4.5 Review

A critical review of the epidemiology of Agent Orange or 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and lymphoid malignancies

Journal

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 275-292

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.01.002

Keywords

Lymphoma; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Lymphoma, Hodgkin; Multiple myeloma; Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin; Agent Orange; Epidemiology

Funding

  1. Dow Chemical Company
  2. Monsanto Company

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Establishing a causal relationship between 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and risk of specific lymphoid cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and multiple myeloma (MM), would be useful for risk assessment. Methods: This article systematically and critically reviews epidemiologic studies of the association between exposure to TCDD or TCDD-contaminated herbicides and risk of lymphoid malignancies. These include studies of military, industrial, accidental environmental, and general environmental exposure to Agent Orange or TCDD. Results: Collectively, the epidemiologic evidence from industrial cohorts suggests a positive association with NHL mortality, but results are not consistent across other studies, a clear exposure-response gradient is not evident, and data are insufficient to conclude that the association is causal. Furthermore, available studies provide little information on NHL incidence or specific NHL subtypes. Epidemiologic studies do not show an association of TCDD exposure with HI, whereas the indication of a positive association with MM in a limited number of studies, but not others, remains to be confirmed in additional research. Exposure classification error and small numbers are important limitations of the available epidemiologic studies. Conclusions: Overall, a causal effect of TCDD on NHL, HL, MM, or subtypes of these lymphoid malignancies has not been established. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available