Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Exposure to glyphosate and risk of non-hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma: An updated meta-analysis

  • University of Turin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

21 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies on the association between occupational exposure to glyphosate and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the literature, and identified 18 relevant publications, from which we extracted results from seven non-overlapping studies of NHL and three of MM. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for ever-exposure to glyphosate, dose-response, and risk of specific NHL subtypes. Results: The meta-relative risk (RR) of NHL was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.21), that of MM was 1.04 (95% CI 0.67-1.41). The meta-RR of NHL for highest category of exposure was 1.49 (95% CI 0.37-2.61; 3 studies). The meta-RR for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) was 1.31 (95% CI 0.93-1.75); that for follicular lymphoma was 0.82 (95% CI 0.93-1.70), and that for chronic lymphocytic leukemia was 0.85 (95% CI 0.20-1.49). There was indication of publication bias for studies on NHL. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis provided no overall evidence of an increased risk for both NHL and MM in subjects occupationally exposed to glyphosate. In secondary analyses we detected a small increase in risk for the category with highest level of exposure as well as for DLBCL. The evidence of publication bias suggests caution in the interpretation of the results.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)63-73
Number of pages11
JournalMedicina del Lavoro
Volume111
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2020

Keywords

  • Epidemiology
  • Glyphosate
  • Multiple myeloma
  • Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Exposure to glyphosate and risk of non-hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma: An updated meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this