Mapping the Human Exposome to Uncover the Causes of Breast Cancer.

Breast cancer is an important cause of morbidity and mortality for women, yet a significant proportion of variation in individual risk is unexplained. It is reasonable to infer that unexplained breast cancer risks are caused by a myriad of exposures and their interactions with genetic factors. Most epidemiological studies investigating environmental contribution to breast cancer risk have focused on a limited set of exposures and outcomes based on a priori knowledge. We hypothesize that by measuring a rich set of molecular information with omics (e.g., metabolomics and adductomics) and comparing these profiles using a case-control design we can pinpoint novel environmental risk factors. Specifically, exposome-wide association study approaches can be used to compare molecular profiles between controls and either breast cancer cases or participants with phenotypic measures associated with breast cancer (e.g., high breast density, chronic inflammation). Current challenges in annotating compound peaks from biological samples can be addressed by creating libraries of environmental chemicals that are breast cancer relevant using publicly available high throughput exposure and toxicity data, and by mass spectra fragmentation. This line of discovery and innovation will extend understanding of how environmental exposures interact with genetics to affect health, and provide evidence to support new breast cancer prevention strategies

Self-Reported Chemicals Exposure, Beliefs About Disease Causation, and Risk of Breast Cancer in the Cape Cod Breast Cancer and Environment Study: A Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND: Household cleaning and pesticide products may contribute to breast cancer because many contain endocrine disrupting chemicals or mammary gland carcinogens. This population-based case-control study investigated whether use of household cleaners and pesticides increases breast cancer risk. METHODS: Participants were 787 Cape Cod, Massachusetts, women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1988 and 1995 and 721 controls. Telephone interviews asked about product use, beliefs about breast cancer etiology, and established and suspected breast cancer risk factors. To evaluate potential recall bias, we stratified product-use odds ratios by beliefs about whether chemicals and pollutants contribute to breast cancer; we compared these results with odds ratios for family history (which are less subject to recall bias) stratified by beliefs about heredity. RESULTS: Breast cancer risk increased two-fold in the highest compared with lowest quartile of self-reported combined cleaning product use (Adjusted OR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.4, 3.3) and combined air freshener use (Adjusted OR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.0). Little association was observed with pesticide use. In stratified analyses, cleaning products odds ratios were more elevated among participants who believed pollutants contribute "a lot" to breast cancer and moved towards the null among the other participants. In comparison, the odds ratio for breast cancer and family history was markedly higher among women who believed that heredity contributes "a lot" (OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.9, 3.6) and not elevated among others (OR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5, 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that cleaning product use contributes to increased breast cancer risk. However, results also highlight the difficulty of distinguishing in retrospective self-report studies between valid associations and the influence of recall bias. Recall bias may influence higher odds ratios for product use among participants who believed that chemicals and pollutants contribute to breast cancer. Alternatively, the influence of experience on beliefs is another explanation, illustrated by the protective odds ratio for family history among women who do not believe heredity contributes "a lot." Because exposure to chemicals from household cleaning products is a biologically plausible cause of breast cancer and avoidable, associations reported here should be further examined prospectively.Massachusetts Legislature; Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Susan S. Bailis Breast Cancer Research Fund at Silent Spring Institute; United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R01 DP000218-01, 1H75EH000377-01

Wrangling environmental exposure data: guidance for getting the best information from your laboratory measurements.

BACKGROUND:Environmental health and exposure researchers can improve the quality and interpretation of their chemical measurement data, avoid spurious results, and improve analytical protocols for new chemicals by closely examining lab and field quality control (QC) data. Reporting QC data along with chemical measurements in biological and environmental samples allows readers to evaluate data quality and appropriate uses of the data (e.g., for comparison to other exposure studies, association with health outcomes, use in regulatory decision-making). However many studies do not adequately describe or interpret QC assessments in publications, leaving readers uncertain about the level of confidence in the reported data. One potential barrier to both QC implementation and reporting is that guidance on how to integrate and interpret QC assessments is often fragmented and difficult to find, with no centralized repository or summary. In addition, existing documents are typically written for regulatory scientists rather than environmental health researchers, who may have little or no experience in analytical chemistry. OBJECTIVES:We discuss approaches for implementing quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) in environmental exposure measurement projects and describe our process for interpreting QC results and drawing conclusions about data validity. DISCUSSION:Our methods build upon existing guidance and years of practical experience collecting exposure data and analyzing it in collaboration with contract and university laboratories, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. With real examples from our data, we demonstrate problems that would not have come to light had we not engaged with our QC data and incorporated field QC samples in our study design. Our approach focuses on descriptive analyses and data visualizations that have been compatible with diverse exposure studies with sample sizes ranging from tens to hundreds of samples. Future work could incorporate additional statistically grounded methods for larger datasets with more QC samples. CONCLUSIONS:This guidance, along with example table shells, graphics, and some sample R code, provides a useful set of tools for getting the best information from valuable environmental exposure datasets and enabling valid comparison and synthesis of exposure data across studies

Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances in a Cohort of Women Firefighters and Office Workers in San Francisco.

