Assessment of associations between inhaled formaldehyde and lymphohematopoietic cancer through the integration of epidemiological and toxicological evidence with biological plausibility.
Melissa J Vincent, Seneca Fitch, Lauren Bylsma, Chad Thompson, Sarah Rogers, Janice Britt, Daniele Wikoff
{"title":"Assessment of associations between inhaled formaldehyde and lymphohematopoietic cancer through the integration of epidemiological and toxicological evidence with biological plausibility.","authors":"Melissa J Vincent, Seneca Fitch, Lauren Bylsma, Chad Thompson, Sarah Rogers, Janice Britt, Daniele Wikoff","doi":"10.1093/toxsci/kfae039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Formaldehyde is recognized as carcinogenic for the portal of entry sites, though conclusions are mixed regarding lymphohematopoietic (LHP) cancers. This systematic review assesses the likelihood of a causal relationship between formaldehyde and LHP cancers by integrating components recommended by NASEM. Four experimental rodent bioassays and 16 observational studies in humans were included following the implementation of the a priori protocol. All studies were assessed for risk of bias (RoB), and meta-analyses were conducted on epidemiological studies, followed by a structured assessment of causation based on GRADE and Bradford Hill. RoB analysis identified systemic limitations precluding confidence in the epidemiological evidence due to inadequate characterization of formaldehyde exposure and a failure to adequately adjust for confounders or effect modifiers, thus suggesting that effect estimates are likely to be impacted by systemic bias. Mixed findings were reported in individual studies; meta-analyses did not identify significant associations between formaldehyde inhalation (when measured as ever/never exposure) and LHP outcomes, with meta-SMRs ranging from 0.50 to 1.51, depending on LHP subtype. No associations with LHP-related lesions were reported in reliable animal bioassays. No biologically plausible explanation linking the inhalation of FA and LHP was identified, supported primarily by the lack of systemic distribution and in vivo genotoxicity. In conclusion, the inconsistent associations reported in a subset of the evidence were not considered causal when integrated with the totality of the epidemiological evidence, toxicological data, and considerations of biological plausibility. The impact of systemic biases identified herein could be quantitatively assessed to better inform causality and use in risk assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":23178,"journal":{"name":"Toxicological Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11131035/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxicological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae039","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Formaldehyde is recognized as carcinogenic for the portal of entry sites, though conclusions are mixed regarding lymphohematopoietic (LHP) cancers. This systematic review assesses the likelihood of a causal relationship between formaldehyde and LHP cancers by integrating components recommended by NASEM. Four experimental rodent bioassays and 16 observational studies in humans were included following the implementation of the a priori protocol. All studies were assessed for risk of bias (RoB), and meta-analyses were conducted on epidemiological studies, followed by a structured assessment of causation based on GRADE and Bradford Hill. RoB analysis identified systemic limitations precluding confidence in the epidemiological evidence due to inadequate characterization of formaldehyde exposure and a failure to adequately adjust for confounders or effect modifiers, thus suggesting that effect estimates are likely to be impacted by systemic bias. Mixed findings were reported in individual studies; meta-analyses did not identify significant associations between formaldehyde inhalation (when measured as ever/never exposure) and LHP outcomes, with meta-SMRs ranging from 0.50 to 1.51, depending on LHP subtype. No associations with LHP-related lesions were reported in reliable animal bioassays. No biologically plausible explanation linking the inhalation of FA and LHP was identified, supported primarily by the lack of systemic distribution and in vivo genotoxicity. In conclusion, the inconsistent associations reported in a subset of the evidence were not considered causal when integrated with the totality of the epidemiological evidence, toxicological data, and considerations of biological plausibility. The impact of systemic biases identified herein could be quantitatively assessed to better inform causality and use in risk assessment.
期刊介绍:
The mission of Toxicological Sciences, the official journal of the Society of Toxicology, is to publish a broad spectrum of impactful research in the field of toxicology.
The primary focus of Toxicological Sciences is on original research articles. The journal also provides expert insight via contemporary and systematic reviews, as well as forum articles and editorial content that addresses important topics in the field.
The scope of Toxicological Sciences is focused on a broad spectrum of impactful toxicological research that will advance the multidisciplinary field of toxicology ranging from basic research to model development and application, and decision making. Submissions will include diverse technologies and approaches including, but not limited to: bioinformatics and computational biology, biochemistry, exposure science, histopathology, mass spectrometry, molecular biology, population-based sciences, tissue and cell-based systems, and whole-animal studies. Integrative approaches that combine realistic exposure scenarios with impactful analyses that move the field forward are encouraged.