Open Access

Research Article

Epidemiologic Studies on Cancer and TCE Exposure Top

The epidemiologic analysis in the U.S. EPA draft TCE risk assessment (U.S. EPA 2001) was supported in large part by the review by Wartenberg et al. (2000). This review identified more than 80 studies that evaluated cancer and TCE exposure, concluding that the evidence more firmly supported associations of TCE exposure with kidney and liver cancer while providing some support for associations with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Wartenberg et al. (2000) also noted possible associations between TCE exposure and multiple myeloma and prostate, laryngeal, and colon cancer as well as cervical cancer and TCE or perchloroethylene exposure.

A number of studies and literature reviews have been published since 2000. Tables 1–3 provide short descriptions of these studies, which include historical or retrospective cohort studies (Table 1), case–control studies (Table 2), and ecologic or community studies (Table 3). Most of the TCE cohort and case–control studies involve occupational exposure to TCE, primarily by inhalation, whereas community studies usually involve contaminated groundwater where potential TCE exposure may be through both ingestion of drinking water and inhalation from TCE vapor intrusion into sub-surface residential areas or from showering. Many of these studies employed more sophisticated exposure assessment approaches, allowing better identification of likely TCE-exposed subjects (Brüning et al. 2003; Charbotel et al. 2006; DeRoos et al. 2001; Dumas et al. 2000; Hansen et al. 2001; Pesch et al. 2000a, 2000b; Raaschou-Nielsen et al. 2003; Zhao et al. 2005). Tables 4–7 show corresponding study results for cancers that either are newly reported to have associations (Table 4, total cancers and cancers of the bladder, breast, and esophagus) or have drawn the most attention in previous reviews [Table 5, kidney cancer or renal cell carcinoma (RCC); Table 6, cancer of the liver or liver and biliary passages; Table 7, lymphomas]. These recent studies substantially expand the epidemiologic database, providing additional insights on potential causal associations between TCE exposure and cancer occurrence. The following discussion focuses on the three groups of end points—kidney cancer and RCC, liver and biliary cancer, and lymphomas—previously identified as having the strongest evidence for potential causal association with TCE exposure (IARC 1995; NTP 2002; Wartenberg et al. 2000).

The studies available since 2000 report consistent associations between kidney cancer or RCC and TCE exposure (Table 5). Two cohort studies with large numbers of exposed cases (Raaschou-Nielsen et al. 2003; Zhao et al. 2005) observed statistically significant associations with greater exposure level or duration of employment. These findings were supported by three recent case–control studies assessing TCE exposure in the metal industry in Germany (Brüning et al. 2003; Pesch et al. 2000a) and in France (Charbotel et al. 2006). The studies by Brüning et al. (2003) and Charbotel et al. (2006) were designed specifically to examine the a priori hypothesis of an association between RCC and TCE exposure. Charbotel et al. (2006) suggested that exposure intensity may contribute to the risk associated with cumulative exposure because risks were higher for subjects in the highest cumulative exposure category with peak TCE exposure [odds ratio (OR) = 2.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1–7.1] than for subjects with only high cumulative exposure (OR = 2.2; 95% CI, 1.0–4.6), compared with unexposed subjects.

Most of the recent cohort studies also provide information as to possible association between TCE and liver and/or biliary tract cancer, although many examined only the combined category (Table 6). Grouping the adjacent, but anatomically distinct, end points of primary liver cancer and biliary cancer, which includes cancer of the gallbladder, limits application of mode-of-action data and may introduce misclassification bias. The recent Nordic cohort studies (Hansen 2004; Raaschou-Nielsen et al. 2003) disaggregate these cancers, and the addition of these two studies doubles the total number of epidemiologic studies providing information for primary liver cancer. The study by Raaschou-Nielsen et al. (2003), having greater statistical power because of its larger cohort size, suggested that both sites are possible targets of TCE toxicity, reporting a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for primary liver cancer similar to that for gall-bladder and biliary tract cancer. Risks for the larger category of liver and biliary tract cancers are presented in both the Nordic studies and the two recent community studies (Lee et al. 2003; Morgan and Cassady 2002). These studies together suggest a modest association (risks between 1.1 and 2.8), with no clear pattern with duration of exposure. Furthermore, none of the studies have sufficient power to identify sex differences in susceptibility.

