A critical review of talc and ovarian cancer.

IF 6.4 2区 医学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews Pub Date : 2020-07-03 Epub Date: 2020-05-13 DOI:10.1080/10937404.2020.1755402
Julie E Goodman, Laura E Kerper, Robyn L Prueitt, Charlotte M Marsh
{"title":"A critical review of talc and ovarian cancer.","authors":"Julie E Goodman,&nbsp;Laura E Kerper,&nbsp;Robyn L Prueitt,&nbsp;Charlotte M Marsh","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2020.1755402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The association between perineal talc use and ovarian cancer has been evaluated in several epidemiology studies. Some case-control studies reported weak positive associations, while other case-control and three large prospective cohort investigations found this association to be null. A weight-of-evidence evaluation was conducted of the epidemiology, toxicity, exposure, transport, <i>in vitro</i>, and mechanistic evidence to determine whether, collectively, these data support a causal association. Our review of the literature indicated that, while both case-control and cohort studies may be impacted by bias, the possibility of recall and other biases from the low participation rates and retrospective self-reporting of talc exposure cannot be ruled out for any of the case-control studies. The hypothesis that talc exposure induces ovarian cancer is only supported if one discounts the null results of the cohort studies and the fact that significant bias and/or confounding are likely reasons for the associations reported in some case-control investigations. In addition, one would need to ignore the evidence from animal experiments that show no marked association with cancer, <i>in vitro</i> and genotoxicity studies that did not indicate a carcinogenic mechanism of action for talc, and mechanistic and transport investigations that did not support the retrograde transport of talc to the ovaries. An alternative hypothesis that talc does not produce ovarian cancer, and that bias and confounding contribute the reported positive associations in case-control studies, is better supported by the evidence across all scientific disciplines. It is concluded that the evidence does not support a causal association between perineal talc use and ovarian cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":49971,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10937404.2020.1755402","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2020.1755402","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The association between perineal talc use and ovarian cancer has been evaluated in several epidemiology studies. Some case-control studies reported weak positive associations, while other case-control and three large prospective cohort investigations found this association to be null. A weight-of-evidence evaluation was conducted of the epidemiology, toxicity, exposure, transport, in vitro, and mechanistic evidence to determine whether, collectively, these data support a causal association. Our review of the literature indicated that, while both case-control and cohort studies may be impacted by bias, the possibility of recall and other biases from the low participation rates and retrospective self-reporting of talc exposure cannot be ruled out for any of the case-control studies. The hypothesis that talc exposure induces ovarian cancer is only supported if one discounts the null results of the cohort studies and the fact that significant bias and/or confounding are likely reasons for the associations reported in some case-control investigations. In addition, one would need to ignore the evidence from animal experiments that show no marked association with cancer, in vitro and genotoxicity studies that did not indicate a carcinogenic mechanism of action for talc, and mechanistic and transport investigations that did not support the retrograde transport of talc to the ovaries. An alternative hypothesis that talc does not produce ovarian cancer, and that bias and confounding contribute the reported positive associations in case-control studies, is better supported by the evidence across all scientific disciplines. It is concluded that the evidence does not support a causal association between perineal talc use and ovarian cancer.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
滑石粉与卵巢癌的研究综述。
会阴使用滑石粉与卵巢癌之间的关系已在几项流行病学研究中得到评估。一些病例对照研究报告了弱正相关,而其他病例对照和三个大型前瞻性队列调查发现这种关联为零。对流行病学、毒性、暴露、运输、体外和机理证据进行了证据权重评估,以确定这些数据是否支持因果关系。我们对文献的回顾表明,虽然病例对照和队列研究都可能受到偏倚的影响,但对于任何病例对照研究,都不能排除由于低参与率和回顾性自我报告滑石粉暴露而引起的回忆和其他偏倚的可能性。滑石粉暴露诱发卵巢癌的假设只有在不考虑队列研究的无效结果以及某些病例对照调查中报告的关联可能存在显著偏倚和/或混杂的事实时才得到支持。此外,人们需要忽略来自动物实验的证据,这些证据表明滑石粉与癌症没有明显的联系,体外和遗传毒性研究没有表明滑石粉的致癌机制,以及不支持滑石粉向卵巢逆行运输的机制和运输研究。另一种假设是,滑石粉不会导致卵巢癌,偏倚和混淆促成了病例对照研究中报告的正相关性,所有科学学科的证据都更好地支持了这一假设。结论是,证据不支持会阴使用滑石粉与卵巢癌之间的因果关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
13
审稿时长
>24 weeks
期刊介绍: "Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health: Part B - Critical Reviews" is an academic journal published by Taylor & Francis, focusing on the critical examination of research in the areas of environmental exposure and population health. With an ISSN identifier of 1093-7404, this journal has established itself as a significant source of scholarly content in the field of toxicology and environmental health. Since its inception, the journal has published over 424 articles that have garnered 35,097 citations, reflecting its impact and relevance in the scientific community. Known for its comprehensive reviews, the journal also goes by the names "Critical Reviews" and "Journal of Toxicology & Environmental Health, Part B, Critical Reviews." The journal's mission is to provide a platform for in-depth analysis and critical discussion of the latest findings in toxicology, environmental health, and related disciplines. By doing so, it contributes to the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the complex interactions between environmental factors and human health, aiding in the development of strategies to protect and improve public health.
期刊最新文献
Neuroendocrine contribution to sex-related variations in adverse air pollution health effects. Local and systemic effects of microplastic particles through cell damage, release of chemicals and drugs, dysbiosis, and interference with the absorption of nutrients. Incorporating new approach methods (NAMs) data in dose-response assessments: The future is now! In vitro models to evaluate multidrug resistance in cancer cells: Biochemical and morphological techniques and pharmacological strategies. An integrative exploration of environmental stressors on the microbiome-gut-brain axis and immune mechanisms promoting neurological disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1