Serum persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and prostate cancer risk: A case-cohort study

Jung eun Lim, Chungmo Nam, Jiyeon Yang, Koon Ho Rha, Kyung Min Lim, Sun Ha Jee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

35 Scopus citations


It is still unclear whether persistent organic pollutants (POPs) exposure increases the prostate cancer incidence risk. This prospective cohort study evaluated the associations between serum POPs concentrations and prostate cancer risk. Within a case-cohort study, we identified 110 people diagnosed with prostate cancer and randomly selected 256 sub-cohort participants without prostate cancer. Serum concentrations of 32 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners and 19 organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were measured. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for determining the associations between POPs and risk of prostate cancer were estimated using the weighted Cox regression model. Compared to the lowest tertile, increased risks of prostate cancer incidence were observed in the upper tertile of following PCBs: the moderately chlorinated (HR: 4.19; 95% CI: 1.30–13.54), the highly chlorinated (HR: 4.14; 95% CI: 1.75–9.79), biologically persistent as CYP1A and CYP2B inducers (HR: 4.44; 95% CI: 1.33–14.83), the sum of non- dioxin-like (HR: 3.47; 95% CI: 1.21–9.98), and ∑PCBs (HR: 4.29; 95% CI: 1.52–12.08). In dose-response curves, ∑PCBs was associated with the increased risk of prostate cancer. Our findings suggested a possible role of POPs in the etiology of prostate cancer.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)849-856
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
Issue number5
StatePublished - Jul 2017

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier GmbH


  • Cohort studies
  • Endocrine disruptors
  • Polychlorinated biphenyls
  • Prostatic neoplasms


Dive into the research topics of 'Serum persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and prostate cancer risk: A case-cohort study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this