New information on lymphomas, including NHL and leukemia, and TCE exposure comes from cohort and community studies (Table 7). Both Nordic studies (Hansen et al. 2001; Raaschou-Nielsen et al. 2003) reported statistically significant associations with NHL, with increasing SIRs with increasing duration of employment. The risk of NHL mortality in Zhao et al. (2005) was more consistent than the NHL incidence with risks observed in Nordic cohorts. Except in the case of Raaschou-Nielsen et al. (2003), numbers of exposed NHL cases are small, limiting statistical power. The one available case–control study observed a strong but imprecise association between maternal exposure to TCE-contaminated drinking water during pregnancy and childhood leukemia (Costas et al. 2002). Aickin (2004) provides further evidence for an association between TCE in drinking water and childhood leukemia. Analyses using Bayesian statistical methods confirmed an elevated mortality in children from leukemia. Examining childhood leukemia incidence, Aickin (2004) reported that a rate ratio ≤ 1.0 was not credible, and risk > 2.0 could not be ruled out.

To illustrate the potential impact of these new studies, Figures 1–4 show relative risks, SIRs, and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) from cohort studies and ORs from case–control studies for four cancer sites discussed above (liver, liver and biliary passages, kidney, and NHL, respectively). These figures include studies published before 2000 [reviewed in, e.g., Wartenberg et al. (2000)] and those discussed above. The integration of this new information will contribute substantially to the hazard characterization of a TCE health evaluation and become an integral part of the U.S. EPA revised TCE risk assessment. However, this integration requires consideration of a number of key issues related to interpretation and synthesis, as discussed below.

Issues Related to TCE Epidemiologic Evidence Top

Studies of cancer incidence or cancer mortality

Both cancer incidence and cancer mortality rates are potentially useful in risk assessment for identifying hazards and assessing dose–response relationships. Incidence rates, generally considered to provide an accurate indication of risk of a disease in a population, are rarely available. In the absence of incidence data, epidemiologic studies have commonly relied on mortality data to assess exposure–disease associations. An understanding of the accuracy of death certificate information as a surrogate for incidence data is important for evaluating observations in the mortality studies. Known inaccuracies exist between cancer incidence and death certificate recordings for some cancer sites important to evaluating TCE exposure, for example, cancer of liver (primary) and liver and biliary passages (Percy et al. 1990). In their study of death certificate accuracy, Percy et al. (1990) showed that only 53% of 2,388 incident cases of primary liver cancer were actually attributed on the death certificate to this disease. Zhao et al. (2005) were able to examine both incidence and mortality among TCE-exposed workers and observed underreporting on death certificates for several site-specific cancers, including NHL, leukemia, and kidney and bladder cancers.

Death certificate inaccuracies would obscure exposure–disease associations toward the null by reducing statistical power and may explain apparent inconsistencies between epidemiologic studies using incidence data versus those based on death certifications. For example, apparent inconsistencies in some observations from cohort studies of American workers, which were primarily based on mortality, and cohort studies of Nordic workers, which were largely based on incidence, may reflect misclassification of death certificates compared with incidence data.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Lymphoma, including NHL, is a disease composed of numerous, etiologically distinct neoplasms (Fisher 2003; Herrinton 1998). Several issues may affect interpretation of NHL associations in the TCE epidemiologic studies and may be important to evaluating the consistency, or lack there of, across studies. First, epidemiologic studies evaluating NHL and TCE exposure have used a number of different International Classification of Diseases (ICD) revisions. All four Nordic studies (Anttila et al. 1995; Axelson et al. 1994; Hansen et al. 2001; Raaschou-Nielsen et al. 2003) classified NHL according to the seventh revision of the ICD [ICD-7; World Health Organization (WHO) 1957], and all reported consistent findings. Other revisions of the ICD were used in the more recent studies by Blair et al. (1998) [ICD Adapted (ICDA)-8, National Center for Health Statistics 1967], Boice et al. (1999) (ICD-9, WHO 1977), Garabrant et al. (1988) (ICD-9 in effect at date of death: ICD-7, ICDA-8, or ICD-9), Morgan et al. (1998, 2000) (ICD in effect at date of death: ICD-7, ICDA-8, or ICD-9), and Ritz (1999) (ICD-9). Few case–control studies on lymphoma are available. NHL cases in Hardell et al. (1994) were histologically verified and were classified using the Rappaport system. Persson et al. (1989) do not identify the system used to classify NHL cases in their study. Classification of lymphomas has changed with each revision.

