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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |