Meta-analysis of studies of occupational exposure to vinyl chloride in relation to cancer mortality

An updated review of the epidemiology of soft tissue sarcoma

“…A meta-analysis of 6 mortality studies (Boffetta et al 2003) looking at occupational vinyl chloride exposure and cancer mortality showed an increased risk of liver cancer in all studies with SMR values ranging from 1.6-57. In 4 of the studies the excess risk of liver cancer persisted even after excluding the known relationship between angiosarcoma and vinyl chloride exposure.…”

The non-Hodgkin lymphomas: A review of the epidemiologic literature

“…In a meta-analysis based on 3 studies of occupational exposure to vinyl chloride, Boffetta et al 233 reported a nonsignificant positive association with NHL mortality (SMR 5 1.23, 95% CI: 0.70-2.19). Significant heterogeneity was observed across the studies (p-value for heterogeneity 5 0.01), although when the smallest study was excluded from the analysis, the positive result was eliminated and the difference between the remaining 2 studies was reduced (meta-SMR 5 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.17; p-value for heterogeneity 5 0.60).…”

Epidemiologic evidence for the carcinogenicity of vinyl chloride monomer

“…The main results of the meta-analysis and the comments given by Boffetta et al (1), as well as the comments given by us in this letter, are displayed in table 1. In their meta-analysis, Boffetta and his colleagues statistically assessed the heterogeneity of the study-specific results, using a P-value of ≥0.01.…”

“…In their meta-analysis, Boffetta and his colleagues statistically assessed the heterogeneity of the study-specific results, using a P-value of ≥0.01. Because of the low power of the statistical tests for heterogeneity and the possibility of type II errors, experts recommend a Recently two review articles were published on the epidemiologic evidence for the carcinogenicity of vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) (1,2). We re-evaluated the original research articles to gain an insight into the existing discrepancies between the two reviews.…”