Second, understanding of histopathologic and immunologic characteristics of lymphoma has grown since 1977, the publication date of ICD-9. Past classifications of lymphomas do not reflect the current biologic understanding of NHL and do not make distinctions between different cell types. From this perspective, lymphomas are defined broadly as B-cell and T-cell lymphomas, with further divisions into precursor neoplasms and mature neoplasms (Cogliatti and Schmid 2002). This implies that lymphomas classified in the past into distinct categories may share common biological properties and differentiation pathways. For example, a lymphoma of B-cell origin may be classified under older schemes as NHL, multiple myeloma, or leukemia. Emerging data on molecular markers of lymphoma suggest stage of cell differentiation at time of exposure as an important factor in NHL development (Staudt and Dave 2005).

Exposure assessment issues in TCE epidemiologic studies

The methods by which exposure is assessed in epidemiologic studies of TCE are diverse, ranging from use of broad job or industry categories to analysis of biomonitoring data. Generally, greater weight is assigned to studies with more precise and specific exposure estimates. Careful evaluation of a study’s exposure assessment method is important in the evaluation of a body of epidemiologic data, particularly if divergent observations may be due to exposure misclassification bias reflecting incorrect assignment of study subjects to exposure groups. Many of the TCE studies lack actual exposure measurements for individual subjects, and surrogates such as available current or historical monitoring data are often used to reconstruct exposure parameters.

The three Nordic cohorts of Axelson et al. (1994), Anttila et al. (1995), and Hansen et al. (2001) identified study subjects using the TCE biological marker of urinary trichloroacetic acid (U-TCA), which provides some evidence of past TCE exposure, although usually not a full exposure history. These studies carry weight in the overall analysis because of their greater precision of exposure assessment compared with methods discussed below for other cohorts; however, a consideration of statistical power is also important because of fewer subjects compared with cohorts identified using other methods.

Other cohort and case–control studies have adopted a number of approaches for exposure assessment. TCE exposure has been assigned to subjects using surrogate information based on patterns of TCE use by job title obtained from historical job descriptions, from historical industrial hygiene surveys, or from personal interviews to develop job exposure matrices (JEMs). For several cohorts, industrial hygiene measurements either were absent before the 1970s (Boice et al. 1999; Marano et al. 2000; Morgan et al. 1998, 2000) or were quite limited (Blair et al. 1998; Stewart et al. 1991). Furthermore, some cohort (Ritz 1999) and case–control (Greenland et al. 1994) studies classified study subjects as TCE exposed using information obtained from personal interviews or generic JEMs or job-task exposure matrices (JTEMs) in the absence of historical monitoring. Two issues associated with the use of generic JEMs are sensitivity (i.e., the ability to identify study subjects as exposed) and specificity (i.e., the ability to identify study subjects as not exposed).

Still other cohort studies (Chang et al. 2003, 2005; Costa et al. 1989; Garabrant et al. 1988) have defined exposure using occupation and industry. TCE is identified as one of a number of potential exposures, but no information is provided on individual subjects with TCE exposure. The main shortcoming of this type of study is that the lack of an association with a particular job or industry may mask the effect of exposure to a specific chemical to which only some individuals in the job are exposed (Teschke et al. 2002). For this reason, a consideration of potential exposure misclassification bias is important in weighting these studies in an overall weight of evidence.

In addition, multiple solvents and chemical agents are common in the TCE studies, adding to the complexity of exposure assessment and inferences about causality. Some studies of TCE also identify exposures to other chlorinated solvents such as perchloroethylene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (Blair et al. 1998; Boice et al. 1999; Marano et al. 2000; Morgan et al. 1998, 2000; Stewart et al. 1991; Zhao et al. 2005). The potential for exposure to multiple chlorinated solvents is an important consideration in the TCE epidemiologic studies for two reasons. First, these chemicals can share similar metabolic profiles or modes of action as TCE (U.S. EPA 2001), and second, some epidemiologic studies have also reported independent associations between exposure to these other solvents and cancer (Blair et al. 1998; Zhao et al. 2005). Physiologically based pharmacokinetic models such as those discussed by Chiu et al. (2006b) may be useful for better understanding cumulative exposure in these epidemiologic studies.

