Understanding population and individual risk assessment: the case of polychlorinated biphenyls

Decisions about how to improve or protect the public health can be, and sometimes necessarily are, made on imprecise science. The regulation of potential human carcinogens in the environment entails a population-risk assessment process intended to reduce risks to less than one additional cancer in 100,000 or 1,000,000 persons. These risk assessment processes, however, may be miscommunicated or misinterpreted in the context of individual cancer risks by scientists, regulators, the lay media, and the public. This commentary will review methods for establishing a causal relationship between carcinogen exposures and cancer risk. It will use the case of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) as an example of how to place scientific data into the context of human exposure and cancer risk. PCBs are widespread environmental contaminants and most people have detectable levels of PCBs in their bodies. The primary source for exposure in the general population is through the diet. PCBs are carcinogens in experimental animal models, but how this information can be extrapolated to human risk remains uncertain. PCB experimental studies provide data that are used to regulate and control human exposure, although the epidemiologic evidence fails to establish PCBs as human carcinogens. Thus, what is used for population-risk assessment may not be appropriate for individual-risk assessment or concluding that a causal relationship exists between PCB exposure and cancer risk. The hazards from a carcinogen designated by regulatory and review agencies as a "probable" human carcinogen is often misunderstood out of context about the magnitude of the risk and in what settings. How scientists communicate their results in scientific articles can strongly influence how others interpret their data. Misunderstandings from both the use of regulatory and review-agency opinions and the conclusions espoused by scientists occur in the media, among private physicians counseling their patients about cancer risk, and in the legal settings where plaintiffs seek compensation for exposure and alleged harm (or future harm). This can lead to false conclusions about what caused a cancer in a specific patient, undue anxiety about future cancer risk, inappropriate cancer screening, and attendant increased morbidity due to increased uses of the medical system and complication rates from medical procedures. The communication of research findings by scientists must be presented with caution, resisting the temptation to extrapolate, inappropriately, research data to the general population.