Next Article in Journal
Biomarkers of Response to Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation in Localised Prostate Cancer
Next Article in Special Issue
Association between Serum Level of Multiple Trace Elements and Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Risk: A Case–Control Study in China
Previous Article in Journal
Long-Term Outcomes of Breast Cancer Patients Who Underwent Selective Neck Dissection for Metachronous Isolated Supraclavicular Nodal Metastasis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Early Alcohol Use Initiation, Obesity, Not Breastfeeding, and Residence in a Rural Area as Risk Factors for Breast Cancer: A Case-Control Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/cancers14010165
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

The Carcinogenic Effects of Formaldehyde Occupational Exposure: A Systematic Review

by
Carmela Protano
1,
Giuseppe Buomprisco
2,
Vittoria Cammalleri
1,
Roberta Noemi Pocino
1,
Daniela Marotta
1,
Stefano Simonazzi
2,
Francesca Cardoni
2,
Marta Petyx
3,
Sergio Iavicoli
3 and
Matteo Vitali
1,*
1
Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy
2
Department of Human Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University of Rome, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy
3
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, INAIL, Via Fontana Candida 1, 00078 Monte Porzio Catone, Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(1), 165; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010165
Submission received: 12 November 2021 / Revised: 28 December 2021 / Accepted: 28 December 2021 / Published: 29 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Occupational and Environmental Carcinogenesis)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Formaldehyde is a chemical compound present in many working activities and indoor workplaces. Occupational exposure occurs primarily by inhaling airborne formaldehyde, but it can also be absorbed through the skin or ingested. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified formaldehyde as a Group 1 carcinogen for humans in 2004, based on toxicological data and epidemiological evidence obtained in workplaces, all published before that year. Over the last two decades, many new studies in this field have been published, providing updated findings. The aim of the present systematic review was to synthetize the results of epidemiological studies in occupational settings carried out in the last 20 years and to evaluate whether the IARC classification was confirmed by further studies. Our results show that the evidence of correlation between formaldehyde occupational exposure and the occurrence of cancer is limited.

Abstract

Background: Formaldehyde, classified as a carcinogen in 2004, as of today is widely used in many work activities. From its classification, further studies were performed to evaluate its carcinogenicity. The aim of the systematic review is to update the evidence on occupational exposure to formaldehyde and cancer onset. Methods: The review, in accordance with the PRISMA statement, includes articles in English reporting original results of studies conducted on workers exposed to formaldehyde, considering all types of cancer, published from 1 January 2000 to 30 July 2021 and selected from the Pubmed and Scopus databases. The studies’ quality was assessed by the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: A total of 21 articles were included, conducted in different European, American, and Asian countries. The most investigated occupational areas are those characterized by a deliberate use of formaldehyde. Some studies evaluated all types of cancer, whereas others focused on specific sites such as thyroid and respiratory, lymphohematopoietic, or central nervous systems. The results showed weak associations with lung cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, leukemia, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Conclusions: The results demonstrate the need for further original studies carried out on representative samples of workers exposed to measured levels of FA. These studies should be designed to reduce the bias due to co-exposure to other carcinogens.

1. Introduction

Formaldehyde (FA) is a chemical compound naturally occurring in the atmosphere, in some foods, and in the organisms of mammals as a product of oxidative metabolism and, thus, is considered a ubiquitous pollutant. In addition to these sources, FA can be released in the environment through combustion processes or by degradation of some hydrocarbons such as methane. Besides, due to its chemical–physical characteristics, FA is widely applied in many productive processes, such as the construction materials industry, the chemical industry (resins, paintings, etc.), the wood-processing and furniture industry, the food industry, biomedical laboratories, gross anatomy rooms, handicrafts, etc. [1]. Consequently, many types of occupational activities determine FA exposure. Driscoll et al. [2] conducted a study based on data obtained from the Australian Workplace Exposures Study about the prevalence and patterns of exposure to 38 known or suspected carcinogens, including FA, among the Australian working population. As a result, 2.5% of the workers were likely to have been exposed to FA. The main working activities that exposed them to this chemical were the processing of chipboards or plywood panels for carpentry, building maintenance, and sanding before painting. The other workers most exposed were firefighters [3,4,5], healthcare workers [6], and beauticians. FA has also been detected in restaurants [7,8] when grilling dishes and adding sauces, in copy shops [9,10], in gardening [11], in the agri-food sector [12,13], in veterinary clinics, in embalming laboratories, in industrial launderings, etc. Besides, FA is frequently found in building environments, posing at potential risk of exposure to all indoor workers [14,15,16,17,18,19].
Exposure occurs primarily by inhaling airborne FA, but it can also be absorbed through the skin or ingested. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2004 concluded that there was sufficient evidence of the carcinogenicity of FA for humans to reclassify FA from Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) to Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans) [20]. In the subsequent monograph n. 100 of 2012, in summary, the IARC confirmed that there was sufficient epidemiological evidence that FA causes tumors of the nasopharynx, insufficient evidence of a causal relationship with leukemia, and limited epidemiological evidence for nasal sinus cancer [21]. EU Regulation 2015/491 also imposed the reclassification of FA from suspected carcinogen to carcinogen for humans in category 1B (i.e., it can cause cancer) on the basis of sufficient evidence both in humans [22,23] and in experimental animals [24,25]. However, all the scientific evidence that led to these classifications date back to before 2005. Besides, most of the studies on the relationship between FA and cancer were in vitro experiments demonstrated the effects on culture cells. Researchers have found many cellular damages, like DNA and RNA alterations [26,27], the onset of DNA–protein crosslinks, changes in p53 protein expression [28], and histone modifications [29]. On the other hand, epidemiological studies have not been able to confirm this association. In addition, several previous reviews investigated the relationship between occupational FA exposure and the onset of specific cancers, often obtaining conflicting conclusions [30,31,32,33,34]. However, no recent systematic review has looked into the relationship between occupational exposure to FA and the occurrence of cancer, except one published 15 years ago that concluded that there was no appreciable excess risk for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, sinus and nasal cavity, nasopharynges, and lung [35].
The aim of this systematic review is to update the scientific evidence on the relationship between occupational exposure to FA and the occurrence of all kinds of cancer evaluated by epidemiological studies performed on humans. The results of the review might help to confirm the evidence already produced by previous studies, or to highlight the need to review the current classification and/or to carry out new studies.

2. Materials and Methods

The presentation of this systematic review is in accordance with the latest version of the PRISMA statement [36]. We started the review process before the publication of the PRISMA Statement 2020; for this reason, the first steps of the review were conducted following the old version (PRISMA Statement 2009), which was less stringent in the “protocol and registration” item, reporting the following sentence “Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number)”. Thus, initially we did not register the protocol in any database and, then, it was too late to do it because the protocol registration must be performed before the start of the review process. Zotero citation management software (RRID:SCR_013784) was used to identify any duplicates and to manage and screen the identified records.

2.1. Literature Research

The review includes articles published in the last 20 years, from 1 January 2000 to 31 July 2021, on the databases Pubmed and Scopus. The search strategy used a combination of controlled vocabulary and free text terms based on the following keywords: “formaldehyde”, “cancer”, “tumor”, “neoplasm”, “occupational”, and “exposure”. Additionally, a hand search of the reference lists of the selected articles was carried out for a wider analysis. Four independent reviewers (V.C., R.N.P., D.M. and G.B.) performed the search, reading the titles and abstracts of the articles identified by the search strategy.
During the multi-step exclusion process, any disagreement on the studies was discussed until consensus. The process was supervised by other investigators (C.P. and M.V.).
Figure S1 (Supplementary Materials) shows the flow chart summarizing the selection steps for the systematic review.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The review included only studies in which the participants were classified as “exposed to formaldehyde.” The exposure assessment was considered acceptable if performed by direct (personal or environmental) sampling of FA, occupational history data, or job exposure matrix. Cancers were classified using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10).
Only studies involving humans (men and/or women) exposed to FA in occupational settings, reporting results for any kind of cancer and published in peer-reviewed journals, were selected. Searches providing no information about the exposure assessment method or with a self-assessment by the participants were excluded. Besides, we excluded reviews, editorial articles, individual contributions (i.e., conference speeches), and purely descriptive studies published in scientific conferences without any quantitative or qualitative conclusions. Finally, articles published in languages other than English were excluded.

2.3. Data Analysis

From each study included in the review, the following data were extracted: publication year, exposure time period, study design, working population studied, cancer type (ICD-10 classification), exposure assessment, and main conclusions.

2.4. Quality Evaluation

Four different reviewers (V.C., R.N.P., D.M. and G.B.) assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies with a specific rating tool, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), adapted for evaluating case-control, cross-sectional, and cohort studies [37]. It is divided into eight categories checking three quality aspects: selection, comparability and outcome/exposure; scores range from 0 to 9. The quality of a study was considered to be high if the NOS score was 7 to 9, intermediate if the NOS score was 4 to 6, and low if it was 0 to 3.

3. Results

In total, we recovered 1029 studies from all searched databases (n = 629 from Scopus and n = 400 from Pubmed) and, after applying filters by automation tools, 390 articles remained. Out of the remaining 390 papers, 350 were excluded after removing duplicates. Successively, one more paper was removed after reading the abstract. Then, the full texts of 39 studies were checked and evaluated considering the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 14 papers were then excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria. Besides, eight articles were based on the same studied cohort; thus, we considered only the most recent, excluding those previously published. Six articles were found via citation search and four were included after checking their eligibility, whereas two were discarded due to the difficulty of extrapolating FA exposure. At the end of the process, 21 articles were included in the systematic review [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. The PRISMA Flow Diagram is available as Supplementary Materials (Figure S1).
Table 1 shows the characteristics of the studies included, with reference to country, workers’ gender, sample size, working context, study period, smoking adjustment, exposure assessment, cancer type, and main conclusions.

3.1. Characteristics of the Included Studies

The studies included were conducted on almost all continents, with six from Europe, nine from North America, four from Asia, one from South America, and one multicenter study. Most (11 studies) involved both sexes, seven involved only males, and three only females. In total, 11 case-control studies, eight cohort studies, and two case-cohort studies were considered. Industry and manufacturing were the most examined working contexts, in particular the sectors of chemical, plywood, and textile production. Therefore, the majority of the studies included (n. 11) regarded workers exposed to FA in several working contexts and workplaces. Twelve studies considered smoking a confounding factor and adjusted the results accordingly. Only three research groups performed the direct exposure assessment through personal or environmental sampling; the others assessed the exposure level indirectly by job exposure matrix or occupational history data. Five studies looked for the relationship between FA exposure and the onset of any cancer, seven evaluated the onset of upper airway cancers, four focused on lung cancer, two focused on lympho-hematopoietic cancers, one focused on thyroid cancer, and one focused on meningioma. The sample size was very variable, ranging from two cases and five controls in the smallest case-cohort study to a cohort of 1.2 million workers in the study by Siew et al. [51].

3.2. Scoring Results

The median NOS score of the included studies was 7, thus indicating a high average quality level. Table 2 shows the results of the scoring method applied to each study included in the review, with reference to publication year, study design, and main statistical results achieved (expressed as odds ratio, hazard ratio, relative risk, or standardized mortality ratio and with a 95% confidence interval).

