Ciriaco Valdez-Flores, Abby A Li, Thomas J Bender, M Jane Teta
{"title":"利用最新的环氧乙烷制造工人死亡率研究为癌症风险评估提供信息。","authors":"Ciriaco Valdez-Flores, Abby A Li, Thomas J Bender, M Jane Teta","doi":"10.1111/risa.70057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The two most recent cancer risk assessments for ethylene oxide (EO) are based on the same epidemiologic study of sterilant workers conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but result in cancer risk estimates with three orders of magnitude difference, despite relying on the same assumption of a default linear (non-threshold) extrapolation. A major reason for the difference is the use of different exposure-response models (i.e., the standard Cox proportional hazards [CPH] versus a two-piece linear spline model with a steep initial slope) to derive the inhalation unit risk. The purpose of this research is to utilize analysis of a 10-year update of the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) EO 2053 chemical worker cohort to examine the epidemiological evidence for the shape of the exposure-response model for EO. This updated UCC study provides an external dataset that is informative given high average cumulative exposures (67 ppm-years), extensive average follow-up of over 40 years, and number of male lymphoid cancer deaths (25) comparable to that observed in the NIOSH cohort. This independent analysis of a different cohort using continuous dose response modeling with cumulative or log cumulative exposure metrics provides no empirical support for a steep curve at low exposures. Furthermore, analyses of the categorical odds ratio estimates across different updates of the UCC cohort and for each sex in the NIOSH cohort provide further epidemiological evidence that the standard CPH model more plausibly describes the relationship between EO exposures and lymphoid mortality for both cohorts.</p>","PeriodicalId":21472,"journal":{"name":"Risk Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of updated mortality study of ethylene oxide manufacturing workers to inform cancer risk assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Ciriaco Valdez-Flores, Abby A Li, Thomas J Bender, M Jane Teta\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/risa.70057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The two most recent cancer risk assessments for ethylene oxide (EO) are based on the same epidemiologic study of sterilant workers conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but result in cancer risk estimates with three orders of magnitude difference, despite relying on the same assumption of a default linear (non-threshold) extrapolation. A major reason for the difference is the use of different exposure-response models (i.e., the standard Cox proportional hazards [CPH] versus a two-piece linear spline model with a steep initial slope) to derive the inhalation unit risk. The purpose of this research is to utilize analysis of a 10-year update of the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) EO 2053 chemical worker cohort to examine the epidemiological evidence for the shape of the exposure-response model for EO. This updated UCC study provides an external dataset that is informative given high average cumulative exposures (67 ppm-years), extensive average follow-up of over 40 years, and number of male lymphoid cancer deaths (25) comparable to that observed in the NIOSH cohort. This independent analysis of a different cohort using continuous dose response modeling with cumulative or log cumulative exposure metrics provides no empirical support for a steep curve at low exposures. Furthermore, analyses of the categorical odds ratio estimates across different updates of the UCC cohort and for each sex in the NIOSH cohort provide further epidemiological evidence that the standard CPH model more plausibly describes the relationship between EO exposures and lymphoid mortality for both cohorts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Risk Analysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Risk Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.70057\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.70057","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
最近对环氧乙烷(EO)的两项癌症风险评估是基于美国国家职业安全与健康研究所(NIOSH)对消毒工人进行的相同流行病学研究,但结果是癌症风险估计有三个数量级的差异,尽管依赖于默认线性(非阈值)外推的相同假设。造成差异的一个主要原因是使用了不同的暴露反应模型(即,标准Cox比例危险度[CPH]与具有陡峭初始斜率的两件线性样条模型)来计算吸入单位风险。本研究的目的是利用对联合碳化物公司(UCC) EO 2053化学工人队列的10年更新分析,以检验EO暴露-反应模型形状的流行病学证据。这项更新的UCC研究提供了一个外部数据集,考虑到高平均累积暴露(67 ppm-年),超过40年的广泛平均随访,以及与NIOSH队列观察到的相当的男性淋巴样癌死亡人数(25人),该数据集提供了信息。使用累积或对数累积暴露度量的连续剂量反应模型对不同队列进行的独立分析没有为低暴露下的陡峭曲线提供经验支持。此外,对不同更新的UCC队列和NIOSH队列中每个性别的分类优势比估计的分析提供了进一步的流行病学证据,证明标准CPH模型更合理地描述了两个队列中EO暴露与淋巴细胞死亡率之间的关系。
Use of updated mortality study of ethylene oxide manufacturing workers to inform cancer risk assessment.
The two most recent cancer risk assessments for ethylene oxide (EO) are based on the same epidemiologic study of sterilant workers conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but result in cancer risk estimates with three orders of magnitude difference, despite relying on the same assumption of a default linear (non-threshold) extrapolation. A major reason for the difference is the use of different exposure-response models (i.e., the standard Cox proportional hazards [CPH] versus a two-piece linear spline model with a steep initial slope) to derive the inhalation unit risk. The purpose of this research is to utilize analysis of a 10-year update of the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) EO 2053 chemical worker cohort to examine the epidemiological evidence for the shape of the exposure-response model for EO. This updated UCC study provides an external dataset that is informative given high average cumulative exposures (67 ppm-years), extensive average follow-up of over 40 years, and number of male lymphoid cancer deaths (25) comparable to that observed in the NIOSH cohort. This independent analysis of a different cohort using continuous dose response modeling with cumulative or log cumulative exposure metrics provides no empirical support for a steep curve at low exposures. Furthermore, analyses of the categorical odds ratio estimates across different updates of the UCC cohort and for each sex in the NIOSH cohort provide further epidemiological evidence that the standard CPH model more plausibly describes the relationship between EO exposures and lymphoid mortality for both cohorts.
期刊介绍:
Published on behalf of the Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis is ranked among the top 10 journals in the ISI Journal Citation Reports under the social sciences, mathematical methods category, and provides a focal point for new developments in the field of risk analysis. This international peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing critical empirical research and commentaries dealing with risk issues. The topics covered include:
• Human health and safety risks
• Microbial risks
• Engineering
• Mathematical modeling
• Risk characterization
• Risk communication
• Risk management and decision-making
• Risk perception, acceptability, and ethics
• Laws and regulatory policy
• Ecological risks.