Extended Follow-Up of a Cohort of British Chemical Workers Exposed to Formaldehyde

Abstract

The evidence for human carcinogenicity of formaldehyde remains unconvincing. Although a small effect on sino-nasal or nasopharyngeal cancer cannot be ruled out, a possible increase in the risk of lung cancer is a greater concern.

Assessment of the effect of occupational exposure to formaldehyde on the risk of lung cancer in two Canadian population-based case–control studies

“…Findings from these studies did not strongly support an effect of formaldehyde on lung cancer risk. Statistically significant positive associations were observed in only 2 of the 14 cohort studies (2, 6 -19): in the subgroup of wood-related workers from a general US population cohort (11) and a large occupational cohort of British workers (10). For three cohorts, results showed positive associations although not statistically Mahboubi et al which subgroups defined by smoking status were examined (6,23) where differences in the formaldehyde-lung cancer associations were not apparent.…”

“…Both were among the case-control investigations with the largest numbers of exposed cases. Among the same 23 studies, only a few further analyzed each of the more refined measures of formaldehyde exposure, including exposure level (2,10,12,27), lifetime cumulative exposure (2,6,23,28), duration of exposure (2,6,7,9,10,18,24), time since first exposure (6,7,18), and peak exposure (2). However, even when formaldehyde exposure was analyzed using these more detailed metrics, increased risks were observed only in two studies with high exposure level (10) and longer exposure duration (24), and a decreased risk was reported with longer duration in another (7).…”

“…The Report on Carcinogens Background Document for Formaldehyde from the US National Toxicology Program (1) considered 23 studies that reported on the association between exposure to formaldehyde and lung cancer risk (2,. Overall, these studies generated equivocal results, with small increases in risk observed in some studies (6, 9-13, 22-24, 27), though reaching statistical significance only in four (10,11,24,27). A wide variety of exposure assessment methods and combinations thereof were used to assess individual exposure to formaldehyde.…”

“…Some of the older studies used job title (often embalmers or pathologists) as a proxy for exposure (8, 14-17, 19, 21) or a more elaborate job exposure matrix (JEM) but focused on the last job held as indicated on the death certificate (27). Other methods included the use of (i) employment records (2,6,7,9,10,12,13,18,22,25,26), (ii) a JEM, (iii) industrial hygiene data (2,6,10,18,22,23,25,26), or (iv) selfreport of exposure to formaldehyde (11,20,24) or occupational history (23,28). Information on smoking, a key potential confounder, was available and accounted for in the analyses in only seven studies (6,11,20,22,24,25,28), some of which had large proportions of missing values for smoking variables.…”

Methanolic extract of Malus domestica mitigates formalin - Induced derangements in small intestinal motility and transit

“…[16][17][18] Since then, some studies on humans have suggested that formaldehyde exposure is associated with certain types of cancer. [19][20][21] When exposed to formaldehyde, some individuals may experience various short-term effects. Formaldehyde has been classifi ed as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and as a probable human carcinogen by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.…”