4. Discussion

We performed a systematic review on the association between FA occupational exposure and the occurrence of cancer in potentially exposed workers.
Previous studies about FA and cancer risk suggested a modest excess of risk for nasopharyngeal cancer [59], but the studied cohort of workers was co-exposed to several other chemicals, resulting in additive and/or synergic effects or misleading results. Despite this, the findings were included by the IARC in its evaluation, even if subsequent analysis revealed no statistical significance of these results and highlighted the inappropriateness of the adopted exposure assessment approach [60].
Among the studies included in our review, we found a direct assessment of the exposure levels of FA only in three papers. In the other cases, the exposure assessment was indirectly extrapolated considering the length of exposure and the type of activities performed (e.g., job exposure matrix). Most of the studies included in this review dealt with occupational settings, characterized by a deliberate use of FA as a component of the production cycle. Those were mainly represented by chemical industries dedicated to the production of plastics, fiberglass, paints, etc.; it is reasonable to imagine that in such contexts the levels of exposure to FA were particularly high. Three studies were carried out in textile-/garment-producing plants, where FA is used to give resistance to the folds of clothing fabrics and for the processing of leathers. Another sector where this substance is widely used is that of woodworking and furniture making. In fact, FA, together with resins, gives strength and resistance to chipboard panels. FA is also widely used in the medical field: in the operating room it was used to disinfect instruments because of its high antibacterial power, and even today, it is used to avoid the deterioration of human tissues that must undergo histopathological analyses. Despite that, very few studies concerned the health sector, or the agri-food industry, where FA is used as a preservative. That is quite surprising, considering that there is much research about the occupational exposure to FA in pathological anatomy settings and sector rooms [61,62,63] that stress the needing for adequate preventive measures for workers [64].
Although the genotoxicity and immunotoxicity of FA is well known and has been demonstrated by several studies regarding its influence on DNA and pro-oxidative effects on cells [28,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72], the evidence from human studies and diagnosed cancers is much less consistent [73]. Most of the studies included in this review focus on upper-airway neoplasms (ICD-10 codes: C10–C14 and C30–C33), as mentioned previously. In fact, the main way of entry of this substance into the body is by inhalation. Five studies explored the relationship between FA occupational exposure and the onset of lung cancer (ICD-10 code: C34). Their findings contrasted with each other: some did not provide evidence of a carcinogenic effect on the lungs [42,51,52], whereas others found a correlation [44,49]. These last studies, however, were performed on a very small sample and present several limitations (e.g., self-reported data on exposure levels). A recent meta-analysis by Kwak et al. [31] concluded no significant increase in the risk of lung cancer, even considering only groups of highly exposed workers. The small study sample of the study by Checkoway et al. about lung cancer was also checked for thyroid cancer, with some relationships found but with the same, considerable, limitations [46]. In 2012, the IARC affirmed that there was strong but insufficient evidence of a causal relationship with leukemia. Two studies included in our review regarded the relationship between FA exposure and lympho-hematopoietic cancers (ICD-10 codes: C81–C96), but no association was observed for all leukemias [56], except for a small and weak association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma [48] and myeloid leukemia [50]. This is consistent with the results of other previous studies [30,33]. Five of the included publications evaluated the effects of FA occupational exposure on the onset of any kind of cancer. These were large cohort studies, carried out in Europe and the USA in industrial contexts, and almost all concluded no positive association with FA exposure and the mortality from any cancer, and very limited evidence with NPC and leukemia [43,53,54,55,56]. The most recent research included, published in 2018, was a multicenter study about FA and meningioma. Meningiomas are tumors that develop from the meninges, tissues that surround the outside of the brain and account for about 30% of brain tumors. Although benign, they are dangerous because dysphagia, dysarthria, ocular motility disorders, and facial numbness can occur. Intracranial hypertension, focal seizures, lack of strength, and balance and gait disturbances may also sometimes occur. The study concluded that FA did not provoke excess risks of meningioma [58].
The present systematic review has some limitations. First of all, we considered only papers published in the last 20 years, but this choice was driven by the aim of the present systematic review. Secondly, we considered only articles published in the English language, excluding a priori potentially useful results published in other languages. Finally, we did not perform a formal meta-analysis because the studies included in the review were different in terms of exposure assessment methodologies, kind of cancers considered, and study design. For this reason, statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were not evaluated. Our choice is well supported by a very recent official statement by Cochrane on the opportunity for performing a meta-analysis when data are heterogeneous: “Meta-analysis should only be considered when a group of studies is sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions and outcomes to provide a meaningful summary. It is often appropriate to take a broader perspective in a meta-analysis than in a single clinical trial. A common analogy is that systematic reviews bring together apples and oranges, and that combining these can yield a meaningless result” [74].

5. Conclusions

FA has been classified by the IARC as a Group I carcinogen since 2004; this classification was based on evidence obtained in preceding years. Reviewing the scientific literature published in the last 20 years, we found at least 21 additional epidemiological studies on the association between occupational exposure to FA and cancer onset. This finding indicates the need for an update of the FA classification based on the new evidence. On the other hand, the results of the examined papers do not completely confirm the IARC classification of FA and give contrasting results. Thus, it is essential to perform further original studies carried out on representative samples of workers exposed to measured levels of FA. These studies should be designed to reduce bias as much as possible due to co-exposure to other carcinogens.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers14010165/s1, Figure S1: PRISMA flow diagram.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.P. and M.V.; methodology, C.P.; formal analysis, G.B., V.C., R.N.P. and D.M.; investigation, G.B., V.C., R.N.P. and D.M.; data curation, S.I., M.P., S.S. and F.C.; writing—original draft preparation, G.B.; writing—review and editing, S.I., M.P., C.P. and M.V.; supervision, C.P., S.S., F.C. and M.V.; project administration, F.C. and M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by INAIL, BRiC-2018, project number B86C19000070001.

