Content uploaded by Kaumudi J Joshipura
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kaumudi J Joshipura
Content may be subject to copyright.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study
Chester W. Douglass Æ Kaumudi Joshipura
Received: 3 January 2006 / Accepted: 12 January 2006
Ó Springer 2006
This issue of Cancer Causes and Controls includes a paper
with results from an analysis of a subset of participants in
our ongoing study of fluoride and osteosarcoma. The paper,
‘‘Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and
osteosarcoma’’, presents a partial view of this ongoing
study. We would like to advise the readers to be especially
cautious when interpreting the findings of this paper for
several reasons. The authors themselves have already
raised a flag of caution in their final paragraph with the note
that they are aware of additional findings from other inci-
dent cases that appear not to replicate the findings from the
cases presented in their paper.
The Harvard School of Dental Medicine study of fluo-
ride and osteosarcoma has been a 15-year collaboration
among NIEHS, NCI, NIDCR, and Harvard. Two sets of
cases have been collected each with their own control
groups. The study started in 1992. The first set of cases was
recruited from existing cases between 1989 and 1992, and
the second set of cases was recruited from new incident
cases between 1993 and 2000. The Bassin et al paper
reports age-specific results among only the cases from 1989
to 1992. We are also finding some positive associations
between fluoride and osteosarcoma in the overall (not age-
specific) analysis of the first set of cases. However, our
preliminary findings from the overall analysis of the second
set of cases (1993–2000) do not appear to replicate the
overall findings from the first part of the study. Our find-
ings currently being prepared for publication, do not sug-
gest an overall association between fluoride and
osteosarcoma. This seems particularly important since the
cases had been accrued essentially from the same hospitals
within the same orthopedic departments with the same
providers, and the same pathology departments making the
diagnosis of the osteosarcoma and also using similar
methods of fluoride exposure.
In addition to fluoride intake history, many of the cases
and controls that were accrued in the 1993–2000 time
period agreed to provide bone specimens. The cases pro-
vided bone that was obtained proximal to the osteosarcoma
lesion as well as from their contra lateral hip. The control
group of non-osteosarcoma cancer patients provided bone
specimens. Our preliminary analysis of the fluoride content
of the bone specimens suggests that the fluoride level
within the bone is not associated with excess risk of oste-
osarcoma. We are grateful to Dr. Bassin and her coauthors
for mentioning at the end of their paper that we are not
finding a positive association from the bone specimens in
the second set of cases.
Obtaining and analyzing sufficient numbers of bone
specimens has been a laborious and a time consuming
effort by many people throughout the hospitals and
research teams. The analysis of these specimens has
included quality control procedures on laboratory tech-
niques, pilot studies to test reliability, many runs of small
batches of specimens, the double checking of specimen
transport procedures, and the preparation of data sets for
analysis.
We are now in the possession of the complete analytic
data sets and are pursuing previously planned analysis and
comparisons with the earlier set of collected cases. We
C. W. Douglass (&) Æ K. Joshipura
Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA;
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
e-mail: chester_douglass@hsdm.harvard.edu
Tel.: +1-617-432-1456
Fax: +1-617-432-0047
K. Joshipura
University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan,
Puerto Rico
Cancer Causes Control (2006) 17:481–482
DOI 10.1007/s10552-006-0008-8
123
have delayed publication of all the major findings until we
found replication or lack of replication of the earlier po-
sitive findings. Our role model in this process has been Sir
Richard Doll, whose first publication associating smoking
with illness was rejected for publication until it could be
replicated (New York Times, July 26, 2005). It was too
important and too unexpected to be published on its own.
Professor Doll did replicate his initial findings; we appar-
ently have not and the bone specimens seem to corroborate
the lack of an association between the fluoride content in
drinking water and osteosarcoma in the new cases. Inter-
estingly, the NIEHS replication of their own earlier study
that found excess osteosarcoma in male rats was recently
presented on the NIEHS web site [1]. The findings of their
second study do not replicate their original widely quoted
National Toxicology Program study [2]. Drinking water
with very high fluoride content was not found to be asso-
ciated with osteosarcoma in either male or female rats.
A parallel analysis of age-specific exposure to fluoride,
especially during growth periods, is also being pursued by
our study team in the second set of cases of our study.
Accordingly, readers are cautioned not to generalize and
over-interpret the results of the Bassin et al. paper and to
await the publications from the full study, before making
conclusions, and especially before influencing any related
policy decisions.
References
1. The National Toxicology Program (NTP). Supplemental 2-year
study of sodium fluoride in male F344 rats (CAS No. 7681–49–4)
2. National Toxicology Program (1990) Toxicology and carcino-
genesis of sodium fluoride in F344 TN rats and B 6C3FL mice.
Technical Report Services 393, NIH Publication No. 90–2848
482 Cancer Causes Control (2006) 17:481–482
123