Approaches for Causal Inference Top

The practice of causal inference in environmental epidemiology relies on three approaches: narrative reviews, criteria-based inference methods, and, increasingly, meta-analysis (Weed 2002). All three have been employed in various analyses of the epidemiologic literature on cancer and TCE exposure. Narrative reviews of a body of epidemiologic evidence generally do not fully consider potential biases and confounding factors. By contrast, criteria-based approaches for assessing causality evaluate evidence according to a set of criteria or standards applied to the evidence (Weed 2002). For instance, the aspects proposed by Sir Bradford Hill (1965) are widely cited for framing the factors to consider in determining whether statistical associations are likely to be causal. Similar criteria are also presented in the U.S. EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA 2005).

Criteria-based approaches have increasingly been supplemented with formal statistical methods such as meta-analysis for reviewing and summing a body of evidence (Weed 2002). Common meta-analytic methods can include fitting of fixed-effects or random-effects models, linear regression analysis to assess dose–response, or pooled analyses. Pooled analysis of the Nordic studies may be more feasible because of their similar design and similar follow-up period for documenting cancer incidence than for other TCE cohorts. As discussed in the overview article of this mini-monograph by Chiu et al. (2006a), the NAS has been asked to provide advice on appropriate meta-analysis methods, including the classification and weighting of individual studies.

Discussion and Summary Top

The U.S. EPA draft TCE assessment (U.S. EPA 2001) noted that epidemiologic studies, when considered as a whole, have associated TCE exposure with excess risk of kidney, liver, lymphohematopoietic, cervical, and prostate cancer. Recently published studies appear to provide further support for several of those conclusions, suggesting, as do previous studies, modestly elevated site-specific risk (typically between 1.5 and 2.0), given exposure conditions in the epidemiologic studies.

The recent epidemiologic studies strengthen the evidence that the kidney is a target of TCE toxicity. It should be noted that kidney toxicity besides cancer has been found by Radican et al. (2006), who reported a statistically significant association with end-stage renal disease mortality and exposure to solvents, including TCE. Understanding the mechanism by which TCE may act in kidney toxicity, including cancer, can inform cause–effect evaluations. The glutathione S-transferase (GST) metabolic pathway has been hypothesized as important to mode-of-action considerations (Caldwell and Keshava 2006), and GST polymorphisms are reported to influence RCC risk associated with TCE exposure (Brüning et al. 1997). Brauch et al. (2004) examined somatic mutation to the von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor gene in renal cell tumors of non-TCE-exposed cases, comparing the prevalence of mutation to that found in renal tumors of TCE-exposed subjects reported in an earlier publication (Brauch et al. 1999). A higher prevalence of somatic mutations was found in renal cell tumors of TCE-exposed cases than in tumors of non-TCE-exposed cases. Moreover, the C > T transition at nucleotide 454, detected in some RCCs from TCE-exposed subjects, was not found among the non-TCE-exposed RCC cases.

The recent studies also support the liver and immune system as being targets for TCE toxicity, with most of these studies showing elevated (and in some cases statistically significant) cancer risks from TCE exposure. However, although the number of studies assessing primary liver cancer separately from biliary tract cancers has doubled, the total number is still only 4, compared to 11 examining the combined category. With lymphomas, there are also a number of classification issues, including the use of different ICD revisions, and the fact that these groupings may lump together etiologically distinct neoplasms. Moreover, studies evaluating these end points include both incidence and mortality studies, which may have different sensitivity and biases. Thus, the reduced specificity in most studies, in combination with the relatively small number of total cases due to low background incidence, complicates interpretation of these findings.

Of particular importance for assessment of epidemiologic evidence on TCE exposure is characterizing the totality of the evidence in light of factors that may contribute to false positive findings or to false negative observations. The evidence presented on issues regarding data sources, exposure assessment, and disease classification can influence the statistical power of the epidemiologic study to detect whether there is an underlying risk. The challenge is to consider these issues, along with well-articulated approaches when evaluating the body of evidence, including the application of meta-analysis methods and rationale for grouping individual studies, in identifying hazards and drawing causal conclusions.

Figures and Tables Top

Figure 1.

Relative risks (SIRs or SMRs) for primary liver cancer in occupational cohort studies of TCE-exposed workers. Abbreviations: F, female; M, male. No case–control studies of primary liver cancer and TCE exposure were identified from the published literature.

Figure 2.

