An updated lymphohematopoietic and bladder cancers risk evaluation for occupational and environmental exposures to 1,3-butadiene.

EPA designated 1,3-butadiene (BD) as a high priority chemical in December 2019 and is presently performing an evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA's cancer dose-response assessment for BD was published in 2002 and was primarily based on a study on workers exposed to BD in the North American synthetic Styrene-Butadiene Rubber (SBR) Industry developed by the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). EPA relied upon a Poisson regression of leukemia mortality data from this cohort (hereinafter referred to as the SBR study) to estimate the cancer potency of BD. At the time, the SBR cohort included more than 15,000 male workers that were followed up through 1991. The SBR cohort has undergone multiple updates over the past two decades. Most recently, Sathiakumar et al. (2021a, b) published an update, with 18 more years of follow up in addition to approximately 5,000 female workers and updated exposure concentration estimates. Recent EPA assessments (e.g., for ethylene oxide, USEPA 2016) based on epidemiological studies use Cox proportional hazards models because they offer better control of the effect of age in cancer development and are less restrictive than Poisson regression models. Here, we develop exposure-response models using standard Cox proportional hazards regression. We explore the relationship between six endpoints (all leukemia, lymphoid leukemia, myeloid leukemia, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and bladder cancer) and exposures to BD using the most recent exposure metrics and the most recent update of the SBR study. After adjusting for statistically significant covariates, an upper 95% confidence level on the cancer potency based on leukemia derived herein is 0.000086 per ppm, which is approximately 1,000-fold less than EPA's (2002) estimate of 0.08 per ppm and about 10-fold less than TCEQ's (2008) estimate of 0.0011 per ppm.

Addressing nonlinearity in the exposure-response relationship for a genotoxic carcinogen: cancer potency estimates for ethylene oxide.

Ethylene oxide (EO) has been identified as a carcinogen in laboratory animals. Although the precise mechanism of action is not known, tumors in animals exposed to EO are presumed to result from its genotoxicity. The overall weight of evidence for carcinogenicity from a large body of epidemiological data in the published literature remains limited. There is some evidence for an association between EO exposure and lympho/hematopoietic cancer mortality. Of these cancers, the evidence provided by two large cohorts with the longest follow-up is most consistent for leukemia. Together with what is known about human leukemia and EO at the molecular level, there is a body of evidence that supports a plausible mode of action for EO as a potential leukemogen. Based on a consideration of the mode of action, the events leading from EO exposure to the development of leukemia (and therefore risk) are expected to be proportional to the square of the dose. In support of this hypothesis, a quadratic dose-response model provided the best overall fit to the epidemiology data in the range of observation. Cancer dose-response assessments based on human and animal data are presented using three different assumptions for extrapolating to low doses: (1) risk is linearly proportionate to dose; (2) there is no appreciable risk at low doses (margin-of-exposure or reference dose approach); and (3) risk below the point of departure continues to be proportionate to the square of the dose. The weight of evidence for EO supports the use of a nonlinear assessment. Therefore, exposures to concentrations below 37 microg/m3 are not likely to pose an appreciable risk of leukemia in human populations. However, if quantitative estimates of risk at low doses are desired and the mode of action for EO is considered, these risks are best quantified using the quadratic estimates of cancer potency, which are approximately 3.2- to 32-fold lower, using alternative points of departure, than the linear estimates of cancer potency for EO. An approach is described for linking the selection of an appropriate point of departure to the confidence in the proposed mode of action. Despite high confidence in the proposed mode of action, a small linear component for the dose-response relationship at low concentrations cannot be ruled out conclusively. Accordingly, a unit risk value of 4.5 x 10(-8) (microg/m3)(-1) was derived for EO, with a range of unit risk values of 1.4 x 10(-8) to 1.4 x 10(-7) (microg/m3)(-1) reflecting the uncertainty associated with a theoretical linear term at low concentrations.

Dose-response implications of the University of Alabama study of lymphohematopoietic cancer among workers exposed to 1,3-butadiene and styrene in the synthetic rubber industry.

New quantitative cancer risk estimates for exposure to 1,3-butadiene are presented. These estimates are based on the most recent human epidemiologic data developed by Drs Delzell and Macaluso and their colleagues at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The implications of Poisson regression analyses of the relative rate for leukemia are explored using their updated dose estimates and lymphohematopoietic cancer data. The Poisson regression model in these analyses has the same form as in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s draft risk assessment of 1,3-butadiene [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Risk Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene - External Review Draft, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, 63 Fed. Reg. 7167 (February 12, 1998) Publication NCEA-W-0267, Washington, 1998]. Consistent with the proposed cancer risk assessment guidelines of the EPA and the EPA's draft risk assessment, the exploration includes the maximum likelihood estimate of the 'effective concentration' (EC(01)) corresponding to an extra risk of leukemia of 0.01 (1%) from a lifetime continuous exposure to 1,3-butadiene based on a linear dose-response model and the cumulative 1,3-butadiene dose metric (ppm-years). The incorporation of the most recent exposure estimates results in a 2.5-fold decrease in the estimates of leukemia risks computed by EPA. In addition, three changes proposed by the American Chemistry Council (formerly the Chemical Manufacturers Association) to the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) for EPA's draft risk assessment of 1,3-butadiene are incorporated into the calculation. This results in approximately an additional fivefold decrease in the risk estimates of leukemia. The leukemia cancer risk estimates in the EPA's draft risk assessment of 1,3-butadiene decrease by approximately a factor of 13-fold when the updated epidemiologic data and the alternative numbers proposed by industry to the SAB are both incorporated. Specifically, the maximum likelihood estimate of the EC(01) increases from EPA's 1.2 ppm to 2.8 ppm on the basis of the updated epidemiologic data and increases further to 15.1 ppm when the CMA's proposed changes are also incorporated.

Cancer dose-response modeling of epidemiological data on worker exposures to aldrin and dieldrin.

The paper applies classical statistical principles to yield new tools for risk assessment and makes new use of epidemiological data for human risk assessment. An extensive clinical and epidemiological study of workers engaged in the manufacturing and formulation of aldrin and dieldrin provides occupational hygiene and biological monitoring data on individual exposures over the years of employment and provides unusually accurate measures of individual lifetime average daily doses. In the cancer dose-response modeling, each worker is treated as a separate experimental unit with his own unique dose. Maximum likelihood estimates of added cancer risk are calculated for multistage, multistage-Weibull, and proportional hazards models. Distributional characterizations of added cancer risk are based on bootstrap and relative likelihood techniques. The cancer mortality data on these male workers suggest that low-dose exposures to aldrin and dieldrin do not significantly increase human cancer risk and may even decrease the human hazard rate for all types of cancer combined at low doses (e.g., 1 microgram/kg/day). The apparent hormetic effect in the best fitting dose-response models for this data set is statistically significant. The decrease in cancer risk at low doses of aldrin and dieldrin is in sharp contrast to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's upper bound on cancer potency based on mouse liver tumors. The EPA's upper bound implies that lifetime average daily doses of 0.0000625 and 0.00625 microgram/kg body weight/day would correspond to increased cancer risks of 0.000001 and 0.0001, respectively. However, the best estimate from the Pernis epidemiological data is that there is no increase in cancer risk in these workers at these doses or even at doses as large as 2 micrograms/kg/day.

Ethylene oxide cancer risk assessment based on epidemiological data: application of revised regulatory guidelines.

Ethylene oxide (EO) research has significantly increased since the 1980s, when regulatory risk assessments were last completed on the basis of the animal cancer chronic bioassays. In tandem with the new scientific understanding, there have been evolutionary changes in regulatory risk assessment guidelines, that encourage flexibility and greater use of scientific information. The results of an updated meta-analysis of the findings from 10 unique EO study cohorts from five countries, including nearly 33,000 workers, and over 800 cancers are presented, indicating that EO does not cause increased risk of cancers overall or of brain, stomach or pancreatic cancers. The findings for leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) are inconclusive. Two studies with the requisite attributes of size, individual exposure estimates and follow up are the basis for dose-response modeling and added lifetime risk predictions under environmental and occupational exposure scenarios and a variety of plausible alternative assumptions. A point of departure analysis, with various margins of exposure, is also illustrated using human data. The two datasets produce remarkably similar leukemia added risk predictions, orders of magnitude lower than prior animal-based predictions under conservative, default assumptions, with risks on the order of 1 x 10(-6) or lower for exposures in the low ppb range. Inconsistent results for "lymphoid" tumors, a non-standard grouping using histologic information from death certificates, are discussed. This assessment demonstrates the applicability of the current risk assessment paradigm to epidemiological data.

Use of probabilistic expert judgment in uncertainty analysis of carcinogenic potency.

A new approach to characterizing the state of knowledge about carcinogenic potency is described. In this approach, the carcinogenic risk posed by a specific dose is characterized by a probability distribution, indicating the relative likelihood of different risk estimates. The approach utilizes expert judgment and a probability tree and is illustrated in a case study of chloroform exposure. Experts in cancer biology/toxicology, pharmacokinetics, and dose-response modeling were identified by a panel of science-policy specialists. In a workshop, experts reviewed the chloroform data, received training in probability elicitation, and constructed a consensual probability tree based on biological theories of cancer causation. Distributions of carcinogenic risk were developed based on the probability tree, chloroform data, judgmental probabilities provided by the experts, and classical statistical techniques. Risk distributions varied considerably between experts, with some predicting essentially no risk from 100 ppb chloroform in drinking water while other have at least some probability on risks generally considered of regulatory significance. Estimated human risk was much lower when extrapolating from liver tumors in animals than from kidney tumors. Issues of scientific disagreement leading to different risk distributions between experts are discussed. The resulting risk distributions are compared to standard EPA risk calculations for the same exposure scenario as well as to the expert judgement of epidemiologists about cancer risks of chlorinated drinking water. Issues in combining expert judgments are discussed, and several alternative methods are presented. Strengths and weaknesses of the distributional approach are discussed.