通过整合流行病学和毒理学证据以及生物合理性,评估吸入甲醛与淋巴造血癌症之间的关联。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Melissa J Vincent, Seneca Fitch, Lauren Bylsma, Chad Thompson, Sarah Rogers, Janice Britt, Daniele Wikoff
{"title":"通过整合流行病学和毒理学证据以及生物合理性,评估吸入甲醛与淋巴造血癌症之间的关联。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

甲醛被认为是入口部位的致癌物,但有关淋巴造血(LHP)癌症的结论不一。本系统综述综合了 NASEM 建议的内容,评估了甲醛与 LHP 癌症之间存在因果关系的可能性。按照先验协议,纳入了四项啮齿动物生物实验研究和 16 项人类观察性研究。对所有研究进行了偏倚风险(RoB)评估,并对流行病学研究进行了荟萃分析,随后根据 GRADE 和 Bradford Hill 对因果关系进行了结构化评估。RoB 分析发现,由于甲醛暴露的特征描述不充分,且未能充分调整混杂因素或效应修饰因子,因此存在系统局限性,影响了对流行病学证据的信心,这表明效应估计值很可能受到系统偏倚的影响。个别研究的结果不一;荟萃分析未发现吸入甲醛(以曾经/从未接触过甲醛来衡量)与 LHP 结果之间存在显著关联,荟萃-SMRs 介于 0.50 至 1.51 之间,具体取决于 LHP 亚型。在可靠的动物生物测定中,没有发现与 LHP 相关病变有关的报道。没有发现从生物学角度将吸入 FA 与 LHP 联系起来的合理解释,这主要是因为 FA 没有全身分布,也没有体内遗传毒性。总之,在综合流行病学证据、毒理学数据和生物合理性考虑后,我们认为部分证据中报告的不一致的关联并不是因果关系。可以对本文中发现的系统性偏差的影响进行量化评估,以更好地说明因果关系并用于风险评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of associations between inhaled formaldehyde and lymphohematopoietic cancer through the integration of epidemiological and toxicological evidence with biological plausibility.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Toxicological Sciences
Toxicological Sciences 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
7.90%
发文量
118
审稿时长
1.5 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信