Relative risks for liver and biliary passage cancer in occupational cohort studies on TCE. SIRs or SMRs are presented for occupational cohort studies, and ORs for the case–control study.

Figure 3.

Relative risks for kidney cancer or RCC and TCE exposure. SIRs or SMRs are presented for occupational cohort studies, and ORs for case–control studies.

Figure 4.

Relative risks for NHL and TCE exposure in cohort and case–control studies. SIRs or SMRs are presented for occupational cohort studies, and ORs for case–control studies.

Table 1.

Occupational cohort studies of cancer and TCE exposure.

Table 2.

Case–control epidemiologic studies examining cancer and TCE exposure.

Table 3.

Community studies on cancer and TCE exposure.

Table 4.

Select epidemiologic studies: site-specific cancer and exposure to TCE.

Table 5.

Select epidemiologic studies: kidney or renal cell cancer and exposure to TCE.

Table 6.

Select epidemiologic studies: liver cancer and exposure to TCE.

Table 7.

Select epidemiologic studies: lymphoma and exposure to TCE.

References Top

1. Ahrens C, Altman N, Casella G, Eaton M, Hwang JTG, Staudenmayer J, et al. 2001. Leukemia clusters in upstate New York: how adding covariates changes the story Environmetrics 12:659–672. Find this article online
2. Aickin M 2004. Bayes without priors J Clin Epidemiol 57:4–13.15019005 Find this article online
3. Aickin M, Chapin CA, Flood TJ, Englender SJ, Caldwell GG 1992. Assessment of the spatial occurrence of childhood leukaemia mortality using standardized rate ratios with a simple linear Poisson model Int J Epidemiol 21:649–655.1521967 Find this article online
4. Anttila A, Pukkala E, Sallmen M, Hernberg S, Hemminki K 1995. Cancer incidence among Finnish workers exposed to halogenated hydrocarbons J Occup Environ Med 37:797–806.7552463 Find this article online
5. Axelson O, Selden A, Andersson K, Hogstedt C 1994. Updated and expanded Swedish cohort study of trichloroethylene and cancer risk J Occup Med 36:556–562.8027881 Find this article online
6. Blair A, Hartage P, Stewart PA, McAdams M, Lubin J 1998. Mortality and cancer incidence of aircraft maintenance workers exposed to trichloroethylene and other organic solvents and chemicals: extended followup Occup Environ Med 55:161–171.9624267 Find this article online
7. Boice JD Jr, Marano DE, Fryzek JP, Sadler CJ, McLaughlin JK 1999. Mortality among aircraft manufacturing workers Occup Environ Med 56:581–597.10615290 Find this article online
8. Brauch H, Weirich G, Hornauer MA, Storkel S, Wohl T, Brüning T 1999. Trichloroethylene exposure and specific somatic mutations in patients with renal cell carcinoma J Natl Cancer Inst 91:854–861.10340905 Find this article online
9. Brauch H, Weirich G, Klein B, Rabstein S, Bolt HM, Brüning T 2004. VHL mutations in renal cell cancer: does occupational exposure to trichloroethylene make a difference? Toxicol Lett 151:301–310.15177666 Find this article online
10. Brüning T, Bolt HM 2000. Renal toxicity and carcinogenicity of trichloroethylene: key results, mechanisms, and controversies Crit Rev Toxicol 30:253–285.10852497 Find this article online
11. Brüning T, Lammert M, Kempkes M, Their R, Golka K, Bolt HM 1997. Influence of polymorphisms of GSTM1 and GSTT1 for risk of renal cell cancer in workers with long-term high occupational exposure to trichloroethene Arch Toxicol 71:596–599.9285043 Find this article online
12. Brüning T, Pesch B, Wiesenhütter B, Rabstein S, Lammert M, Baumüller A, et al. 2003. Renal cell cancer risk and occupational exposure to trichloroethylene: results of a consecutive case-control study in Arnsberg, Germany Am J Ind Med 43:274–285.12594774 Find this article online
13. Caldwell JC, Keshava N 2006. Key issues in the modes of action and effects of trichloroethylene metabolites for liver and kidney tumorigenesis Environ Health Perspect 114:1457–1463.16966105 Find this article online
14. Chang YM, Tai C-F, Yang S-C, Chen C-J, Shih T-S, Lin RS, et al. 2003. A cohort mortality study of workers exposed to chlorinated organic solvents in Taiwan Ann Epidemiol 13:652–660.14732305 Find this article online
15. Chang YM, Tai C-F, Yang S-C, Lin RS, Sung F-C, Shih T-S, et al. 2005. Cancer incidence among workers potentially exposed to chlorinated solvents in an electronics factory J Occup Health 27:171–180.15824483 Find this article online