Data Availability Statement

Data are provided as tables and figures directly within the manuscript, and raw data are available via e-mail upon request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Cammalleri, V.; Pocino, R.N.; Marotta, D.; Protano, C.; Sinibaldi, F.; Simonazzi, S.; Petyx, M.; Iavicoli, S.; Vitali, M. Occupational scenarios and exposure assessment to formaldehyde: A systematic review. Indoor Air, 2021, in press. [CrossRef]
  2. Driscoll, T.R.; Carey, R.N.; Peters, S.; Glass, D.C.; Benke, G.; Reid, A.; Fritschi, L. The Australian Work Exposures Study: Prevalence of Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2016, 60, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Reisen, F.; Brown, S.K. Australian firefighters’ exposure to air toxics during bushfire burns of autumn 2005 and 2006. Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 342–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Laitinen, J.; Makela, M.; Mikkola, J.; Huttu, I. Fire fighting trainers’ exposure to carcinogenic agents in smoke diving simulators. Toxicol. Lett. 2010, 192, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Jankovic, J.; Jones, W.; Burkhart, J.; Noonan, G. Environmental study of firefighters. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 1991, 35, 581–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Vecchio, D.; Sasco, A.J.; Cann, C.I. Occupational risk in health care and research. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2003, 43, 369–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Que, D.E.; Chao, H.R.; Hsu, Y.C.; Cui, K.; Chen, S.; Tayo, L.L.; Arcega, R.D.; Tsai, Y.I.; Lu, I.C.; Wang, L.C.; et al. Emission of carbonyl compounds from cooking oil fumes in the night market areas. Aerosol. Air Qual. Res. 2019, 19, 1566–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jung, J.H.; Youn, S.U.; Kwon, E.; Im, S.; Akiyama, Y.; Arashidani, K.; Yang, W. Emission rates of air pollutants from portable gas ranges and nitrogen dioxide exposure assessment in restaurants. J. UOEH 2009, 31, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Su, M.; Sun, R.; Zhang, X.; Wang, S.; Zhang, P.; Yuan, Z.; Liu, C.; Wang, Q. Assessment of the inhalation risks associated with working in printing rooms: A study on the staff of eight printing rooms in Beijing, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 17137–17143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vicente, E.D.; Ribeiro, J.P.; Custódio, D.; Alves, C.A. Assessment of the indoor air quality in copy centers at Aveiro, Portugal. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2017, 10, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baldauf, R.; Fortune, C.; Weinstein, J.; Wheeler, M.; Blanchard, F. Air contaminant exposures during the operation of lawn and garden equipment. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2006, 16, 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Voorhees, J.M.; Barnes, M.E. Airborne Formaldehyde Levels during Simulated Formalin Egg Treatments in Vertical-Flow Tray Incubators at a Production Fish Hatchery. J. Agric. Saf. Health 2016, 22, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Doane, M.; Sarenbo, S. Exposure of farm laborers and dairy cattle to formaldehyde from footbath use at a dairy farm in New York State. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 487, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kim, W.J.; Terada, N.; Nomura, T.; Takahashi, R.; Lee, S.D.; Park, J.H.; Konno, A. Effect of formaldehyde on the expression of adhesion molecules in nasal microvascular endothelial cells: The role of formaldehyde in the pathogenesis of sick building syndrome. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2002, 32, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ho, S.S.H.; Cheng, Y.; Bai, Y.; Ho, K.F.; Dai, W.T.; Cao, J.J.; Lee, S.C.; Huang, Y.; Ip, H.S.S.; Deng, W.J.; et al. Risk assessment of indoor formaldehyde and other carbonyls in campus environments in northwestern China. Aerosol. Air Qual. Res. 2016, 16, 1967–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Pośniak, M.; Makhniashvili, I.; Koziel, E. Volatile organic compounds in the indoor air of Warsaw office buildings. Indoor Built Environ. 2005, 14, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Salonen, H.J.; Pasanen, A.L.; Lappalainen, S.K.; Riuttala, H.M.; Tuomi, T.M.; Pasanen, P.O.; Back, B.C.; Reijula, K.E. Airborne concentrations of volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde and ammonia in Finnish office buildings with suspected indoor air problems. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2009, 6, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hui, P.S.; Mui, K.W.; Wong, L.T. Influence of indoor air quality (IAQ) objectives on air-conditioned offices in Hong Kong. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 144, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kaden, D.A.; Mandin, C.; Nielsen, G.D.; Wolkoff, P. Formaldehyde. In WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Selected Pollutants; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010; Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138711 (accessed on 10 September 2021).
  20. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-Tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol. 88; International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  21. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Chemical Agents and Related Occupations, Vol 100 F, A Review of Human Carcinogen; WHO, International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cogliano, V.J.; Grosse, Y.; Baan, R.A.; Straif, K.; Secretan, M.B.; El Ghissassi, F. Working Group for Volume 88. Meeting report: Summary of IARC monographs on formaldehyde, 2-butoxyethanol, and 1-tert-butoxy-2-propanol. Environ. Health Perspect. 2005, 113, 1205–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Blair, A.; Saracci, R.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.; Shy, C. Epidemiologic evidence on the relationship between formaldehyde exposure and cancer. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 1990, 16, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kerns, W.D.; Pavkov, K.L.; Donofrio, D.J.; Gralla, E.J.; Swenberg, J.A. Carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in rats and mice after long-term inhalation exposure. Cancer Res. 1983, 43, 4382–4392. [Google Scholar]
