
| |  | |  |
Workshop Summary
|
| Applying New Biotechnologies to the Study of Occupational Cancer - A Workshop Summary Mark Toraason,1,* Richard Albertini,2 Steven Bayard,3 William
Bigbee,4 Aaron Blair,5 Paolo Boffetta,6 Stefano
Bonassi,7 Steven Chanock,5 David Christiani,8 David
Eastmond,9 Samuel Hanash,10 Carol Henry,11 Fred
Kadlubar,12 Frank Mirer,13 Daniel Nebert,14 Stephen
Rapport,15 Kathleen Rest,16 Nathaniel Rothman,5 Avima
Ruder,1 Russell Savage,1,* Paul Schulte,1,* Jack
Siemiatycki,17 Peter Shields,18 Martyn Smith,19 Paige
Tolbert,20 Roel Vermeulen,5 Paolo Vineis,21 Sholom
Wacholder,5 Elizabeth Ward,22,* Michael Waters,23 and
Ainsley Weston24 1National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati,
Ohio, USA; 2University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA; 3Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA; 4University
of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; 5National
Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human
Services, Bethesda, Maryland, USA; 6International Agency for Research
on Cancer, Lyon, France; 7National Institute for Research on Cancer,
Genoa, Italy; 8Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts,
USA; 9University of California, Riverside, California, USA; 10University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; 11American Chemistry Council,
Arlington, Virginia, USA; 12National Center for Toxicological Research,
Jefferson, Arkansas, USA; 13Health and Safety Department, International
Union, United Auto Workers, Detroit, Michigan, USA; 14University
of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; 15University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, 16National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, Washington, DC, USA; 17University of Montreal,
Montreal, Canada; 18Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA; 19University
of California, Berkeley, California, USA; 20Emory University, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA; 21University of Torino, Torino, Italy; 22 American
Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; 23National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human
Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA; 24National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA Abstract As high-throughput technologies in genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics evolve, questions arise about their use in the assessment of occupational cancers. To address these questions, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the American Chemistry Council sponsored a workshop 8-9 May 2002 in Washington, DC. The workshop brought together 80 international specialists whose objective was to identify the means for best exploiting new technologies to enhance methods for laboratory investigation, epidemiologic evaluation, risk assessment, and prevention of occupational cancer. The workshop focused on identifying and interpreting markers for early biologic effect and inherited modifiers of risk. Key words: biomarkers, chemical exposure, epidemiology, gene-environment interactions, genomics, occupational cancer, polymorphisms, proteomics, risk assessment, toxicogenomics. Environ Health Perspect 112:413-416 (2004) . doi:doi:10.1289/txg.6343 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 14 January 2004] Address corresponding to M. Toraason, NIOSH C23, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH, 45226 USA. Telephone: (513) 533-8207. Fax: (513) 533-8138. E-mail: mtoraason@cdc.gov *These authors were responsible for developing the summary based on speaker presentations at the workshop. The workshop was cosponsored by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the American Chemistry Council. The authors declare they have no competing financial interests. Received 18 March 2003 ; accepted 14 January 2004. |
|
|
 |
The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) was established by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 1996 with input from
more than 500 organizations and individuals. Since its inception, NORA has
become a prototype for advancing research in the area of worker safety and
health. It is the largest single source of support for 21 occupational research
priority areas. The goal of the cancer research methods priority area is to
identify, evaluate, and recommend new technologies designed to better control
and help investigators understand occupational carcinogenesis. This ongoing
effort has coincided with a revolution in biology. The human genome map has
just been completed, and it has arrived with a wealth of new biologic methods
that drove or were driven by the goal to complete the mapping. Despite this
increase in new technologies and methods, they have yet to be applied fully
to occupational cancer research (Ward et al. 2003). To address this gap, a
workshop, "Applying New Biotechnology to the Study of Occupational Cancer," was
sponsored by NIOSH in conjunction with the National Cancer Institute (NCI),
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the American
Chemistry Council (ACC). The workshop brought together researchers studying
worker populations and those developing and validating new biotechnologies.
The workshop focused on four topics: a) the challenge of applying new
biotechnologies to the study of occupational cancer, b) markers of early
biologic effect, c) inherited modifiers of risk, and d) applying
genetic biomarkers to human studies.
Challenge of Applying New Biotechnologies to the Study of Occupational
Cancer
Epidemiology in the 21st century. A primary challenge
in applying new biotechnologies to occupational cancer research is including
them within the framework of classic studies of occupational exposure and effect.
Historically, occupational studies have helped identify many of the recognized
environmental carcinogens, resulting in reduced exposure for both workers and
the general population. Studies of carcinogens in occupational populations
were facilitated by the availability of records of employees and the high and
prolonged exposures they experienced, which often resulted in high relative
risks for specific cancers. Challenges to occupational cancer epidemiology
in the 21st century relate to the changing nature of the workplace and the
complexity of the exposures. As a result of regulations and industry efforts,
exposure levels are much lower than in the past. Many exposures are mixtures,
and many industries involve exposures to an ever-changing and diverse array
of substances. These changes create the need for more sensitive measures to
detect cancer risks. To move the field of occupational cancer research forward,
it will be necessary to a) conduct more studies of occupational cancer
among women and minorities, as these populations have been ignored in the past; b)
perform quantitative exposure assessments, as qualitative exposure assessments
that rely on general classification of occupation are not good enough; c)
examine interactions between occupational exposures and nonoccupational exposures,
as cancer is a multi-faceted disease; d) focus on biologic tissues and
mechanisms of action and incorporate gene-environmental assessments into
traditional exposure disease paradigms used in epidemiology; and e)
integrate epidemiology, toxicology, genetics, and quantitative exposure assessment.
The promise of new biotechnologies. The progression from exposure
to disease is typically expressed as a continuum of environmental exposure
internal
dose biologically
effective dose early
biologic effect altered
structure and function and finally clinical disease. Each step is affected
by a person's susceptibility, and the continuum provides multiple opportunities
for application of biomarkers for early prediction of disease. Although applicable
to biomarkers of exposure, the new technologies apply primarily to biomarkers
of early effect and susceptibility. Biomarkers that measure early effect and
susceptibility can be used in selecting study cohorts, assessing participant
compliance, or determining intervention effectiveness. The effective use of
biomarkers include optimizing reliability, precision, accuracy, and validity.
Not all biomarkers are suitable for all purposes and are likely to be imperfect
in any single setting. The greatest potential for new biomarkers of early effect
in occupational hazard assessment lies in toxicogenomics, which can be defined
as a field of study that examines how the entire genome responds to toxicants
or other environmental hazards. Toxicogenomics applies genomics, gene and protein
expression profiling, metabolite profiling or metabonomics, and bioinformatics
to understand gene-environment interactions and disease. The many genomic-related
technologies, often referred to simply as "omics," allow exploration of multiple
interactions between genetic and environmental factors. This exploration will
improve the understanding of mechanisms of action, clarify the use and limitations
of surrogate models, enhance predictive toxicology and screening, and better
characterize susceptible populations.
Technical and policy issues. The fields of toxicology and epidemiology
are crucial for the assessment and management of the impact of chemicals on
the safety, health, and welfare of workers. To realize this, a unified research
agenda is needed for developing new technologies that will be used within a
framework of toxicologic and epidemiologic principles. To accomplish this,
the involvement of stakeholder communities is needed to address social, legal,
and ethical issues (Henry et al. 2002). Technical and policy issues that need
to be addressed include a) opportunities for shared learning in the
public domain, b) accessibility to publicly held gene expression databases, c)
understanding of the predictive capabilities of the technologies before widespread
application, d) availability of prevalence data, e) privacy and
confidentiality concerns, f) security and discrimination issues, g)
counseling for coping with genetic information, h) use and premature
use of "omics" data, and i) defining the regulatory positions on "omics" data.