16. Charbotel B, Fevotte J, Hours M, Martin JL, Bergeret A 2005. Case-Control Study on Renal Cell Cancer and Occupational Trichloroethylene Exposure in the Arve Valley (France). Final Report. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/tsca8e/pubs/8ehq​/2005/december05/8EHQ-1105–16030B.pdf [accessed 6 April 2006]
17. Charbotel B, Fevotte J, Hours M, Martin JL, Bergeret A 2006. Case-control study on renal cell cancer and occupational exposure to trichloroethylene. Part II: Epidemiological aspects Ann Occup Hyg. doi:10.1093/annhyg/mel039 [Online 13 July 2006] Find this article online
18. Chiu WA, Caldwell JC, Keshava N, Scott CS 2006a. Key scientific issues in the health risk assessment of trichloroethylene Environ Health Perspect 114:1445–1449.16966103 Find this article online
19. Chiu WA, Okino M, Lipscomb JC, Evans MV 2006b. Issues in the pharmacokinetics of trichloroethylene and its metabolites Environ Health Perspect 114:1450–1456.16966104 Find this article online
20. Cogliatti SB, Schmid U 2002. Who is WHO and what was REAL? Swiss Med Wkly 132:607–617.12587044 Find this article online
21. Costa C, Merletti F, Segnan N 1989. A mortality cohort study in a north Italian aircraft factory Br J Ind Med 226:738–743.2818961 Find this article online
22. Costas K, Knorr RS, Condon SK 2002. A case-control study of childhood leukemia in Woburn, Massachusetts: the relationship between leukemia incidence and exposure to public drinking water Sci Total Environ 300:23–35.12685468 Find this article online
23. DeRoos AJ, Olshan AF, Teschke K, Poole C, Savitz DA, Blatt J, et al. 2001. Parental occupational exposures to chemicals and incidence of neuroblastoma in offspring Am J Epidemiol 154:106–114.11447042 Find this article online
24. Dosemeci M, Cocco P, Chow WH 1999. Gender differences in risk of renal cell carcinoma and occupational exposures to chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Am J Ind Med 36:54–59.10361587 Find this article online
25. Dumas S, Parent ME, Siemiatycki J, Brisson J 2000. Rectal cancer and occupational risk factors: a hypothesis-generating, exposure-based case-control study Int J Cancer 87:874–879.10956400 Find this article online
26. Fevotte J, Charbotel B, Muller-Beauté P, Martin JL, Hours M, Bergeret A 2006. Case-Control study on renal cell cancer and occupational exposure to trichloroethylene. Part I: Exposure assessment Ann Occup Hyg. doi:10.1093/annhyg/mel040 [Online 13 July 2006] Find this article online
27. Fisher RI 2003. Overview of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: biology, staging, and treatment Semin Oncol 30:3–9.12728402 Find this article online
28. Flood T, Aickin M, Lucier J, Petersen N 1990. Incidence Study of Childhood Cancer in Maricopa County: 1965–1986. Phoenix, AZ:Arizona Department of Health Services
29. Flood T, Chapin C 1988. Report on Mortality in Maricopa County. Phoenix, AZ:Arizona Department of Health Services
30. Flood TJ, Meaney FJ, Vertz D, Laubham KA, Porter RS, Aickin M 1997. Case-Referent Study of Childhood Leukemia in Maricopa County, Arizona 1965–1990. Phoenix, AZ:Arizona Department of Health Services
31. Garabrant DH, Held J, Langholz B, Bernstein L 1988. Mortality of aircraft manufacturing workers in Southern California Am J Ind Med 13:683–693.3389363 Find this article online
32. Greenland S, Salvan A, Wegman DH, Hallock MF, Smith TJ 1994. A case-control study of cancer mortality at a transformer assembly facility Int Arch Occup Environ Health 66:49–54.7927843 Find this article online
33. Hansen J 2004. Cohort studies of cancer risk among Danish workers exposed to TCE. In: Proceedings of Symposium on New Scientific Research Related to the Health Effects of Trichloroethylene, 26–27 February 2004, Washington, DC. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available: http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisp​lay.cfm?deid=75934 [accessed 6 April 2006]
34. Hansen J, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Christensen JM, Johansen I, McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L, et al. 2001. Cancer incidence among Danish workers exposed to trichloroethylene J Occup Environ Med 43:133–139.11227631 Find this article online
