Epithelioid Angiosarcoma of the Small Intestine After Occupational Exposure to Radiation and Polyvinyl Chloride: A case Report and Review of Literature

Angiosarcomas represent 1–2% of soft tissue sarcomas and most frequently occur in the subcutis. They may affect internal organs, such as the heart, liver, and spleen, and only rarely do they emerge in the gastrointestinal tract. The association between angiosarcomas and certain toxic chemical substances or previous external-beam radiation therapy is well documented

Cancer effects of formaldehyde: a proposal for an indoor air guideline value

Formaldehyde is a ubiquitous indoor air pollutant that is classified as “Carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)” (IARC, Formaldehyde, 2-butoxyethanol and 1-tert-butoxypropanol-2-ol. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol 88. World Health Organization, Lyon, pp 39–325, 2006). For nasal cancer in rats, the exposure–response relationship is highly non-linear, supporting a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) that allows setting a guideline value. Epidemiological studies reported no increased incidence of nasopharyngeal cancer in humans below a mean level of 1 ppm and peak levels below 4 ppm, consistent with results from rat studies. Rat studies indicate that cytotoxicity-induced cell proliferation (NOAEL at 1 ppm) is a key mechanism in development of nasal cancer. However, the linear unit risk approach that is based on conservative (“worst-case”) considerations is also used for risk characterization of formaldehyde exposures. Lymphohematopoietic malignancies are not observed consistently in animal studies and if caused by formaldehyde in humans, they are high-dose phenomenons with non-linear exposure–response relationships. Apparently, these diseases are not reported in epidemiological studies at peak exposures below 2 ppm and average exposures below 0.5 ppm. At the similar airborne exposure levels in rodents, the nasal cancer effect is much more prominent than lymphohematopoietic malignancies. Thus, prevention of nasal cancer is considered to prevent lymphohematopoietic malignancies. Departing from the rat studies, the guideline value of the WHO (Air quality guidelines for Europe, 2nd edn. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, pp 87–91, 2000), 0.08 ppm (0.1 mg m−3) formaldehyde, is considered preventive of carcinogenic effects in compliance with epidemiological findings

Is exposure to formaldehyde in air causally associated with leukemia?—A hypothesis-based weight-of-evidence analysis

Recent scientific debate has focused on the potential for inhaled formaldehyde to cause lymphohematopoietic cancers, particularly leukemias, in humans. The concern stems from certain epidemiology studies reporting an association, although particulars of endpoints and dosimetry are inconsistent across studies and several other studies show no such effects. Animal studies generally report neither hematotoxicity nor leukemia associated with formaldehyde inhalation, and hematotoxicity studies in humans are inconsistent. Formaldehyde's reactivity has been thought to preclude systemic exposure following inhalation, and its apparent inability to reach and affect the target tissues attacked by known leukemogens has, heretofore, led to skepticism regarding its potential to cause human lymphohematopoietic cancers. Recently, however, potential modes of action for formaldehyde leukemogenesis have been hypothesized, and it has been suggested that formaldehyde be identified as a known human leukemogen. In this article, we apply our hypothesis-based weight-of-evidence (HBWoE) approach to evaluate the large body of evidence regarding formaldehyde and leukemogenesis, attending to how human, animal, and mode-of-action results inform one another. We trace the logic of inference within and across all studies, and articulate how one could account for the suite of available observations under the various proposed hypotheses. Upon comparison of alternative proposals regarding what causal processes may have led to the array of observations as we see them, we conclude that the case fora causal association is weak and strains biological plausibility. Instead, apparent association between formaldehyde inhalation and leukemia in some human studies is better interpreted as due to chance or confounding

Identifying an indoor air exposure limit for formaldehyde considering both irritation and cancer hazards

Formaldehyde is a well-studied chemical and effects from inhalation exposures have been extensively characterized in numerous controlled studies with human volunteers, including asthmatics and other sensitive individuals, which provide a rich database on exposure concentrations that can reliably produce the symptoms of sensory irritation. Although individuals can differ in their sensitivity to odor and eye irritation, the majority of authoritative reviews of the formaldehyde literature have concluded that an air concentration of 0.3 ppm will provide protection from eye irritation for virtually everyone. A weight of evidence-based formaldehyde exposure limit of 0.1 ppm (100 ppb) is recommended as an indoor air level for all individuals for odor detection and sensory irritation. It has recently been suggested by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) that formaldehyde is causally associated with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) and leukemia. This has led US EPA to conclude that irritation is not the most sensitive toxic endpoint and that carcinogenicity should dictate how to establish exposure limits for formaldehyde. In this review, a number of lines of reasoning and substantial scientific evidence are described and discussed, which leads to a conclusion that neither point of contact nor systemic effects of any type, including NPC or leukemia, are causally associated with exposure to formaldehyde. This conclusion supports the view that the equivocal epidemiology studies that suggest otherwise are almost certainly flawed by identified or yet to be unidentified confounding variables. Thus, this assessment concludes that a formaldehyde indoor air limit of 0.1 ppm should protect even particularly susceptible individuals from both irritation effects and any potential cancer hazard