Researchers need to focus on methods to assess gene expression in large populations,
address statistical and bioinformatics issues, and use a multidisciplinary
approach. These actions will lead to better integration of toxicology and epidemiology.
Markers of Early Biologic Effects
Rationale for assessing intermediate biomarkers. Epidemiologists
have begun employing early markers of effect because of the challenges in using
cancer as an outcome measure in occupational epidemiologic studies. There is
minimal ambiguity when clinical disease is an end point, but there are limitations
when studying cancer. The foremost problem is latency--the 10, 20, or even
30 years between exposure and disease. This latency moved researchers to develop
the field of molecular epidemiology 20 years ago. The growth in molecular epidemiology
was due to the promise that a new generation of biologic markers, with particular
application to occupational cancer, would allow one to identify excess risk
early in the natural history of a disease and provide an opportunity for preventive
action. Other potential benefits of early markers of disease include the ability
to enhance exposure assessment, especially low-dose exposures and low-risk
populations, identify risks from single agents within complex exposures, estimate
the total exposure from multiple sources, and provide data today that predict
tomorrow's effects. While these benefits are important, in reality, many individual
biomarkers may never provide a definitive answer linking exposure to disease.
These markers may have the greatest impact in providing additional information
to the weight of evidence that suggests a particular exposure is a potential
risk.
A good example is the p53 mutations in angiosarcomas associated with
vinyl chloride-exposed factory workers. These lesions are specific to the tumors
in persons with vinyl chloride exposure and are not evident in liver angiosarcomas
of persons without vinyl chloride exposure. Therefore, these p53 lesions
serve as a molecular fingerprint of exposure. Other examples are not so clear.
Attempts to use the glycophorin A locus somatic cell mutation as an end point
of a specific locus mutation arising from exposures to benzo[a]pyrene
or styrene was confounded by the high background of this mutation in cigarette
smokers. Therefore, two things are needed to reach exposure-specific inferences.
The first is a prevalent and specific genetic lesion that can be identified
in an occupationally exposed group, and the second is a low background of the
lesion in the general population.
Validation and linking intermediate biomarkers to cancer. The
difficult steps to validation of early biomarkers begin with animal studies
and includes studies that ensure biomarker reliability before moving to human
subjects with case-control and cohort approaches. Validating biomarkers
as predictors requires large study populations in order to investigate events
that are generally uncommon. The premier examples are recent cohort studies
on DNA adducts and chromosomal aberrations (Bonassi et al. 2000). Biomarkers
validated through longitudinal human studies can be used efficiently to estimate
the risk of cancer in populations in which epidemiologic studies cannot be
performed.
The establishment of a correlation between chromosomal aberrations in peripheral
lymphocytes and cancer has stimulated the development of new techniques to
detect aberrations in a variety of exposed populations. This is because scoring
of unbanded chromosomes in metaphase preparations to detect aberrations is
labor intensive and prone to technical artifacts. Therefore, the micronucleus
assay has become popular as it is faster, inexpensive, and can be performed
on virtually any cell type. Unfortunately, an association has not been established
between micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes and a risk for human cancers,
as is the case with chromosomal aberrations. Therefore, validation studies
with micronuclei and other end points are needed. Other alternatives include
fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), which is relatively fast to
perform, with costs ranging from inexpensive to moderately expensive. A more
comprehensive type of FISH is multicolor karyotyping, spectral karyotyping
(SKY) or M-FISH, which can identify aberrations in all chromosomes. These techniques
are equipment and labor intensive and remain too costly for large-scale use.
To be useful for occupational cancer research in the future, cytogenetic techniques
will need to incorporate automation, rapid-image analysis, and flow cytometry
so that a large number of samples can be processed for modest cost.
Monitoring changes in gene expression. Carcinogens presumably
disrupt gene expression, resulting in a wide interindividual variation in response.