35. Hardell L, Eriksson M, Degerman A 1994. Exposure of phenoxy-acetic acids, chlorophenols, or organic solvents in relation to histopathology, stage, and anatomical localization of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma Cancer Res 54:2386–2389.8162585 Find this article online
36. Herrinton LJ 1998. Epidemiology of the revised European-American lymphoma classification subtypes Epidemiol Rev 20:187–203.9919438 Find this article online
37. Hill AB 1965. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 58:295–300.14283879 Find this article online
38. IARC 1995. Dry cleaning, some chlorinated solvents and other industrial chemicals IARC Monogra Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 63:74–158. Find this article online
39. Institute of Medicine 2002. Gulf War and Health. Vol 2. Insecticides and Solvents. Washington, DC:National Academies Press
40. Lee JH, Chung CW, Ma YC, Want GS, Chen PC, Hwang YH, et al. 2003. Increased mortality odds ratio of male liver cancer in a community contaminated by chlorinated hydrocarbons in groundwater Occup Environ Med 60:364–369.12709523 Find this article online
41. Lynge E, Anttila A, Hemminki K 1997. Organic solvents and cancer Cancer Causes Control 8:406–419.9498902 Find this article online
42. Mandel J, Kelsh M 2001. A review of the epidemiology of trichloroethylene and kidney cancer Hum Ecol Risk Assess 7:727–735. Find this article online
43. Marano DE, Boice JD, Fryzek JP, Morrison JA, Sadler CJ, McLaughlin MK 2000. Exposure assessment for a large epidemiological study of aircraft manufacturing workers Appl Occup Environ Hyg 15:644–656.10957820 Find this article online
44. Massachusetts Department of Public Health 1997. Woburn Childhood Leukemia Follow-up Study. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment
45. McLaughlin JK, Blot WJ 1997. A critical review of epidemiology studies of trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene and risk of renal cell cancer Int Arch Occup Environ Health 70:222–231.9342621 Find this article online
46. Morgan JW, Cassady RE 2002. Community cancer assessment in response to long-time exposure to perchlorate and trichloroethylene in drinking water J Occup Environ Med 44:616–621.12134524 Find this article online
47. Morgan RW, Kelsh MA, Zhao K, Heringer S 1998. Mortality of aerospace workers exposed to trichloroethylene Epidemiology 9:424–431.9647907 Find this article online
48. Morgan RW, Kelsh MA, Zhao K, Heringer S 2000. Mortality of aerospace workers exposed to trichloroethylene [erratum published in Epidemiology 11:360] Epidemiology 9:424–431.9647907 Find this article online
49. National Center for Health Statistics 1967. International Classification of Diseases. Eighth Revision. Adapted for use in the United States. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office
50. NTP 2002. Report on Carcinogens. 10th ed. Research Triangle Park, NC:National Toxicology Program. Available: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/tenth/intro​.pdf [accessed 6 April 2006]
51. Olshan AF, de Roos AJ, Teschke K, Neglia JP, Stram DO, Pollock BH, et al. 1999. Neuroblastoma and parental occupation Cancer Causes Control 10:589–549. Find this article online
52. Pannett B, Coggon D, Acheson ED 1985. A job-exposure matrix for use in population based studies in England and Wales Br J Ind Med 42:777–783.4063222 Find this article online
53. Percy C, Ries LG, Van Holten VD 1990. The accuracy of liver cancer as the underlying cause of death on death certificates Public Health Rep 105(4):361–367.2116637 Find this article online
54. Persson B, Dahlander AM, Fredriksson M, Brage H, Ohlson CG, Axelson O 1989. Malignant lymphoma and occupational exposures Br J Ind Med 46:516–520.2775671 Find this article online
55. Persson B, Fredriksson M 1999. Some risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma Int J Occup Med Environ Health 12:135–142.10465904 Find this article online
56. Pesch B Brüning T. 2004. Renal cell cancer risk and occupational exposure to trichloroethylene. In: Proceedings of Symposium on New Scientific Research Related to the Health Effects of Trichloroethylene, 26–27 February 2004, Washington, DC. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available: http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisp​lay.cfm?deid=75934 [accessed 6 April 2006]
