| |
|
|
 |
|
Advisory Committee on Health Effects of Endocrine Disruptors
The Supplement II to the Intermediary Report
1.4.2.2_4 |
| |
contents
Detailed contents
<< prev
next >> |
| |
2. Diethylstilbestrol
No reference was made to the relationship of exposure to
diethylstilbestrol (DES) with prostatic cancer in the reports
retrieved.
3. Exposed subjects and farm workers
Epidemiologic studies on prostatic cancer of subjects exposed to
any pesticide or professional farm workers are reported in 11
papers (6 cohort studies and 3 case-control studies) published
up to Dec. 31, 2001. Between Jan .1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2004, a
cohort study, two case-control studies, two synchronic studies
and two meta-analyses appeared.
1) Cohort studies
Morrison et al. (1993) found a death rate ratio of 1.19 (95% CI
= 0.98-1.45) for herbicide spraying worker in a retrospective
cohort study on about 140,000 Canadian farmers.
A retrospective cohort study by Dich et al. (1998) on about
20,000 pesticide spraying worker in Sweden indicated a SIR of
1.13 (95% CI = 1.02-1.24). Major pesticides concerned were DDT
and lindane.
Fleming et al. (1999) found an SIR of 2.48 (95% CI = 1.57-3.72)
for about 33,000 American farmers in a prospective cohort study.
Sharma-Wagner et al. (2000) calculated SIRs by industry and by
occupation in Sweden using the country's Cancer-Environment
Registry. Small but significant SIRs for prostatic cancer were
found: 1.07 (95% CI = 1.02-1.08) for farmers and stock raisers,
and 1.07 (95% CI = 1.04-1.10) for farm workers, forestry
officials and gardeners.
A cohort study involving 55,322 pesticide spraying operators in
North Carolina and Iowa, conducted by Alavanja et al. (2003) in
the Agricultural Health Study, showed an increase of SIR for
pesticide spraying workers (SIR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.05-1.24).
2) Case-control studies
A study in the Netherland by van der Gulden et al. (1995) did
not show significant risk increase due to pesticide use (OR =
1.47).
Krstev et al. (1998) found a significant risk increase for
American farm workers (OR = 2.17).
A hospital-based study by Settimi et al. (2001) in five rural
regions in Italy indicates significant risk increase for farmers
(OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.0-2.1) and pesticide users (OR = 1.7, 95%
CI = 1.2-2.6). Another report by Settimi et al. (2003) shows an
OR for farmers of 1.4 (95% CI = 0.9-2.0).
Specific pesticide names, exposure levels and exposure to other
chemicals are scarcely reported in this kind of studies.
3) Synchronic studies (including ecological studies)
Wilkinson et al. (1997) reports a significantly higher O/E ratio
for residents around a pesticide plant in Britain (O/E = 1.10,
95% CI = 1.02-1.18).
Koifman et al. (2002) found no significant correlation between
the pesticide sales in 1985 and prostatic cancer mortality in
1996-98 in 11 provinces in Brazil (r = 0.67, 95% CI =
-0.20-0.83).
Neither of the reports was sure about specific substances to
which the subjects had been exposed or the exposure levels.
4) Meta-analysis
Van Maele-Fabry et al. (2003) estimated the meta-rate ratio for
farm workers using the 25 estimates obtained by 22 studies (11
cohort studies, 4 PMR studies, and 7 case-control studies) on
farm workers. The ratio of 1.13 (1.04-1.22) indicates a
significant increase of cancer risk.
|
|
contents
Detailed contents
<< prev
next >> |
|
|
|