  25. Swenberg, J.A.; Kerns, W.D.; Mitchell, R.I.; Gralla, E.J.; Pavkov, K.L. Induction of squamous cell carcinomas of the rat nasal cavity by inhalation exposure to formaldehyde vapor. Cancer Res. 1980, 40, 3398–3402. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ye, X.; Yan, W.; Xie, H.; Zhao, M.; Ying, C. Cytogenetic analysis of nasal mucosa cells and lymphocytes from high-level long-term formaldehyde exposed workers and low-level short-term exposed waiters. Mutat. Res. 2005, 588, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Gonzalez-Rivera, J.C.; Sherman, M.W.; Wang, D.S.; Chuvalo-Abraham, J.C.L.; Hildebrandt Ruiz, L.; Contreras, L.M. RNA oxidation in chromatin modification and DNA-damage response following exposure to formaldehyde. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shaham, J.; Bomstein, Y.; Gurvich, R.; Rashkovsky, M.; Kaufman, Z. DNA-protein crosslinks and p53 protein expression in relation to occupational exposure to formaldehyde. Occup. Environ. Med. 2003, 60, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Lu, K.; Boysen, G.; Gao, L.; Collins, L.B.; Swenberg, J.A. Formaldehyde-induced histone modifications in vitro. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2008, 21, 1586–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Catalani, S.; Donato, F.; Madeo, E.; Apostoli, P.; De Palma, G.; Pira, E.; Mundt, K.A.; Boffetta, P. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and risk of non-hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Kwak, K.; Paek, D.; Park, J.T. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and risk of lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2020, 63, 312–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Collins, J.J.; Esmen, N.A.; Hall, T.A. A review and meta-analysis of formaldehyde exposure and pancreatic cancer. Am. J. Ind Med. 2001, 39, 336–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Checkoway, H.; Boffetta, P.; Mundt, D.J.; Mundt, K.A. Critical review and synthesis of the epidemiologic evidence on formaldehyde exposure and risk of leukemia and other lymphohematopoietic malignancies. Cancer Causes Control 2012, 23, 1747–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Kang, D.S.; Kim, H.S.; Jung, J.H.; Lee, C.M.; Ahn, Y.S.; Seo, Y.R. Formaldehyde exposure and leukemia risk: A comprehensive review and network-based toxicogenomic approach. Genes Environ. 2021, 43, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bosetti, C.; McLaughlin, J.K.; Tarone, R.E.; Pira, E.; La Vecchia, C. Formaldehyde and cancer risk: A quantitative review of cohort studies through 2006. Ann. Oncol. 2008, 19, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 134, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wells, G.A.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Peterson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses; Ottawa Health Research Institute: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  38. Armstrong, R.W.; Imrey, P.B.; Lye, M.S.; Armstrong, M.J.; Yu, M.C.; Sani, S. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Malaysian Chinese: Occupational exposures to particles, formaldehyde and heat. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2000, 29, 991–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Vaughan, T.L.; Stewart, P.A.; Teschke, K.; Lynch, C.F.; Swanson, G.M.; Lyon, J.L.; Berwick, M. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood dust and nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Occup. Environ. Med. 2000, 57, 376–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Laforest, L.; Luce, D.; Goldberg, P.; Bégin, D.; Gérin, M.; Demers, P.A.; Brugère, J.; Leclerc, A. Laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers and occupational exposure to formaldehyde and various dusts: A case-control study in France. Occup. Environ. Med. 2000, 57, 767–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Hildesheim, A.; Dosemeci, M.; Chan, C.C.; Chen, C.J.; Cheng, Y.J.; Hsu, M.M.; Chen, I.H.; Mittl, B.F.; Sun, B.; Levine, P.H.; et al. Occupational exposure to wood, formaldehyde, and solvents and risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2001, 10, 1145–1153. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kjaerheim, K.; Boffetta, P.; Hansen, J.; Cherrie, J.; Chang-Claude, J.; Eilber, U.; Ferro, G.; Guldner, K.; Olsen, J.H.; Plato, N.; et al. Lung cancer among rock and slag wool production workers. Epidemiology 2002, 13, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pinkerton, L.E.; Hein, M.J.; Stayner, L.T. Mortality among a cohort of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: An update. Occup. Environ. Med. 2004, 61, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. De Stefani, E.D.; Boffetta, P.; Brennan, P.; Deneo-Pellegrini, H.; Ronco, A.; Gutiérrez, L.P. Occupational Exposures and Risk of Adenocarcinoma of the Lung in Uruguay. Cancer Causes Control 2005, 16, 851–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shangina, O.; Brennan, P.; Szeszenia-Dabrowska, N.; Mates, D.; Fabiánová, E.; Fletcher, T.; t’Mannetje, A.; Boffetta, P.; Zaridze, D. Occupational exposure and laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer risk in central and eastern Europe. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2006, 164, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Wong, E.Y.; Ray, R.; Gao, D.L.; Wernli, K.J.; Li, W.; Fitzgibbons, E.D.; Feng, Z.; Thomas, D.B.; Checkoway, H. Reproductive history, occupational exposures, and thyroid cancer risk among women textile workers in Shanghai, China. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2006, 79, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Marsh, G.M.; Youk, A.O.; Buchanich, J.M.; Erdal, S.; Esmen, N.A. Work in the metal industry and nasopharyngeal cancer mortality among formaldehyde-exposed workers. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2007, 48, 308–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Wang, R.; Zhang, Y.; Lan, Q.; Holford, T.R.; Leaderer, B.; Zahm, S.H.; Boyle, P.; Dosemeci, M.; Rothman, N.; Zhu, Y.; et al. Occupational exposure to solvents and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Connecticut women. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2009, 169, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Checkoway, H.; Ray, R.M.; Lundin, J.I.; Astrakianakis, G.; Seixas, N.S.; Camp, J.E.; Wernli, K.J.; Fitzgibbons, E.D.; Li, W.; Feng, Z.; et al. Lung cancer and occupational exposures other than cotton dust and endotoxin among women textile workers in Shanghai, China. Occup. Environ. Med. 2011, 68, 425–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Hauptmann, M.; Stewart, P.A.; Lubin, J.H.; Beane Freeman, L.E.; Hornung, R.W.; Herrick, R.F.; Hoover, R.N.; Fraumeni, J.F., Jr.; Blair, A.; Hayes, R.B. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies and brain cancer among embalmers exposed to formaldehyde. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2009, 101, 1696–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Siew, S.S.; Kauppinen, T.; Kyyrönen, P.; Heikkilä, P.; Pukkala, E. Occupational exposure to wood dust and formaldehyde and risk of nasal, nasopharyngeal, and lung cancer among Finnish men. Cancer Manag. Res. 2012, 4, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Mahboubi, A.; Koushik, A.; Siemiatycki, J.; Lavoué, J.; Rousseau, M.C. Assessment of the effect of occupational exposure to formaldehyde on the risk of lung cancer in two Canadian population-based case-control studies. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2013, 39, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Meyers, A.R.; Pinkerton, L.E.; Hein, M.J. Cohort mortality study of garment industry workers exposed to formaldehyde: Update and internal comparisons. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2013, 56, 1027–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Beane Freeman, L.E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.; Hoover, R.N.; Hauptmann, M. Mortality from solid tumors among workers in formaldehyde industries: An update of the NCI cohort. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2013, 56, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Coggon, D.; Ntani, G.; Harris, E.C.; Palmer, K.T. Upper airway cancer, myeloid leukemia, and other cancers in a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to formaldehyde. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2014, 179, 1301–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Pira, E.; Romano, C.; Verga, F.; La Vecchia, C. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic neoplasms and other causes in a cohort of laminated plastic workers exposed to formaldehyde. Cancer Causes Control 2014, 25, 1343–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Checkoway, H.; Dell, L.D.; Boffetta, P.; Gallagher, A.E.; Crawford, L.; Lees, P.S.; Mundt, K.A. Formaldehyde Exposure and Mortality Risks from Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Other Lymphohematopoietic Malignancies in the US National Cancer Institute Cohort Study of Workers in Formaldehyde Industries. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2015, 57, 785–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. McElvenny, D.M.; van Tongeren, M.; Turner, M.C.; Benke, G.; Figuerola, J.; Fleming, S.; Hours, M.; Kincl, L.; Krewski, D.; McLean, D.; et al. The INTEROCC case-control study: Risk of meningioma and occupational exposure to selected combustion products, dusts and other chemical agents. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018, 75, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.; Blair, A. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004, 159, 1117–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Youk, A.O.; Marsh, G.M.; Stone, R.A.; Buchanich, J.M.; Smith, T.J. Historical cohort study of US man-made vitreous fiber production workers: III. Analysis of exposure-weighted measures of respirable fibers and formaldehyde in the nested case-control study of respiratory system cancer. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2001, 43, 767–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Aung, W.Y.; Sakamoto, H.; Sato, A.; Yi, E.E.; Thein, Z.L.; New, M.S.; Shein, N.; Linn, H.; Uchiyama, S.; Kunugita, N.; et al. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration, Personal Formaldehyde Exposure and Clinical Symptoms during Anatomy Dissection Sessions, University of Medicine 1, Yangon. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Waschke, J.; Bergmann, M.; Bräuer, L.; Brenner, E.; Buchhorn, A.; Deutsch, A.; Dokter, M.; Egu, D.T.; Ergün, S.; Fassnacht, U.; et al. Recommendations of the working group of the Anatomische Gesellschaft on reduction of formaldehyde exposure in anatomical curricula and institutes. Ann. Anat. 2019, 221, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jalali, M.; Moghadam, S.R.; Baziar, M.; Hesam, G.; Moradpour, Z.; Zakeri, H.R. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde, lifetime cancer probability, and hazard quotient in pathology lab employees in Iran: A quantitative risk assessment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021, 28, 1878–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bhat, D.; Chittoor, H.; Murugesh, P.; Basavanna, P.N.; Doddaiah, S. Estimation of occupational formaldehyde exposure in cadaver dissection laboratory and its implications. Anat. Cell Biol. 2019, 52, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Bouraoui, S.; Mougou, S.; Brahem, A.; Tabka, F.; Ben Khelifa, H.; Harrabi, I.; Mrizek, N.; Elghezal, H.; Saad, A. A combination of micronucleus assay and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis to evaluate the genotoxicity of formaldehyde. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2013, 64, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Teng, S.; Beard, K.; Pourahmad, J.; Moridani, M.; Easson, E.; Poon, R.; O’Brien, P.J. The formaldehyde metabolic detoxified on enzyme systems and molecular cytotoxic mechanism in isolated rat hepatocytes. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2001, 130–132, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Saito, Y.; Nishio, K.; Yoshida, Y.; Niki, E. Cytotoxic effect of formaldehyde with free radicals via increment of cellular reactive oxygen species. Toxicology 2005, 210, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Jiang, S.; Yu, L.; Cheng, J.; Leng, S.; Dai, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Niu, Y.; Yan, H.; Qu, W.; Zhang, C.; et al. Genomic damages in peripheral blood lymphocytes and association with polymorphisms of three glutathione S-transferases in workers exposed to formaldehyde. Mutat. Res. 2010, 695, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Aydin, S.; Canpinar, H.; Ündeğer, Ü.; Güç, D.; Çolakoğlu, M.; Kars, A.; Başaran, N. Assessment of immunotoxicity and genotoxicity in workers exposed to low concentrations of formaldehyde. Arch. Toxicol. 2013, 87, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Viegas, S.; Ladeira, C.; Nunes, C.; Malta-Vacas, J.; Gomes, M.; Brito, M.; Mendonca, P.; Prista, J. Genotoxic effects in occupational exposure to formaldehyde: A study in anatomy and pathology laboratories and formaldehyde-resins production. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2010, 5, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Costa, S.; Coelho, P.; Costa, C.; Silva, S.; Mayan, O.; Santos, L.S.; Gaspar, J.; Teixeira, J.P. Genotoxic damage in pathology anatomy laboratory workers exposed to formaldehyde. Toxicology 2008, 252, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Burgaz, S.; Erdem, O.; Cakmak, G.; Erdem, N.; Karakaya, A.; Karakaya, A.E. Cytogenetic analysis of buccal cells from shoe-workers and pathology and anatomy laboratory workers exposed to n-hexane, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone and formaldehyde. Biomarkers 2002, 7, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Duhayon, S.; Hoet, P.; Van Maele-Fabry, G.; Lison, D. Carcinogenic potential of formaldehyde in occupational settings: A critical assessment and possible impact on occupational exposure levels. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2008, 81, 695–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Deeks, J.J.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Altman, D.G. Chapter 10: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Version 6.2 (updated February 2021); Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J., Welch, V.A., Eds.; Cochrane: London, UK, 2021; Available online: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed on 15 December 2021).
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies (n = 21) included in the systematic review.
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies (n = 21) included in the systematic review.
Reference [n.]—CountryWorkers’ GenderSample Size *Working ContextStudy PeriodRisk—Adjusted for Smoking HabitsExposure AssessmentCancer Type (ICD-10)Main Conclusions
[38]—MalaysiaBoth49 cases,
49 controls		Chemical, plywood, and textile industries1990–1992YesAir sampling **Nasopharyngeal cancer (C11.9)No association was found between nasopharyngeal carcinoma and FA.
[39]—USABoth79 cases,
79 controls		Various1987–1993YesOccupational history dataNasopharyngeal cancer (C11.9)Results from this study support the hypothesis that occupational exposure to FA increases risk of NPC. The association between risk of NPC and potential exposure to FA was stronger among cigarette smokers.
[40]—FranceMenLaryngeal: 102 cases,
85 controls
Hypopharyngeal: 83 cases,
85 controls		Various1987–1991YesJob exposure matrixLaryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer (C10.9)Exposure to FA was associated with an increased risk of hypopharyngeal cancer. No association with laryngeal cancer was found.
[41]—TaiwanBoth74 cases,
41 controls		Various1991–1994YesOccupational history dataNasopharyngeal cancer (C11.9)There was some evidence of increasing risk of NPC with increasing years of exposure to FA, but the observed trend did not achieve statistical significance.
[42]—Northern EuropeMen108 cases, 398 controlsVitreous fiber-producing plants1971–1996YesOccupational history dataLung cancer (C34)This study provides no evidence of a carcinogenic
effect on the lungs from FA exposure.
[43]—USABoth11,039Various1955–1998NotPersonal sampling among workers (1981 and 1984) **All cancers (C00–C97)Results support a possible relation between FA exposure and myeloid leukemia mortality. Non-significant excesses in mortality were observed among FA-exposed workers for several other cancers.
[44]—UruguayMen32 cases,
65 controls		Agricultural workers, histology technicians, medical personnel, and foundry workers1994–2000YesOccupational history dataLung cancer (C34)Constant exposure to FA was significantly associated with an increased OR of adenocarcinoma of the lung.
[45]—Central and Eastern EuropeMen18 cases, 30 controlsVarious1999–2002YesOccupational history dataLaryngeal cancer (C32)
Hypopharyngeal cancer (C12, C13)		No overall association
was found between FA and laryngeal cancer.
[46]—ChinaWomen2 cases,
11 subcohort non-cases		Textile industries1989–1998NotHistorical measurements dataThyroid cancer (C73)Associations were observed between thyroid cancer and employment in jobs with 10 or more years of FA exposure.
[47]—USABoth7345Plastic-producing plants1979–2003YesOccupational history dataNasopharyngeal cancer (C11.9)Overall, the pattern of findings suggests that the large, persistent nasopharyngeal and other PC excesses observed were not associated with FA exposure. Interaction models suggest that NPC and AOPC risks were not elevated in subjects exposed only to FA.
[48]—USAWomen201 cases, 203
controls		Various1996–2000YesJob exposure matrixNon-Hodgkin lymphoma (C85.90)Exposure to FA was found to be associated
with an increased risk of NHL in our study, but the risk
was mainly for those with a low exposure intensity or probability.
[49]—ChinaWomen2 cases,
