Carcinogenicity of asbestos-free talc and talcum powder: A systematic review of the epidemiological evidence after the 2006 monograph of the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: in 2006, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that the evidence of carcinogenicity for asbestos-free talc was inadequate (group 3), whereas perineal use of talcum powder was classified as possibly carcinogenic (group 2B). OBJECTIVES: to assess whether later studies provide more solid information on the carcinogenic risk from asbestos-free talc and talcum powder and a better characterization of exposure. DESIGN: systematic review. METHODS: cohort studies of talc miners and millers exposed to asbestos-free talc, as well as cohort and case-control studies reporting cancer risk in talc powder consumers published from 2006 onwards were identified through PubMed and reference lists. Pooled analyses were included, but not reviews and meta-analyses. In the case of repeatedly reported studies, the article with the longest follow-up or the largest number of observed cases was selected for data abstraction. Notice was taken of studies which were both reported individually and included in pooled analyses. RESULTS: publications meeting inclusion criteria were 2 cohort studies on talc miners and millers, 10 cohort studies on talcum powder users (4 of which estimated ovarian cancer risk), and 14 case-control studies (13 on ovarian and 1 on endometrial cancer) on the risk from talcum powder use. No excess cancer mortality has been reported among asbestos-free talc miners and millers. Case-control studies consistently led to estimates of ovarian cancer excesses associated with the use of perineal talcum powder (odds ratios up to 1.5). Most studies quantifying exposure also provided evidence of a dose-response relationship. Individual cohort studies estimated hazard ratios (HR) just above 1. In an analysis of pooled cohorts for a total of 3,112 cases, the HR for women with patent reproductive tract was 1.13 (95%CI 1.01-1.26) with a correlation between HR and frequency of use (p for trend 0.03). In all cohort studies, the perineal use of talcum powder was measured only once in the early phases of follow-up, thus producing an inaccurate measure of cumulative exposure. Results of epidemiological studies regarding cancer risk in other organs are limited and inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: epidemiological studies updated or published after IARC 2006 evaluation indicate that no increase in cancer risk is apparent among miners and millers of asbestos-free talc; risk for ovarian cancer increases following the perineal use of commercial talcum powder. A correlation between indicators of quantity of use and cancer risk is suggested by a number of studies. The composition of talcum powders considered in such studies is not known.