Title: New CalEPA report and Breast Cancer
1New CalEPA report and Breast Cancer
http//www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/finalreport/final
report.htm
2Mammary Carcinogens in Tobacco Smoke
3Biology
- Tobacco smoke contains multiple fat-soluble
compounds known to induce mammary tumors in
rodents. (PAHs, heterocyclic amines, aromatic
amines, and nitro-PAHs) - These carcinogens can be activated into
electrophilic intermediates by enzymes active in
the human breast epithelial cell.
4Biology (contd)
- Genes coding for activation/detoxification
enzymes (e.g. NAT2, NAT1, CYP1a1, COMT, BRCA1 And
BRCA2) have been reported to modify the
relationship of tobacco smoke to breast cancer
risk (although results are inconsistent). - Electrophilic metabolites of tobacco compounds
bind to DNA and form DNA adducts that can be
detected in human breast epithelial
cells. Morabia A., Environmental and Molecular
Mutagenesis 3989-95 2002
5Biology (contd)
- Genomic alterations observed in vitro after
exposure of human breast epithelial cells to
tobacco carcinogens resemble those in familial
breast cancer. - p53 damage in some breast tumors of smokers, but
not nonsmokers - Morabia A., Environmental and Molecular
Mutagenesis 3989-95 2002
6Problems with exposure assessment
7Effect of Exposure Misclassification on Estimates
of Relative Risk
Relative Risk
5
8Effect of Exposure Misclassification on Estimates
of Relative Risk
Relative Risk
5
9Effect of Exposure Misclassification on Estimates
of Relative Risk
2
Relative Risk
5
10Exposure misclassification
- Biases results towards null
- Probably reason for differences in Hirayama and
Garfinkle study - Important in studies of SHS
11SHS Breast Cancer Risk
12SHS and Breast Cancer in Younger/Premenopausal
Women
- 14 studies evaluated breast cancer risk in
younger/premenopausal women strata. - 13/14 found elevated risks (1.1-7.1), and 7 were
statistically significant. - Pooled risk estimate from meta-analysis 1.68
(95 CI 1.31-2.15). - Pooled risk estimate for studies with lifetime
exposure information from all sources 2.2 (95
CI 1.69-2.87) - Some evidence of dose-response.
13Utilizing Unexposed Referent Raises Risk
Estimate (within study comparison, Morabia et
al. 1996)
(Similar within study comparison results in
Johnson et al., 2000, Lash and Aschengrau, 1999,
and Kropp and Chang Claude, 2002)
14Comparison of breast cancer risk from active and
passive smoke exposure in studies CalEPA
considered most informative
15Thuns arguments
- If active smoking does not cause breast cancer,
how can passive smoking? - Active smoking does cause breast cancer
- IARC says no effect
- 2004 report based on meeting in 2001
- Considered essentially the same studies as CalEPA
1997 (which did not say SHS caused breast cancer) - Only considered 4 studies published between 2000
and 2002 - Surgeon General says no effect
- 2004 report essentially completed in 2001
- Considered 5 studies published after 2000
- CalEPA considered 23 studies between 2000 and
2005 - Cohort studies negative
16Evidence for breast cancer in younger women
stronger than lung cancer in 1986
- Lung cancer 1986
- 11/13 elevated risk
- 5 significant
- 1/3 cohort studies significant
- Hirayama, Garfinkle,Gillis
- No toxicology
- No molecular epi
- Breast cancer 2006
- 13/14 elevated risk
- 7 significant
- 1/3 cohort studies significant
- Hanaoka, Reynolds, Wartenberg
- Positive toxicology
- Molecular epi
17Passive smoking and lung cancer
- First study, Hirayama 1981
- Cohort study in Japan
- Nonsmoking women married to men who smoked
- Few women smoked
- Few women worked outside the home
- Significant elevation in risk
- ACS CPS study, Garfinkle
- Cohort study in USA
- Nonsignificant elevation in risk
- Many women smoked and worked outside the home
18(No Transcript)
19Implications for Workplace Exposure of Waitresses
- Highest occupational exposure to SHS 72.3
- These women tend to get exposed at the most
vulnerable times - 1.7 relative risk
- 30 of breast cancer in younger waitresses
20Write down this URL
- http//www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/
- finalreport/finalreport.htm