Demonstrating a link between chemical exposure and gene expression profiles
could pave the way for the use of carcinogen-induced changes in transcription
as biomarkers to assess worker risk. Ideally, early biologic effect markers
can be used to evaluate risk in groups of workers exposed to chemicals and
other insults. Advantages of using markers of early biologic effects in cancer
etiology studies are that fewer persons may be needed than in a cohort study
that evaluates cancer as an outcome. Studies can be performed quickly, as they
are generally cross-sectional or short-term longitudinal investigations. Also,
because recent exposure often has the greatest impact on early biologic effect
biomarkers, highly accurate exposure assessment can be achieved.
In identifying environmental factors in the induction of human disease, one
is confronted with thousands of chemicals, dose- and time-related effects,
multiple genetic substrates, and uncertainty about disease models. The simple
model of a normal cell experiencing several genetic events to become cancerous
is outdated. Innumerable genetic and other events must occur. To assess the
effects of low-level exposure, it will be necessary to examine multiple gene-environment
interactions to demonstrate that the cancer risk is related to a specific exposure.
The complexity of gene-environment interactions is exemplified by simple
gene expression studies conducted in isolated cells. The response to benzo[a]pyrene
of approximately 7,000 genes in primary epithelial cells from multiple human
donors revealed altered (both increases and decreases) expression patterns
(> 100% change) in more than 500 RNA species. Dose- and time-dependent changes
in expression were noted in cytochrome P450 metabolism enzymes, other carcinogen
metabolism genes, DNA repair genes, and cell-cycle regulation genes such as p52 and p21.
Analysis of the many changes in expression is enhanced by cluster analysis,
which is an algorithm designed to identify patterns of expression. It groups
RNA transcripts that respond to test treatments in similar fashion and organizes
a map ideally suited to large data set analysis. Such analyses are necessary
for rapid and effective interrogation of thousands of genes. As outcome data
expand exponentially, new data analysis, storage, and mining strategies will
be needed. To understand mechanisms of toxicity and predict the toxicity of
new chemicals, a reference knowledge base will be needed that anchors gene
expression patterns, proteomic data, and metabolite profiles to conventional
toxicology and pathology determinations. Linkages need to include information
about dose, route, time, and target tissue as well as information about early,
middle, and late toxicity-related changes. Databases need to be easily accessible
and provide chemical-signature analyses so that unknown toxicants can be queried
within the database to determine their potential toxicity.
Inherited Modifiers of Risk
Identification of relevant genes. The influence of genetic
factors on susceptibility to cancer is widely recognized. Some well-known genetic
risk factors, such as the BRCA1 gene, result in a high absolute risk
of cancer in persons with the gene. Susceptibility to environmental carcinogens
is likely to be influenced by a multitude of genes, none of which alone has
a very large effect. Moreover, the cumulative effect on susceptibility to a
class of environmental toxicants may result from complex interactions of multiple
genes. Historically, studies have focused on what the body does in terms of
absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of environmental agents
(pharmacokinetics). More recently, emphasis has been on what the agent does
to the body (pharmacodynamics). Environmental agents can act either as agonists
or antagonists or as activators or inhibitors, thereby perturbing normal function.
To be applicable to risk assessment, polymorphisms of susceptibility will have
to be included in models that define a chemical's adverse effects.
Identification of SNPS. All genes are highly polymorphic and,
perhaps, every gene is capable of being an environmental susceptibility gene.
