Assessment of occupational exposure to pesticides in a pooled analysis of agricultural cohorts within the AGRICOH consortium.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes methods developed to assess occupational exposure to pesticide active ingredients and chemical groups, harmonised across cohort studies included in the first AGRICOH pooling project, focused on the risk of lymph-haematological malignancies. METHODS: Three prospective agricultural cohort studies were included: US Agricultural Health Study (AHS), French Agriculture and Cancer Study (AGRICAN) and Cancer in the Norwegian Agricultural Population (CNAP). Self-reported pesticide use was collected in AHS. Crop-exposure matrices (CEMs) were developed for AGRICAN and CNAP. We explored the potential impact of these differences in exposure assessment by comparing a CEM approach estimating exposure in AHS with self-reported pesticide use. RESULTS: In AHS, 99% of participants were considered exposed to pesticides, 68% in AGRICAN and 63% in CNAP. For all cohorts combined (n=316 270), prevalence of exposure ranged from 19% to 59% for 14 chemical groups examined, and from 13% to 46% for 33 active ingredients. Exposures were highly correlated within AGRICAN and CNAP where CEMs were applied; they were less correlated in AHS. Poor agreement was found between self-reported pesticide use and assigned exposure in AHS using a CEM approach resembling the assessment for AGRICAN (κ -0.00 to 0.33) and CNAP (κ -0.01 to 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: We developed country-specific CEMs to assign occupational exposure to pesticides in cohorts lacking self-reported data on the use of specific pesticides. The different exposure assessment methods applied may overestimate or underestimate actual exposure prevalence, and additional work is needed to better estimate how far the exposure estimates deviate from reality.

Assessment of the genotoxic and carcinogenic potentials of 3-aminothiophene derivatives using in vitro and in silico methodologies.

Thiophene derivatives, a class of compounds widely used in products such as pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals or dyestuffs, represent chemicals of concern. Indeed, the thiophene ring is often considered as a structural moiety that may be involved in toxic effects in humans. We primarily focus on the genotoxic/mutagenic and carcinogenic potentials of the methyl 3-amino-4-methylthiophene-2-carboxylate (1), a precursor of the articaine local anesthetic (4) which falls within the scope of the European REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals) legislation. To discern some structure-toxicity relationships, we also studied two related compounds, namely the 3-amino 4-methylthiophene (2) and the 2-acetyl 4-chlorothiophene (3). Techniques employed to assess mutagenic and DNA-damaging effects involved the Salmonella mutagenicity assay (or Ames test) and the single-cell gel electrophoresis assay (or Comet assay). In the range of tested doses, none of these derivatives led to a positive response in the Ames tests and DNA damage was only observed in the Comet assay after high concentration exposure of 2. The study of their carcinogenic potential using the in vitro SHE (Syrian Hamster Embryo) cell transformation assay (CTA) highlighted the activity of compound 2. A combination of experimental data with in silico predictions of the reactivity of thiophene derivatives towards cytochrome P450 (CYP450), enabled us to hypothesize possible pathways leading to these toxicological profiles.

Utility of osteopontin and serum mesothelin in malignant pleural mesothelioma diagnosis and prognosis assessment.

PURPOSE: Malignant mesothelioma is a highly aggressive tumor and is often diagnosed too late for a curative treatment. We compared diagnostic and prognostic values of mesothelin and osteopontin in 172 patients suspected of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and in a control group of 112 asymptomatic asbestos-exposed subjects. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Osteopontin and mesothelin were assayed with commercial ELISA kits in a series of 43 patients with pleural metastases of various carcinomas, 33 patients with benign pleural lesions associated with asbestos exposure, 96 patients with MPMs, and 112 asbestos-exposed healthy subjects. Results were correlated with patient's diagnosis and survival. RESULTS: Serum osteopontin level was higher in MPM patients compared with healthy asbestos-exposed subjects and had a good capability to distinguish between these two populations. However, osteopontin was unable to distinguish between MPM and pleural metastatic carcinoma or benign pleural lesions associated with asbestos exposure. Neither plasma nor pleural fluid osteopontin were more powerful in this respect. Serum mesothelin had a good ability for diagnosing MPM but was unable to identify patients with nonepithelioid mesothelioma subtypes. Survival analysis identified tumor histologic subtype along with serum osteopontin and serum mesothelin as independent prognostic factors in mesothelioma patients. CONCLUSIONS: Osteopontin has a lower diagnostic accuracy than mesothelin in patients suspected of MPM. Insufficient specificity limits osteopontin utility as diagnostic marker. Both molecules have a potential value as prognostic markers.