4.7 Article

Urinary biomarkers of phthalates exposure and risks of thyroid cancer and benign nodule

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 383, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121189

Keywords

Case-control study; Exposure; Phthalates; Thyroid cancer; Thyroid benign nodule

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFC1302702]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81502784]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phthalates have been reported to affect the function and growth of thyroid. However, there is little data on the effect of phthalates on thyroid oncogenesis. Here we explored the associations between phthalates exposure and the risks of thyroid cancer and benign nodule. We sex-matched 144 thyroid cancer, 138 benign nodule patients and 144 healthy adults from Wuhan, China. Eight phthalate metabolites in spot urine samples were quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. The associations of creatinine-corrected urinary phthalate metabolites with the risks of thyroid cancer and benign nodule were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models. We found that urinary monomethyl phthalate (MMP), mono(2-ethyl-5hydroxyhexyl) phthalate (MEHHP) and mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP) associated with increased risks of thyroid cancer and nodule, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 1.74 to 4.78 comparing the extreme tertiles, and urinary monobutyl phthalate (MBP) was associated with decreased risks of thyroid cancer and benign nodule (all P for trends < 0.05). Male-specific positive associations of urinary monoethyl phthalate (MEP) with thyroid cancer and nodule as well as urinary mono(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl) phthalate (MEOHP) with thyroid cancer were also observed. Our results suggest that exposure to certain phthalates may contribute to increased risks of thyroid cancer and benign nodule.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available