Studies of firefighters have shown increased exposures to carcinogenic compounds and elevated rates of certain cancers compared to the general population, yet this research has focused almost exclusively on men. To address this gap, the Women Firefighters Biomonitoring Collaborative created a biological sample archive and analyzed levels of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) among women firefighters (N = 86) and office workers (N = 84) in San Francisco. Serum samples were collected and analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to measure and compare PFAS levels between firefighters and office workers. 7 of 12 PFAS congeners were detected in the least 70% of the study population, and 4 congeners were detected in 100% of participants. In regression models comparing PFAS levels by occupation and adjusting for potential confounders, firefighters had higher geometric mean concentrations of PFAS compared to office workers PFHxS (2.22 (95% CI = 1.55, 3.18)), PFUnDA (1.83 (95% CI = 0.97, 3.45)), and PFNA (1.26 (95% CI = 1.01, 1.58)). Among firefighters, occupational position predicted exposure-firefighters and officers had higher PFNA, PFOA, PFDA, and PFUnDA levels compared to drivers. Women firefighters are exposed to higher levels of some PFAS compared to office workers, suggesting that some of these exposures may be occupationally related

Integrating Exposure Knowledge and Serum Suspect Screening as a New Approach to Biomonitoring: An Application in Firefighters and Office Workers.

Firefighters (FF) are exposed to recognized and probable carcinogens, yet there are few studies of chemical exposures and associated health concerns in women FFs, such as breast cancer. Biomonitoring often requires a priori selection of compounds to be measured, and so, it may not detect relevant, lesser known, exposures. The Women FFs Biomonitoring Collaborative (WFBC) created a biological sample archive and conducted a general suspect screen (GSS) to address this data gap. Using liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry, we sought to identify candidate chemicals of interest in serum samples from 83 women FFs and 79 women office workers (OW) in San Francisco. We identified chemical peaks by matching accurate mass from serum samples against a custom chemical database of 722 slightly polar phenolic and acidic compounds, including many of relevance to firefighting or breast cancer etiology. We then selected tentatively identified chemicals for confirmation based on the following criteria: (1) detection frequency or peak area differences between OW and FF; (2) evidence of mammary carcinogenicity, estrogenicity, or genotoxicity; and (3) not currently measured in large biomonitoring studies. We detected 620 chemicals that matched 300 molecular formulas in the WFBC database, including phthalate metabolites, phosphate flame-retardant metabolites, phenols, pesticides, nitro and nitroso compounds, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Of the 20 suspect chemicals selected for validation, 8 were confirmed-including two alkylphenols, ethyl paraben, BPF, PFOSAA, benzophenone-3, benzyl p-hydroxybenzoate, and triphenyl phosphate-by running a matrix spike of the reference standards and using m/z, retention time, and the confirmation of at least two fragment ions as criteria for matching. GSS provides a powerful high-throughput approach to identify and prioritize novel chemicals for biomonitoring and health studies

Measuring the Success of Community Science: The Northern California Household Exposure Study

Background: Environmental health research involving community participation has increased substantially since the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) environmental justice and community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships began in the mid-1990s. The goals of these partnerships are to inform and empower better decisions about exposures, foster trust, and generate scientific knowledge to reduce environmental health disparities in low-income, minority communities. Peer-reviewed publication and clinical health outcomes alone are inadequate criteria to judge the success of projects in meeting these goals; therefore, new strategies for evaluating success are needed

Food Packaging and Bisphenol A and Bis(2-Ethyhexyl) Phthalate Exposure: Findings from a Dietary Intervention

Background: Bisphenol A (BPA) and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) are high-production-volume chemicals used in plastics and resins for food packaging. They have been associated with endocrine disruption in animals and in some human studies. Human exposure sources have been estimated, but the relative contribution of dietary exposure to total intake has not been studied empirically