Did formaldehyde cause lung cancer?

Article Abstract:

For the past 10 years formaldehyde has been considered a possible carcinogen, a cancer-causing agent. A study by Blair et al, published in 1986 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, reported on a large number of industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde. The researchers concluded that excessive numbers of deaths from lung cancer were not related to formaldehyde exposure. The authors made their data available to the scientific community for reanalysis. A 1988 article published in the Journal of Occupational Medicine, by Sterling et al reanalyzed the original data. Their conclusion was that there is a cumulative effect of exposure to formaldehyde and this was related to high rates of lung cancer as well as other cancers and all causes of death. The November, 1989 issue of Journal of Occupational Medicine published both a rebuttal from Blair et al and further comments from Sterling et al. The editor commended Blair for making the data set available to others. He commended Sterling et al for reanalyzing the data and providing an alternative view. He also commended the readers for trying to find the truth in this disagreement. Government regulatory agencies consider formaldehyde a 'probable human carcinogen.' However, there is research that indicates there is not a direct one-to-one or linear relationship between the level of exposure and formaldehyde's ability to cause cancer. The editor suggests that it is time for new studies to be performed on this topic.

Causes of, editorial

---

Reanalysis of lung cancer mortality in a National Cancer Institute study of "mortality among industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde": additional discussion

Article Abstract:

For the past ten years formaldehyde has been considered a possible carcinogen, a cancer-causing agent. In 1986 Blair et al published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute a study of a large number of industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde, and concluded that excesses in deaths from lung cancer were not related to formaldehyde exposure. In 1988, in the Journal of Occupational Medicine, Sterling et al reanalyzed the same data and concluded that exposure to formaldehyde had a cumulative effect and was indeed related to high rates of lung cancer, as well as other cancers and other causes of death. In the November, 1989 Journal of Occupational Medicine, Blair et al questioned the reanalysis by Sterling. In this article the authors respond to Blair et al, claiming that Blair had not, as he had stated in his rebuttal, masked the death rates from cancer, but that he had denied a relationship with formaldehyde exposure and lung cancer. The analysis done by Sterling et al questioned the validity of the exposure measurement done in the factories as reported by Blair. The authors correct a calculation error in their original reanalysis. Their final conclusion is that there is an elevated risk for lung cancer due to cumulative exposure to formaldehyde. Because of rectification of the calculation error, they no longer find an elevated risk to all causes of death or all cancers from formaldehyde.

Patient outcomes, Mortality, Environmental aspects

---

Formaldehyde revisited

Article Abstract:

For the past ten years formaldehyde has been considered a possible cause of cancer (carcinogen). A study by Blair et al, published in 1986 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, reported on a large number of industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde. They concluded that excessive mortality from lung cancer was not related to formaldehyde exposure. The data from this research was made available for reanalysis. In 1988, in the Journal of Occupational Medicine, Sterling et al published a reanalysis of this data, concluding that exposure to formaldehyde was cumulative and was related to high rates of lung cancer, as well as other cancers and all causes of death. In their rebuttal to the reanalysis by Sterling, the authors hold that their original data had not masked the excess mortality from lung cancer, as claimed. The results of death from lung cancer were similar in the two studies but the analyses do not agree. The authors feel that the issue is whether the increase can clearly be attributed to formaldehyde. They also question the number of cases reported on in the study, as there were differences from his original data. Blair found virtually no excess death rate for all causes, or all cancers, as Sterling et al had reported.

Risk factors

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Determinants of spermatogenesis recovery among workers exposed to 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane. An epidemiologic investigation of forced expiratory volume at 1 second and respiratory symptoms among employees of a toluene diisocyanate production plant
• Abstracts: Business analysis in occupational health and safety consultations. An outbreak of infectious conjunctivitis spread by microscopes
• Abstracts: Morbidity patterns among employees at a petroleum refinery. Incidence and cost of injury in an industrial population
• Abstracts: Reasons for participation and nonparticipation in a colorectal cancer screening program for a cohort of high risk polypropylene workers

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.