11 subcohort non-cases		Textile industries1989–1998YesJob exposure matrixLung cancer (C34)Exposures to silica and FA may have increased lung cancer risk. This observation was based on very small numbers of exposed workers.
[50]—USAMen144 cases, 210 controlsFuneral industry workers1960–1986YesHistorical measurements dataNasopharyngeal cancer (C11.9)
Lympho-hematopoietic cancers (C81–C96)
Myeloid leukemia (C92.90)
Brain cancer (C71)		The duration of embalming practice and related FA exposure in the funeral industry were associated with statistically significantly increased risk for mortality from myeloid leukemia.
[51]—FinlandMen1, 2 mlnVarious1971–1995YesJob exposure matrixNasopharyngeal cancer (C11.9)
Lung cancer (C34)		The results are inconclusive, but FA did not appear to increase risk in any way whatsoever for nasal, nasopharyngeal, or lung cancer.
[52]—CanadaBoth347 cases,
325 controls		Various1979–2002YesJob exposure matrixLung cancer (C34)No marked increases in lung cancer risk related to workplace FA exposure were observed.
[53]—USABoth11,043Garment-manufacturing facilities1985–2008NotPersonal sampling **All cancers (C00–C97)We continue to see limited evidence of an association between FA and leukaemia. We did not find solid evidence of increased mortality from other lympho-hematopoietic cancers and a priori solid cancers with FA exposure.
[54]—USABoth25,619Various1950–2004NotHistorical measurements dataAll cancers (C00–C97)For all cancer, solid tumors, and lung cancer, the mortality among exposed workers was high, but internal analyses revealed no positive associations with FA exposure. Consistent with previous analyses of this cohort, this update continues to suggest a link between FA exposure and nasopharyngeal cancer.
[55]—UKMen14,008Chemical industries1941–2012NotOccupational history dataAll cancers (C00–C97)Our results provide no support for an increased hazard of myeloid leukemia, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, or other upper airway tumors from FA exposure. These results indicate that any excess risk of these cancers, even from relatively high exposures, is at most small.
[56]—ItalyBoth2750Laminated plastic factories1947–2011NotOccupational history dataAll cancers (C00–C97)We found no meaningful excess mortality from any lymphohematopoietic nor other neoplasms, except possibly for nasopharyngeal cancer.
[57]—USABoth25,619Various1930–2004NotHistorical measurements dataLympho-hematopoietic cancers (C81–C96)No association between cumulative FA exposure and mortality from all leukemias combined was observed for the entire cohort.
[58]—Multicenter studyBoth116 cases,
278 controls		Various1945–2003NotJob exposure matrixMeningioma (D32.9)This study shows an increased risk in relation to FA based mainly in women in relation to a duration of exposure of more than 15 years and highest cumulative exposure, although neither of the trends was statistically significant.
* Both cases and controls exposed to formaldehyde; ** direct exposure assessment.
Table
Table 2. Scoring results of the included studies in relation to study design, year of publication, and statistical results achieved.
Table 2. Scoring results of the included studies in relation to study design, year of publication, and statistical results achieved.
Reference [n.]—YearStudy DesignStatistical ResultsNOS Score
[38]—2000Case-controlNasopharyngeal cancer: OR: 0.88 (CI: 0.70–1.12)7
[39]—2000Case-controlNasopharyngeal cancer: OR: 1.3 (CI: 0.80–2.1)7
[40]—2000Case-controlHypopharyngeal cancer: OR: 1.35 (CI: 0.86–2.14)
Oropharyngeal cancer: OR: 1.14 (CI: 0.76–1.70)		6
[41]—2001Case-controlNasopharyngeal cancer: OR: 1.4 (CI: 0.93–2.2) *6
[42]—2002Case-controlLung cancer: OR: 1.33 (CI: 0.76–2.34)7
[43]—2004 CohortAll cancers: SMR: 0.89 (CI: 0.82–0.97)
Myeloid leukemia: SMR: 1.44 (CI: 0.80–2.37)		7
[44]—2005Case-controlLung cancer: OR: 1.7 (CI: 1.1–2.8)6
[45]—2006Case-controlLaryngeal cancer: OR 1.68 (CI: 0.85–3.31) *6
[46]—2006Case-cohortThyroid cancer: HR: 8.33 (CI: 1.16–60)7
[47]—2007CohortNasopharyngeal cancer: SMR: 4.43 (CI: 1.78–9.13)
Other pharynx cancers: SMR: 1.71 (CI: 1.01–2.72)		7
[48]—2008Case-controlNon-Hodgkin lymphoma: OR: 1.3 (CI: 1.0–1.7)7
[49]—2009Case-cohortNasopharyngeal cancer: OR: 0.1 (CI: 0.01–1.2)
Lympho-hematopoietic cancers: OR: 0.9 (CI: 0.4–2.1) *
Myeloid leukemia: OR: 3.9 (CI: 1.2–12.5)
Brain cancer: OR: 1.9 (CI: 0.7–5.3) *
[50]—2011Case-cohortLung cancer: HR: 2.10 (0.40–11.00)8
[51]—2012CohortNasopharyngeal cancer: RR: 0.87 (CI: 0.34–2.20)
Lung cancer: RR: 1.18 (CI: 1.12–1.25)		8
[52]—2013Case-controlLung cancer: OR: 1.06 (CI: 0.89–1.27)7
[53]—2013CohortAll cancers: SMR: 0.96 (CI: 0.90–1.02)7
[54]—2013CohortAll cancers: SMR: 1.08 (CI: 1.05–1.12)7
[55]—2014CohortAll cancers: SMR: 1.10 (CI: 1.06–1.15)7
[56]—2014CohortAll cancers: SMR: 79.8 (CI: 67.5–93.6)6
[57]—2016CohortLymphohematopoietic cancers: SMR: 2.07 (CI: 1.22–3.49)8
[58]—2018Case-controlMeningioma: OR: 1.02 (CI: 0.80–1.29)7
*: Not statistically significant; CI: 95% confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; HR: hazard ratio; RR: relative risk; SMR: standardized mortality ratio.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Protano, C.; Buomprisco, G.; Cammalleri, V.; Pocino, R.N.; Marotta, D.; Simonazzi, S.; Cardoni, F.; Petyx, M.; Iavicoli, S.; Vitali, M. The Carcinogenic Effects of Formaldehyde Occupational Exposure: A Systematic Review. Cancers 2022, 14, 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010165

AMA Style

Protano C, Buomprisco G, Cammalleri V, Pocino RN, Marotta D, Simonazzi S, Cardoni F, Petyx M, Iavicoli S, Vitali M. The Carcinogenic Effects of Formaldehyde Occupational Exposure: A Systematic Review. Cancers. 2022; 14(1):165. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010165

Chicago/Turabian Style

Protano, Carmela, Giuseppe Buomprisco, Vittoria Cammalleri, Roberta Noemi Pocino, Daniela Marotta, Stefano Simonazzi, Francesca Cardoni, Marta Petyx, Sergio Iavicoli, and Matteo Vitali. 2022. "The Carcinogenic Effects of Formaldehyde Occupational Exposure: A Systematic Review" Cancers 14, no. 1: 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010165

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop