A Quantitative Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Occupational Benzene Exposure and Biomarkers of Cytogenetic Damage

BACKGROUND: The genotoxicity of benzene has been investigated in dozens of biomonitoring studies, mainly by studying (classical) chromosomal aberrations (CAs) or micronuclei (MN) as markers of DNA damage. Both have been shown to be predictive of future cancer risk in cohort studies and could, therefore, potentially be used for risk assessment of genotoxicity-mediated cancers. OBJECTIVES: We sought to estimate an exposure–response curve (ERC) and quantify between-study heterogeneity using all available quantitative evidence on the cytogenetic effects of benzene exposure on CAs and MN respectively. METHODS: We carried out a systematic literature review and summarized all available data of sufficient quality using meta-analyses. We assessed the heterogeneity in slope estimates between studies and conducted additional sensitivity analyses to assess how various study characteristics impacted the estimated ERC. RESULTS: Sixteen CA (1,356 individuals) and [Formula: see text] studies (2,097 individuals) were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Studies where benzene was the primary genotoxic exposure and that had adequate assessment of both exposure and outcomes were used for the primary analysis. Estimated slope estimates were an increase of 0.27% CA [(95% CI: 0.08%, 0.47%); based on the results from 4 studies] and 0.27% MN [(95% CI: [Formula: see text] , 0.76%); based on the results from 7 studies] per parts-per-million benzene exposure. We observed considerable between-study heterogeneity for both end points ([Formula: see text]). DISCUSSION: Our study provides a systematic, transparent, and quantitative summary of the literature describing the strong association between benzene exposure and accepted markers of genotoxicity in humans. The derived consensus slope can be used as a best estimate of the quantitative relationship between real-life benzene exposure and genetic damage in future risk assessment. We also quantitate the large between-study heterogeneity that exists in this literature, a factor which is crucial for the interpretation of single-study or consensus slopes. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6404