Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Commentary

A diagnostic bias might be a much simpler explanation for the apparently elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancer with respect to formaldehyde

Authors: Matthias Möhner, Andrea Wendt

Published in: Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

In 2009, a working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified formaldehyde as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) and concluded that formaldehyde causes cancer of the nasopharynx (NPC) and leukemia. The results of a large cohort study of industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde, conducted by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, mainly contributed to the available body of epidemiologic evidence. In their recent updated re-analysis of these cohort data published in your journal, Dr Marsh and his colleagues concluded that the results of the original analysis of NPC-risk are misleading because they are based on inappropriate regression analyses. In our view the reason for the elevated NPC risk reported in the original analysis might be also another one - a diagnostic bias. Therefore, it would be very helpful if the authors provided results for all other sub-categories (as three-digit categories of the International Classification of Diseases) of the pharynx to verify the hypothesis described and, hence, to clarify the relationship between exposure to formaldehyde and the risk of NPC.
Literature
1.
go back to reference IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Chemical agents and related occupations. Volume 100 F. A review of human carcinogens. Lyon: IARC; 2012. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Chemical agents and related occupations. Volume 100 F. A review of human carcinogens. Lyon: IARC; 2012.
2.
go back to reference Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Blair A. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:1117–30.CrossRefPubMed Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Blair A. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:1117–30.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Beane Freeman LE, Blair A, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Hoover RN, et al. Mortality from solid tumors among workers in formaldehyde industries: an update of the NCI cohort. Am J Ind Med. 2013;56:1015–26.CrossRefPubMed Beane Freeman LE, Blair A, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Hoover RN, et al. Mortality from solid tumors among workers in formaldehyde industries: an update of the NCI cohort. Am J Ind Med. 2013;56:1015–26.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Marsh GM, Morfeld P, Zimmerman SD, Liu Y, Balmert LC. An updated re-analysis of the mortality risk from nasopharyngeal cancer in the National Cancer Institute formaldehyde worker cohort study. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2016;11:8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Marsh GM, Morfeld P, Zimmerman SD, Liu Y, Balmert LC. An updated re-analysis of the mortality risk from nasopharyngeal cancer in the National Cancer Institute formaldehyde worker cohort study. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2016;11:8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Blair A, Stewart P, O’Berg M, Gaffey W, Walrath J, Ward J, et al. Mortality among industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986;76:1071–84.PubMed Blair A, Stewart P, O’Berg M, Gaffey W, Walrath J, Ward J, et al. Mortality among industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986;76:1071–84.PubMed
Metadata
Title
A diagnostic bias might be a much simpler explanation for the apparently elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancer with respect to formaldehyde
Authors
Matthias Möhner
Andrea Wendt
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6673
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-016-0143-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 1/2016 Go to the issue