Extended Analysis and Evidence Integration of Chloroprene as a Human Carcinogen

Mortality Patterns Among Industrial Workers Exposed to Chloroprene and Other Substances: Extended Follow-Up

OBJECTIVES

To update the U.S. portion of an historical cohort mortality study of workers with potential exposure to chloroprene (CD) and vinyl chloride (VC) with focus on lung and liver cancer.

METHODS

Subjects were 6864 workers from two sites with vital status determined through 2017 for 99% of subjects and cause of death for 97.2% of deaths. Historical exposures to CD and VC were estimated quantitatively. We performed external and internal mortality comparisons.

RESULTS

External comparisons revealed mostly deficits in deaths; internal comparisons revealed no consistent evidence of exposure-response relationships with CD or VC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our update continues to support the conclusion that the risk of death from lung or liver cancer is unrelated to exposure to CD or VC at levels experienced by workers in the two U.S. sites.

Ethylene Oxide: Cancer Evidence Integration and Dose-Response Implications

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) classified ethylene oxide (EtO) as a known human carcinogen. Critically, both noted that the epidemiological evidence based on lymphoid and breast cancers was “limited,” but that the evidence in animal studies was “sufficient” and “extensive” (respectively) and that EtO is genotoxic. The USEPA derived one of the highest published inhalation unit risk (IUR) values (3 × 10⁻³ per [µg/m³ EtO]), based on results from 2 epidemiological studies. We performed focused reviews of the epidemiological and toxicological evidence on the carcinogenicity of EtO and considered the USEPA’s reliance on a genotoxic mode of action to establish EtO’s carcinogenicity and to determine likely dose–response patterns. Higher quality epidemiological studies demonstrated no increased risk of breast cancers or lymphohematopoietic malignancies (LHM). Similarly, toxicological studies and studies of early effect biomarkers in animals and humans provided no strong indication that EtO causes LHM or mammary cancers. Ultimately, animal data are inadequate to define the actual dose–response shape or predict tumor response at very low doses with any confidence. We conclude that the IARC and USEPA classification of EtO as a known human carcinogen overstates the underlying evidence and that the IUR derived by USEPA grossly overestimates risk.