It may not all be overdiagnosis: the potential role of environmental exposures in the thyroid cancer incidence increase

Rotating Night Shift Work, Sleep, and Thyroid Cancer Risk in the Nurses' Health Study 2

Night shift work has been associated with breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, but evidence on other types of cancer is limited. We prospectively evaluated the association of rotating night shift work, sleep duration, and sleep difficulty with thyroid cancer risk in the Nurses' Health Study 2 (NHS2). We assessed rotating night shift work duration (years) at baseline and throughout follow-up (1989-2015) and sleep characteristics in 2001. Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for (a) shift work duration, (b) sleep duration, and (c) difficulty falling or staying asleep. We stratified the analyses of night shift work by sleep duration and sleep difficulty. Over 26 years of follow-up, 588 incident cases were identified among 114,534 women in the NHS2 cohort. We observed no association between night shift work and the risk of thyroid cancer. Difficulty falling or staying asleep was suggestively associated with a higher incidence of thyroid cancer when reported sometimes (HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95, 1.66) and all or most of the time (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00, 1.81). Night shift workers (10+ years) with sleep difficulty all or most of the time (HR 1.47; 0.58-3.73) or with >7 h of sleep duration (HR 2.17; 95% CI, 1.21-3.92) had a higher risk of thyroid cancer. We found modest evidence for an increased risk of thyroid cancer in relation to sleep difficulty, which was more pronounced among night shift workers.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure and thyroid cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Although per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure is a potential contributor to the increasing thyroid cancer trend, limited studies have investigated the association between PFAS exposure and thyroid cancer in human populations. We therefore investigated associations between plasma PFAS levels and thyroid cancer diagnosis using a nested case-control study of patients with thyroid cancer with plasma samples collected at/before cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

88 patients with thyroid cancer using diagnosis codes and 88 healthy (non-cancer) controls pair-matched on sex, age (±5 years), race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, and year of sample collection were identified in the BioMe population (a medical record-linked biobank at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York); 74 patients had papillary thyroid cancer. Eight plasma PFAS were measured using untargeted analysis with liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry and suspect screening. Associations between individual PFAS levels and thyroid cancer were evaluated using unconditional logistic regression models to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORadj) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

FINDINGS

There was a 56% increased rate of thyroid cancer diagnosis per doubling of linear perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (n-PFOS) intensity (ORadj, 1.56, 95% CI: 1.17-2.15, P = 0.004); results were similar when including patients with papillary thyroid cancer only (ORadj, 1.56, 95% CI: 1.13-2.21, P = 0.009). This positive association remained in subset analysis investigating exposure timing including 31 thyroid cancer cases diagnosed ≥1 year after plasma sample collection (ORadj, 2.67, 95% CI: 1.59-4.88, P < 0.001).

INTERPRETATION

This study reports associations between exposure to PFAS and increased rate of (papillary) thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer risk from PFAS exposure is a global concern given the prevalence of PFAS exposure. Individual PFAS studied here are a small proportion of the total number of PFAS supporting additional large-scale prospective studies investigating thyroid cancer risk associated with exposure to PFAS chemicals.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health grants and The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies.

Mistaken information can lead only to misguided conclusions and policies: a commentary regarding Schüz et al.'s response

BACKGROUND

After reviewing selected scientific evidence, Schüz et al. made two recommendations in the 2018 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Technical Publication No. 46. Their first recommendation was against population thyroid screening after a nuclear accident, and the second was that consideration be given to offering a long-term thyroid monitoring program for higher-risk individuals (100-500 mGy or more radiation) after a nuclear accident. However, their review of the scientific evidence was inadequate and misrepresented the information from both Chernobyl and Fukushima. We wrote a review article published in Environmental Health in 2022 using the "Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods." Schüz et al. critiqued our 2022 review article in 2023; their critique, based also on their 2018 IARC Technical Publication No. 46, was so fraught with problems that we developed this response.

MAIN BODY

Schüz et al. suggest that hundreds of thyroid cancer cases in children and adolescents, detected through population thyroid examinations using ultrasound echo and conducted since October 2011 in Fukushima, were not caused by the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Schüz et al. compared thyroid cancers in Fukushima directly with those in Chernobyl after April 1986 and listed up to five reasons to deny a causal relationship between radiation and thyroid cancers in Fukushima; however, those reasons we dismiss based on available evidence. No new scientific evidence was presented in their response to our commentary in which we pointed out that misinformation and biased scientific evidence had formed the basis of their arguments. Their published article provided erroneous information on Fukushima. The article implied overdiagnosis in adults and suggested that overdiagnosis would apply to current Fukushima cases. The IARC report did not validate the secondary confirmatory examination in the program which obscures the fact that overdiagnosis may not have occurred as much in Fukushima. The report consequently precluded the provision of important information and measures.

CONCLUSION

Information provided in the IARC Technical Publication No. 46 was based on selected scientific evidence resulting in both public and policy-maker confusion regarding past and present nuclear accidents, especially in Japan. It should be withdrawn.