehyde (FA) from a probable (Group 2A) to a known human carcinogen (Group 1) citing results for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) mortality from the follow-up through 1994 of the National Cancer Institute formaldehyde cohort study. To the contrary, in 2012, the Committee for Risk Assessment of the European Chemicals Agency disagreed with the proposal to classify FA as a known human carcinogen (Carc. 1A), proposing a lower but still protective category, namely as a substance which is presumed to have carcinogenic potential for humans (Carc. 1B). Thus, U.S. and European regulatory agencies currently disagree about the potential human carcinogenicity of FA.In 2013, the National Cancer Institute reported results from their follow-up through 2004 of the formaldehyde cohort and concluded that the results continue to suggest a link between FA exposure and NPC. We discuss in this commentary why we believe that this interpretation is neither consistent with the available data from the most recent update of the National Cancer Institute cohort study nor with other research findings from that cohort, other large cohort studies and the series of publications by some of the current authors, including an independent study of one of the National Cancer Institute’s study plants.Another serious concern relates to the incorrectness of the data from the follow-up through 1994 of the National Cancer Institute study stemming from incomplete mortality ascertainment. While these data were corrected by the National Cancer Institute in subsequent supplemental publications, incorrect data from the original publications have been cited extensively in recent causal evaluations of FA, including IARC. We conclude that the NCI publications that contain incorrect data from the incomplete 1994 mortality follow-up should be retracted entirely or corrected via published errata in the corresponding journals, and efforts should be made to re-analyze data from the 2004 follow-up of the NCI cohort study.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Issues of methods and interpretation in the National Cancer Institute formaldehyde cohort study

Marsh

Morfeld

Collins

et al. 2014

Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The different conclusions between the two evaluations are due to differences in evaluation criteria. All the recent studies that were considered to be strong by NRC (Beane Freeman et al 2009, 2013; Hauptmann et al 2009; Meyers et al 2013) are considered below.…”

Section: Carcinogenicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-evaluation of the WHO (2010) formaldehyde indoor air quality guideline for cancer risk assessment

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) established an indoor air quality guideline for short- and long-term exposures to formaldehyde (FA) of 0.1 mg/m3 (0.08 ppm) for all 30-min periods at lifelong exposure. This guideline was supported by studies from 2010 to 2013. Since 2013, new key studies have been published and key cancer cohorts have been updated, which we have evaluated and compared with the WHO guideline. FA is genotoxic, causing DNA adduct formation, and has a clastogenic effect; exposure–response relationships were nonlinear. Relevant genetic polymorphisms were not identified. Normal indoor air FA concentrations do not pass beyond the respiratory epithelium, and therefore FA’s direct effects are limited to portal-of-entry effects. However, systemic effects have been observed in rats and mice, which may be due to secondary effects as airway inflammation and (sensory) irritation of eyes and the upper airways, which inter alia decreases respiratory ventilation. Both secondary effects are prevented at the guideline level. Nasopharyngeal cancer and leukaemia were observed inconsistently among studies; new updates of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) cohort confirmed that the relative risk was not increased with mean FA exposures below 1 ppm and peak exposures below 4 ppm. Hodgkin’s lymphoma, not observed in the other studies reviewed and not considered FA dependent, was increased in the NCI cohort at a mean concentration ≥0.6 mg/m3 and at peak exposures ≥2.5 mg/m3; both levels are above the WHO guideline. Overall, the credibility of the WHO guideline has not been challenged by new studies.

show abstract

“…Im aktuellen Follow-up der zweiten US-Studie hat sich der zunächst beobachtete Zusammenhang zwischen Formaldehyd-Exposition und Leukämie nicht bestätigt [27,28]. Insgesamt wird der Zusammenhang als gering erachtet und biologisch als nicht plausibel angesehen [29].…”

Section: Mutagenität Und Kanzerogenitätunclassified

Richtwert für Formaldehyd in der Innenraumluft

2016

Bundesgesundheitsbl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cohort mortality study of garment industry workers exposed to formaldehyde: Update and internal comparisons

Cited by 33 publications

References 38 publications

Issues of methods and interpretation in the National Cancer Institute formaldehyde cohort study

Issues of methods and interpretation in the National Cancer Institute formaldehyde cohort study

Re-evaluation of the WHO (2010) formaldehyde indoor air quality guideline for cancer risk assessment

Richtwert für Formaldehyd in der Innenraumluft

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About