57. Pesch B, Haerting J, Ranft U, Klimpel A, Oelschlägel B, Schill W 2000a. Occupational risk factors for renal cell carcinoma: agent-specific results from a case-control study in Germany. MURC Study Group Int J Epidemiol 29:238–247.10817119 Find this article online
58. Pesch B, Haerting J, Ranft U, Klimpel A, Oelschlägel B, Schill W 2000b. Occupational risk factors for urothelial carcinoma: agent-specific results from a case-control study in Germany. MURC Study Group Int J Epidemiol 29:1014–1024.11101542 Find this article online
59. Raaschou-Nielsen O, Hansen J, McLaughlin JK, Kolstad H, Christensen JM, Tarone RE, et al. 2003. Cancer risk among workers at Danish companies using trichloroethylene: a cohort study Am J Epidemiol 158:1182–1192.14652303 Find this article online
60. Radican L, Wartenberg D, Rhoads GG, Schneider D, Wedeen R, Stewart P, et al. 2006. A retrospective occupational cohort study of end-stage renal disease in aircraft workers exposed to trichloroethylene and other hydrocarbons J Occup Environ Med 48:1–12.16404204 Find this article online
61. Ritz B 1999. Cancer mortality among workers exposed to chemicals during uranium processing J Occup Environ Med 41:556–566.10412097 Find this article online
62. Staudt LM, Dave S 2005. The biology of human lymphoid malignancies revealed by gene expression profiling Adv Immunol 87:163–208.16102574 Find this article online
63. Stewart PA, Lee JS, Marano DE, Spirtas R, Forbes CD, Blair A 1991. Retrospective cohort mortality study of workers at an aircraft maintenance facility. II. Exposures and their assessment Br J Ind Med 48:531–537.1878309 Find this article online
64. Teschke K, Olshan AF, Daniels JL, DeRoos AJ, Parks CG, Schulz M, et al. 2002. Occupational exposure assessment in case-control studies: opportunities for improvement Occup Environ Med 59:575–594.12205230 Find this article online
65. Turnbull BW, Iwano EJ, Burnett WJ, Howe HL, Clark LC 1990. Monitoring for clusters of disease: application to leukemia incidence in upstate New York Am J Epidemiol 132:S14–S22.2356826 Find this article online
66. U.S. EPA 2001. Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment: Synthesis and Characterization, External Review Draft. EPA/600/P-01/002A. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
67. U.S. EPA 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum
68. Vamvakas S, Brüning T, Thomasson B, Lammert M, Baumüller A, Bolt HM, et al. 1998. Renal cell cancer correlated with occupational exposure to trichloroethene J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 124:374–382.9719500 Find this article online
69. Waller LA, Turnbull BW 1993. The effects of scale on tests for disease clustering Stat Med 12:1869–1884.8272667 Find this article online
70. Waller LA, Turnbull BW, Clark LC, Nasca P 1992. Chronic disease surveillance and testing of clustering of disease and exposure: application to leukemia incidence and TCE-contaminated dump-sites in upstate New York Environmetrics 3:281–300. Find this article online
71. Wartenberg D, Reyner D, Scott CS 2000. Trichloroethylene and cancer: epidemiologic evidence Environ Health Perspect 108(suppl 2):161–176.10807550 Find this article online
72. Weed DL 2002. Environmental epidemiology: basics and proof of cause-effect Toxicol 181–182:399–403. Find this article online
73. Weiss N 1996. Cancer in relationship to occupational exposure to trichloroethylene Occup Environ Med 53:1–5.8563851 Find this article online
74. Wong O 2004. Carcinogenicity of trichloroethylene: an epidemiologic assessment Clin Occup Environ Med 4:557–589.15325321 Find this article online
75. WHO 1957. International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death, Seventh Revision. Geneva: World Health Organization
76. WHO 1977. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision. Geneva:World Health Organization
77. Zhao Y, Krishnadasan A, Kenneday N, Morgenstern H, Ritz B 2005. Estimated effects of solvents and mineral oils on cancer incidence and mortality in a cohort of aerospace workers Am J Ind Med 48:249–258.16167347 Find this article online