Pesticide exposure and prostate cancer: A systematic rewiew and meta-analysis
Metadata
Show full item recordAuthor
Mikhael, Anne-MaryEditorial
Universidad de Granada
Director
Jiménez Moleón, José JuanDepartamento
Universidad de Granada. Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud PúblicaMateria
Cáncer Próstata Mortalidad Factores de riesgo Pesticidas Aspectos endocrinos
Materia UDC
61 3210 610801
Date
2016Fecha lectura
2015-07-08Referencia bibliográfica
Mikhael, A.-M. Pesticide exposure and prostate cancer: A systematic rewiew and meta-analysis. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2016. [http://hdl.handle.net/10481/42673]
Sponsorship
Tesis Univ. Granada. Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud PúblicaAbstract
Prostate Cancer is the second most common type of cancer and the fifth cause of cancer
mortality in men worldwide. However, its etiology is still very unclear and established
risk factors include only advancing age, having a positive family history of prostate
cancer and ethnicity. In search for possible modifiable risk factors, many studies have
examined the role of various environmental and occupational exposures.
Pesticide exposure has received much attention, as experimental studies had suggested
carcinogenic potential of many pesticides types. On the other hand, a large number of
pesticides have been postulated to possess endocrine disrupting properties, which make
them of specific relevance to prostate cancer, being a hormone dependant malignancy.
However, in spite of the availability of a large body of epidemiological literature relating
farming and pesticide exposure to prostate cancer, results are controversial and
inconsistent.
Accordingly, we have systematically reviewed available epidemiological literature
relating pesticide exposure to prostate cancer in order to examine the hypothesis that
farmers are at an increased risk of developing prostate cancer. We have also aimed to
evaluate the potential association between different levels of pesticide exposure and
prostate cancer, and to explore potential sources of heterogeneity between studies.
We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases for case-control and
cohort studies published from 1986 till 2015. We assessed the quality of the included
articles using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was explored using sub-set analyses,
sensitivity analyses and meta-regression.
We have conducted three consecutive meta-analyses, the first included 14 case-control
and 11 cohort studies relating farming to prostate cancer. For the cohort studies, pooled
estimates showed high heterogeneity. Homogeneity was revealed by sensitivity analysis
and the pooled estimate showed no association; 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.02, I2 =22.3%,
p=0.252. For the case-control studies, there was moderate heterogeneity which was
explained by location of the studies, decades of prostate cancer diagnosis, and type of
control population. A higher association was observed for studies conducted in the USA,
for older studies where data was collected between late 70s and late 80s, as well as for
studies that used cancer patients as controls. The repeatedly obtained pooled estimate
showed consistently a weak yet statistically significant association. The pooled estimate
from the sensitivity analysis was 1.26, 95% CI 1.19-1.33, I2 = 0.00%, p = 0.570.
For the second meta-analysis, which included four cohort studies and 21 case-control
studies that quantified pesticide exposure, there was no association between low
exposure to pesticides and prostate cancer. However, association was weak but
significant for high exposure, pooled OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.02-1.63, I2 = 44.8%, p = 0.024.
Heterogeneity was explained by a number of variables including the method used to
assess pesticide exposure. Pooled OR was weak and non-significant for those having
high serum levels of pesticides, 1.12(0.74-1.50), I2 = 0.00%, p=0.966, while a high and
significant association was detected for studies that applied grouped non-individualized assessment of exposure, pooled OR was 2.24(1.36-3.11), I2 = 0.00%, p=0.955. On the
other hand, for studies that used self-reporting of pesticide exposure, pooled OR was
1.34(0.91-1.77), I2=0.00%, p=0.493. Also, higher pooled estimates were observed for
studies conducted in USA/Canada, those where the controls were cancer patients, and
those having lower quality according to NOS criteria. Also, studies addressing pesticide
exposed farmers and organochlorine pesticides showed higher pooled ORs.
Nevertheless, an impact of the exposure assessment methodology and study quality
was consistently observed. We have also noted an increased risk of prostate cancer for
high exposure to pesticides among individuals with a positive family history of prostate
cancer. Pooled OR was 2.23(1.05-3.41), I2 = 0.00%, p=0.646.
We have conducted another meta-analysis to further examine the potential association
between specific organochlorine pesticides and prostate cancer. Pooled estimates that
we obtained for high exposure to DDT, DDE, hexachlorobenzene, oxychlordane and
transnonachlor among the general population were weak and insignificant. On the other
hand, pooled estimates for high occupational exposure to DDT, heptachlor and lindane
showed a positive yet insignificant association.
Based on the available epidemiological literature, we conclude that there is no concrete
evidence for associating exposure to specific pesticides to an increased prostate cancer
risk. Although a weak yet significant association was observed for high exposure to
pesticides among farmers, an impact of exposure assessment methodology and the
quality of the studies was also observed. There are still gaps in the available epidemiological data that makes the association unclear. These include deficiencies in
exposure assessment methods and in selection of control populations, as well as lack of
adjusting for important confounders including family history of prostate cancer and PSA
testing variability.