DNA sequence variants include single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), insertions
and deletions, or inversions and duplications of multiple bases or repetitive
DNA. As many as 10 million SNPs are estimated to exist per person, many of
which are population specific. Although most SNPs have no phenotypic effect,
approximately 50,000 to 250,000 SNPs bear a phenotypic change. In the past,
geneticists searched for significant penetrant mutations that explain rare
diseases. Many of these monogenetic disorders occur against the background
of SNPs that function as modifiers of outcome. Similar strategies are used
to dissect the genetic contribution to complex diseases, especially those with
important environmental exposures. Technical advances make possible the study
of large collections of SNPs from either known genes and pathways or those
distributed randomly across chromosome(s). In this regard, future studies will
examine genes up and downstream to the candidate gene. The scope of studies
has evolved from single-gene design with a phenotype measurement to the promise
of surveying the whole genome with "dense-SNP scans." Public SNP databases
such as NCBI dbSNP database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=snp),
which contains about 3.5 million randomly generated SNPs, will be essential
to this research. The NCI has developed the Cancer Genome Anatomy Project (http://cgap.nci.nih.gov).
Two features of this program are to identify SNPs in silico and validate
SNPs by sequence analysis (http://snp500cancer.nci.nih.gov). In the future,
publicly available integrated databases need to be built on environmental exposures,
SNPs, important genes, and measured disease outcomes. The field will advance
only with substantial collaboration and meta-analyses. Genetic databases must
be crossed with those addressing exposure and disease.
Applying Genetic Biomarkers to Human Studies
A primary goal for assessing gene expression responses is the identification
of candidate exposure biomarkers. Undoubtedly, perturbations in RNA expression
and protein patterns will be noted in exposed persons. However, uncertainty
will exist as to their use in predicting disease. It is not a given that changes
in gene expression will make a difference in a risk-related outcome. Physiologically
based pharmacokinetic models have demonstrated that 10-fold differences in
enzyme levels may make little difference in bioactivation of a chemical, as
the chemical is completely metabolized at low doses in the absence of enzyme
induction. The application of data to risk assessment will be aided by the
development of models of gene expression of oncogenes and tumor suppressor
genes and modeling of polymorphisms of susceptibility. One potential approach
will be to group chemicals with similar global gene expression profiles (GGEP)
and use available cancer bioassays on these chemicals to derive relative potency
parameters in dose-response models. More broadly, GGEP can be used to
link chemicals that induce similar enzymes or adverse effects to derive relative
potency estimates. Mutations found in oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes may
be used to develop dose-response models for humans. The application of
biomarkers to risk assessment will require a clear understanding of how environmental
exposure indices such as air concentrations and markers of early biologic effects
are linked through biomarkers of exposure.
Exposure assessment. Once intermediate markers and underlying
pathways are known, the dose-response relationship and effective agents
must be identified. This requires detailed exposure assessment for which cross-sectional
biomarker studies are useful. When environmental measures are not available,
exposure assessments need to rely on the body burden of a compound. To understand
the exposure-response relationship, it is necessary to understand the
relationship between environmental concentrations of a compound and a measure
of body burden or a biomarker that can be a reactive intermediate, a stable
metabolite, or a macromolecular adduct. These are random variables capable
of varying both within and between subjects in a population. The key to understanding
biomarkers of exposure is a categorization of biomarkers by their half-lives.
Short-term biomarkers have residence times or half-lives of less than 30 hr;
longer-term biomakers have half-lives greater than a thousand hours; and intermediate-term
biomarkers are in between. These distinctions are for convenience in relating
exposure concentrations to biomarker levels. Since intermediate and long-term
biomarkers provide information about exposures over weeks to years, a small
number of biomarker measurements can be sufficient to assess exposure. In some
cases, new technologies will be beneficial in assessing risk of occupational
exposure to complex mixtures or a variety of agents simultaneously (mixed exposures).
High throughput technologies may help identify those agents within a complex
mixture or mixed exposure that are responsible for observed cancer risks, the
level of risk associated with the various agents, the agent driving the risk,
and the mechanisms of action. These could be investigated by comparing patterns
of genetic changes in tissue exposed to mixtures with known patterns for suspect
agents. To achieve this capability, it will be necessary to go beyond hypothesis
testing and conduct discovery-based research.
