Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 531–539

Ethylene oxide and breast cancer incidence in a cohort study of 7576 women (United States)

  • Kyle Steenland
  • Elizabeth Whelan
  • James Deddens
  • Leslie Stayner
  • Elizabeth Ward
Article

Abstract

Background: Ethylene oxide (ETO) is a sterilant gas considered to be a human carcinogen, due primarily to excess hematopoietic cancer in exposed cohorts. ETO causes mammary tumors in mice, and has been associated with breast cancer incidence in one small epidemiologic study. Methods: We have studied breast cancer incidence in a cohort of 7576 women employed for at least one year and exposed for an average 10.7 years while working in commercial sterilization facilities. Breast cancer incidence (n = 319) was ascertained via interview, death certificates, cancer registries, and medical records. Interviews were obtained for 68% of the cohort. Results: The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for incident breast cancer in the whole cohort using external referent rates (SEER) was 0.87 (0.77–0.97). The SIR for those in the top quintile of cumulative exposure, with a 15 year lag, was 1.27 (0.94–1.69), with a positive trend of increasing SIR with increasing exposure (p = 0.002). SIRs are under-estimated because breast cancer incidence in the whole cohort was under-ascertained, due to incomplete response and lack of complete coverage by state cancer registries. In internal nested case–control analyses of those with interviews (complete cancer ascertainment), controlling for reproductive risk factors, a positive exposure–response was found with the log of cumulative exposure with a 15-year lag (p = 0.0005). The odds ratio by quintile of cumulative exposure were 1.00 (0 exposure due to 15 year lag), 1.06, 0.99, 1.24, 1.42, and 1.87. Conclusions: Our data suggest that ETO is associated with breast cancer, but a causal interpretation is weakened due to some inconsistencies in exposure–response trends and possible biases due to non-response and incomplete cancer ascertainment.

breast cancer ethylene oxide 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    NIOSH (1989) National Occupational Exposure Survey: sampling methodology. Cincinnati, OH: DHHS publication NIOSH, pp. 89-102.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    IARC (1994) Some Industrial Chemicals, Monograph 60. Lyon, France: IARC.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Norman S, Berlin J, Soper K, Middendorf B, Stolley P (1995) Cancer incidence in a group of workers potentially exposed to ethylene oxide. Int J Epidemiol 24: 276-284.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tompa A, Major J, Jakab M (1999) Is breast cancer cluster influenced by environmental and occupational factors among hospital nurses in Hungary? Pathol Oncol Res 2: 117-121.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hagmar L, Welinder H, Linden K, et al. (1991) An epidemiological study of cancer risk among workers exposed to ETO using hemoglobin adducts to validate environmental exposure assessments. Occ Environ Health 63: 271-277.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hogstedt C, Aringer L, Gustavsson A (1986) Epidemiologic support for ETO as a cancer-causing agent. JAMA 255: 1575-1578.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gardner M, Coggon D, Pannett B, et al. (1989) Workers exposed to ETO: a follow-up study. Brit J Ind Med 46: 860-865.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steenland K, Stayner L, Griefe A, et al. (1991) A cohort mortality study of workers exposed to ethylene oxide. New Engl J Med 324(20): 1402-1407.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hornung R, Greife A, Stayner L, et al. (1994) Statistical model for prediction of retrospective exposure to ethylene oxide in an occupational mortality study. Am J Ind Med 25: 825-836.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steenland K, Spaeth S, Cassinelli R, Laber P, Chang L, Koch K (1998) NIOSH Life Table Program for Personal Computers. Am J Ind Med 34: 517-518.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    SAS (1991) SAS User's Guide: Statistics (Version 6.07). NC: SAS Institute Cary.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steenland K, Deddens J (1997) Increased precision using countermatching in nested case-control studies. Epidemiology 8: 238-242.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harrell F, Lee K, Pollock B (1988) Regression models in clinical studies: determining relationships between predictors and response. JNCI 80: 1198-1202.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steenland K, Deddens J, Piacitelli L (2001) Risk assessment for 2,3,7,8-p-dioxin (TCDD) based on an epidemiologic study. Am J Epidemiol 154: 451-458.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steenland K, Mannetje A, Boffetta P, et al. (2001) Pooled exposure-response and risk assessment for lung cancer in 10 cohorts of silica-exposed workers: an IARC multi-centric study. Cancer Causes Control 12: 773-784.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Steenland K, Deddens J, Stayner L (1998) Diesel exhaust and lung cancer in trucking industry: exposure-response analyses and risk assessment. Am J Ind Med 34: 220-228.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hertz-Piccioto I, Smith A (1993) Observations on the dose-response curve for arsenic exposure and lung cancer. Scand JWork Environ Health 19: 217-226.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steenland K, Stayner L, Deddens J (2003) Mortality analyses in a cohort of 18,235 ethylene oxide-exposed workers: follow-up extended from 1987 to 1998. Occup Env Med, in press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyle Steenland
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Whelan
    • 1
  • James Deddens
    • 1
  • Leslie Stayner
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Ward
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)Cincinnati
  2. 2.School of Public HealthNIOSH R13, Emory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations