Bernice Scholten, Lützen Portengen, Anjoeka Pronk, Rob Stierum, George S Downward, Jelle Vlaanderen, Roel Vermeulen
{"title":"结合流行病学、人类生物标志物和动物数据估计苯与急性髓系白血病的暴露-反应关系。","authors":"Bernice Scholten, Lützen Portengen, Anjoeka Pronk, Rob Stierum, George S Downward, Jelle Vlaanderen, Roel Vermeulen","doi":"10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chemical risk assessment can benefit from integrating data across multiple evidence bases, especially in exposure-response curve (ERC) modeling when data across the exposure range are sparse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We estimated the ERC for benzene and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), by fitting linear and spline-based Bayesian meta-regression models that included summary risk estimates from non-AML and nonhuman studies as prior information. Our complete dataset included six human AML studies, three human leukemia studies, 10 human biomarker studies, and four experimental animal studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A linear meta-regression model with intercept best predicted AML risks after cross-validation, both for the full dataset and AML studies only. Risk estimates in the low exposure range [<40 parts per million (ppm)-years] from this model were comparable, but more precise when the ERC was derived using all available data than when using AML data only. Allowing for between-study heterogeneity, RRs and 95% prediction intervals (95% PI) at 5 ppm-years were 1.58 (95% PI, 1.01-3.22) and 1.44 (95% PI, 0.85-3.42), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Integrating the available epidemiologic, biomarker, and animal data resulted in more precise risk estimates for benzene exposure and AML, although the large between-study heterogeneity hampers interpretation of these results. The harmonization steps required to fit the Bayesian meta-regression model involve a range of assumptions that need to be critically evaluated, as they seem crucial for successful implementation.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>By describing a framework for data integration and explicitly describing the necessary data harmonization steps, we hope to enable risk assessors to better understand the advantages and assumptions underlying a data integration approach.See related commentary by Keil, p. 695.</p>","PeriodicalId":520580,"journal":{"name":"Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"751-757"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimation of the Exposure-Response Relation between Benzene and Acute Myeloid Leukemia by Combining Epidemiologic, Human Biomarker, and Animal Data.\",\"authors\":\"Bernice Scholten, Lützen Portengen, Anjoeka Pronk, Rob Stierum, George S Downward, Jelle Vlaanderen, Roel Vermeulen\",\"doi\":\"10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chemical risk assessment can benefit from integrating data across multiple evidence bases, especially in exposure-response curve (ERC) modeling when data across the exposure range are sparse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We estimated the ERC for benzene and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), by fitting linear and spline-based Bayesian meta-regression models that included summary risk estimates from non-AML and nonhuman studies as prior information. Our complete dataset included six human AML studies, three human leukemia studies, 10 human biomarker studies, and four experimental animal studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A linear meta-regression model with intercept best predicted AML risks after cross-validation, both for the full dataset and AML studies only. Risk estimates in the low exposure range [<40 parts per million (ppm)-years] from this model were comparable, but more precise when the ERC was derived using all available data than when using AML data only. Allowing for between-study heterogeneity, RRs and 95% prediction intervals (95% PI) at 5 ppm-years were 1.58 (95% PI, 1.01-3.22) and 1.44 (95% PI, 0.85-3.42), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Integrating the available epidemiologic, biomarker, and animal data resulted in more precise risk estimates for benzene exposure and AML, although the large between-study heterogeneity hampers interpretation of these results. The harmonization steps required to fit the Bayesian meta-regression model involve a range of assumptions that need to be critically evaluated, as they seem crucial for successful implementation.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>By describing a framework for data integration and explicitly describing the necessary data harmonization steps, we hope to enable risk assessors to better understand the advantages and assumptions underlying a data integration approach.See related commentary by Keil, p. 695.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520580,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"751-757\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0287\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0287","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Estimation of the Exposure-Response Relation between Benzene and Acute Myeloid Leukemia by Combining Epidemiologic, Human Biomarker, and Animal Data.
Background: Chemical risk assessment can benefit from integrating data across multiple evidence bases, especially in exposure-response curve (ERC) modeling when data across the exposure range are sparse.
Methods: We estimated the ERC for benzene and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), by fitting linear and spline-based Bayesian meta-regression models that included summary risk estimates from non-AML and nonhuman studies as prior information. Our complete dataset included six human AML studies, three human leukemia studies, 10 human biomarker studies, and four experimental animal studies.
Results: A linear meta-regression model with intercept best predicted AML risks after cross-validation, both for the full dataset and AML studies only. Risk estimates in the low exposure range [<40 parts per million (ppm)-years] from this model were comparable, but more precise when the ERC was derived using all available data than when using AML data only. Allowing for between-study heterogeneity, RRs and 95% prediction intervals (95% PI) at 5 ppm-years were 1.58 (95% PI, 1.01-3.22) and 1.44 (95% PI, 0.85-3.42), respectively.
Conclusions: Integrating the available epidemiologic, biomarker, and animal data resulted in more precise risk estimates for benzene exposure and AML, although the large between-study heterogeneity hampers interpretation of these results. The harmonization steps required to fit the Bayesian meta-regression model involve a range of assumptions that need to be critically evaluated, as they seem crucial for successful implementation.
Impact: By describing a framework for data integration and explicitly describing the necessary data harmonization steps, we hope to enable risk assessors to better understand the advantages and assumptions underlying a data integration approach.See related commentary by Keil, p. 695.