Ethics and the use of new technologies. As genotyping and epidemiologic
studies become an integral part of occupational disease prevention and control,
fear of privacy violations and discrimination in employment will increase.
Issues that arise with the ability to identify markers of disease susceptibility
include employment eligibility, insurability, employer abuse, permissible exposure
limits, privacy legislation, and structure of human subject review boards.
According to a U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment report (1992),
55% of commercial insurance carriers did not consider a genetic disease trait
a preexisting disease. In contrast, 75% of health maintenance organizations
did. Another study reported that gene testing results were interpreted correctly
only 68% of the time (Giardiello et al.1997). These perceived disparities in
perspective and potential for erroneous results heighten public concerns about
genetic research. A gene for beryllium disease is an example of a genetic marker
that raises legal and ethical issues. Apparently, 30% of the general population
carries a gene placing them at high risk for disease, even if exposed to low
concentrations of beryllium. Although pre-employment screening is possible,
testing of this gene has been confined to research studies. However, no federal
law prohibits employers from acquiring genetic information if a prospective
employee signs a medical release. Laws need to be written to protect the pubic
while at the same time not restricting research, which would have a negative
impact on public health. Researchers should become more actively involved with
the ethical and policy implications of their work. To achieve this, they should a)
ensure correct application of research in the clinical or occupational setting; b)
protect confidentiality and privacy; c) provide appropriate feedback
for subjects; d) improve the language of informed consent forms; e)
define guidelines for sample archiving (when to preserve or destroy links); f)
guard against undue influence from commercial interests; g) reduce the
stigma associated with assessing gene polymorphisms; h) consider the
environmental and occupational regulatory implications of research findings;
and i) contribute to the development of federal laws addressing access,
disclosure, or storage of genetic information by employers.
Summary
The ability of new biotechnologies to group chemicals with similar global
gene expression profiles has the potential to provide an early warning system
for suspected carcinogens before they are introduced into commerce. The challenge
will be to identify the degree of similarity required to predict carcinogenicity
and to distinguish pathogenic patterns from homeostatic ones. Gene expression
patterns will likely be used in epidemiologic studies as surrogate end points
for cancer. Attention to basic epidemiologic principles of design and analysis
are still important to guard against biases and irreproducible results. To
enhance risk assessments, expression patterns need to demonstrate comparability
across species for extrapolation purposes, and to be robust at different doses
for dose-response predictions. Before these technologies are used in humans,
the ethical, legal, and social issues should be addressed along with the scientific
issues. The ultimate challenge to the occupational safety and health community
is how to exploit new technologies appropriately without disregarding the potential
benefits of traditional "low-tech" research approaches. Meeting this challenge
will require the integration of historically tested technologies with newer
ones. |
|
 |
| [References Listed in PubMed] References
Bonassi S, Hagmar L, Stromberg U, Montagud AH, Tinnerberg H, Forni A,
et al. 2000. Chromosomal aberrations in lymphocytes predict human cancer
independently of exposure to carcinogens. European Study Group on Cytogenetic
Biomarkers and Health. Cancer Res 60:1619-1625.
Giardiello FM, Brensinger JD, Petersen GM, Luce MC, Hylind LM, Bacon JA,
et al. 1997. The use and interpretation of commercial APC gene testing for
familial adenomatous polyposis. N Engl J Med 336:823-827.
Henry CJ, Phillips R, Carpanini F, Corton JC, Craig K, Igarashi K, et
al. 2002. Use of genomics in toxicology and epidemiology: findings and recommendations
of a workshop. Environ Health Perspect 110:1047-1050.
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. 1992. Genetic Tests and
Health Insurance: Results of a Survey-Background Paper. OTA-BP-BA-98. Washington,
DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ward EM, Schulte PA, Bayard S, Blair A, Brandt-Rauf P, Butler MA, et al.
2003. Priorities for development of research methods in occupational cancer.
Environ Health Perspect 111:1-12.
Last Updated: March 2, 2004 |
|
 |
|
| |