4.6 Article

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, Polybrominated Biphenyls, and Risk of Papillary Thyroid Cancer: A Nested Case-Control Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 189, 期 2, 页码 120-132

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwz229

关键词

papillary thyroid cancer; PBBs; PBDEs; polybrominated biphenyls; polybrominated diphenyl ethers

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01ES020361]
  2. American Cancer Society [RSGM-10-038-01-CCE]
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIACP010125] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A nested case-control study was carried out using data from the US Department of Defense cohort between 2000 and 2013 to investigate the associations of papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) with serum concentrations of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and polybrominated biphenyls. This study included 742 histologically confirmed PTC cases (in 341 women and 401 men) and 742 matched controls with prediagnostic serum samples from the Department of Defense Serum Repository. Lipid-corrected serum concentrations of 8 congeners were measured. Multivariate conditional logistic regression analyses were performed for classical PTC and follicular variant of PTC, respectively. We also examined effect modification by sex. BDE-28, a polybrominated diphenyl ether congener, was associated with significantly increased risk of classical PTC (for the third tertile vs. below the limit of detection, odds ratio = 2.09, 95% confidence interval: 1.05, 4.15; P for trend = 0.02), adjusting for other congeners, body mass index, and branch of military service. This association was observed mainly for larger classical PTC (tumor size > 10 mm), with a significantly stronger association among women than men (P for interaction = 0.004). No consistent associations were observed for other congeners, including those at higher concentrations. This study found a significantly increased risk of classical PTC associated with increasing levels of BDE-28. The risk varied by sex and tumor size.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据