Cargando…

Ethylene Oxide: Cancer Evidence Integration and Dose–Response Implications

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) classified ethylene oxide (EtO) as a known human carcinogen. Critically, both noted that the epidemiological evidence based on lymphoid and breast cancers was “limited,” but that the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vincent, Melissa J., Kozal, Jordan S., Thompson, William J., Maier, Andrew, Dotson, G. Scott, Best, Elizabeth A., Mundt, Kenneth A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6906442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31853235
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325819888317
_version_ 1783478345835479040
author Vincent, Melissa J.
Kozal, Jordan S.
Thompson, William J.
Maier, Andrew
Dotson, G. Scott
Best, Elizabeth A.
Mundt, Kenneth A.
author_facet Vincent, Melissa J.
Kozal, Jordan S.
Thompson, William J.
Maier, Andrew
Dotson, G. Scott
Best, Elizabeth A.
Mundt, Kenneth A.
author_sort Vincent, Melissa J.
collection PubMed
description The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) classified ethylene oxide (EtO) as a known human carcinogen. Critically, both noted that the epidemiological evidence based on lymphoid and breast cancers was “limited,” but that the evidence in animal studies was “sufficient” and “extensive” (respectively) and that EtO is genotoxic. The USEPA derived one of the highest published inhalation unit risk (IUR) values (3 × 10(−3) per [µg/m(3) EtO]), based on results from 2 epidemiological studies. We performed focused reviews of the epidemiological and toxicological evidence on the carcinogenicity of EtO and considered the USEPA’s reliance on a genotoxic mode of action to establish EtO’s carcinogenicity and to determine likely dose–response patterns. Higher quality epidemiological studies demonstrated no increased risk of breast cancers or lymphohematopoietic malignancies (LHM). Similarly, toxicological studies and studies of early effect biomarkers in animals and humans provided no strong indication that EtO causes LHM or mammary cancers. Ultimately, animal data are inadequate to define the actual dose–response shape or predict tumor response at very low doses with any confidence. We conclude that the IARC and USEPA classification of EtO as a known human carcinogen overstates the underlying evidence and that the IUR derived by USEPA grossly overestimates risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6906442
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69064422019-12-18 Ethylene Oxide: Cancer Evidence Integration and Dose–Response Implications Vincent, Melissa J. Kozal, Jordan S. Thompson, William J. Maier, Andrew Dotson, G. Scott Best, Elizabeth A. Mundt, Kenneth A. Dose Response Review The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) classified ethylene oxide (EtO) as a known human carcinogen. Critically, both noted that the epidemiological evidence based on lymphoid and breast cancers was “limited,” but that the evidence in animal studies was “sufficient” and “extensive” (respectively) and that EtO is genotoxic. The USEPA derived one of the highest published inhalation unit risk (IUR) values (3 × 10(−3) per [µg/m(3) EtO]), based on results from 2 epidemiological studies. We performed focused reviews of the epidemiological and toxicological evidence on the carcinogenicity of EtO and considered the USEPA’s reliance on a genotoxic mode of action to establish EtO’s carcinogenicity and to determine likely dose–response patterns. Higher quality epidemiological studies demonstrated no increased risk of breast cancers or lymphohematopoietic malignancies (LHM). Similarly, toxicological studies and studies of early effect biomarkers in animals and humans provided no strong indication that EtO causes LHM or mammary cancers. Ultimately, animal data are inadequate to define the actual dose–response shape or predict tumor response at very low doses with any confidence. We conclude that the IARC and USEPA classification of EtO as a known human carcinogen overstates the underlying evidence and that the IUR derived by USEPA grossly overestimates risk. SAGE Publications 2019-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6906442/ /pubmed/31853235 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325819888317 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Review
Vincent, Melissa J.
Kozal, Jordan S.
Thompson, William J.
Maier, Andrew
Dotson, G. Scott
Best, Elizabeth A.
Mundt, Kenneth A.
Ethylene Oxide: Cancer Evidence Integration and Dose–Response Implications
title Ethylene Oxide: Cancer Evidence Integration and Dose–Response Implications
title_full Ethylene Oxide: Cancer Evidence Integration and Dose–Response Implications
title_fullStr Ethylene Oxide: Cancer Evidence Integration and Dose–Response Implications
title_full_unstemmed Ethylene Oxide: Cancer Evidence Integration and Dose–Response Implications
title_short Ethylene Oxide: Cancer Evidence Integration and Dose–Response Implications
title_sort ethylene oxide: cancer evidence integration and dose–response implications
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6906442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31853235
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325819888317
work_keys_str_mv AT vincentmelissaj ethyleneoxidecancerevidenceintegrationanddoseresponseimplications
AT kozaljordans ethyleneoxidecancerevidenceintegrationanddoseresponseimplications
AT thompsonwilliamj ethyleneoxidecancerevidenceintegrationanddoseresponseimplications
AT maierandrew ethyleneoxidecancerevidenceintegrationanddoseresponseimplications
AT dotsongscott ethyleneoxidecancerevidenceintegrationanddoseresponseimplications
AT bestelizabetha ethyleneoxidecancerevidenceintegrationanddoseresponseimplications
AT mundtkennetha ethyleneoxidecancerevidenceintegrationanddoseresponseimplications