Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41965259›Full record

ReviewReviews on environmental health2026

Lead and cancer: a narrative review and risk of bias assessment (2003-2020).

Carol Cusack, Tara C Serio, Noelle B Henderson, Kathryn B Egan, Zheng Li, Teresa W Wang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reviews on environmental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carol CusackOffice of Community Health Hazard Assessment, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Atlanta, GA, USA.
Tara C SerioOffice of Community Health Hazard Assessment, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1268-0237
Noelle B HendersonOffice of Community Health Hazard Assessment, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4809-5187
Kathryn B EganOffice of Science, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4725-0878
Zheng LiOffice of Capacity Development and Applied Prevention Science, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2140-9246
Teresa W WangOffice of Community Health Hazard Assessment, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8779-463X

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lead exposure may contribute to harmful human health effects, but evidence of its carcinogenicity is limited. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2006 classified lead as "probably carcinogenic" (Group 2A), based on limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in animals. To further synthesize evidence on lead's carcinogenicity, this review included a literature search and risk of bias assessment of 43 peer-reviewed epidemiological studies on lead exposure and cancer outcomes published between 2003 and 2020. Using the National Toxicology Program's Office of Health Assessment and Translation Risk of Bias approach, 13 Tier One studies (primarily low risk) and 30 Tier Two studies (low and high risk) were identified. These studies characterized lead exposure through biologic media (i.e., blood, urine, tissues, hair, nails), and/or work histories, and evaluated cancers of the biliary tract, brain and central nervous system, breast, digestive tract, head and neck, blood, mesothelium, reproductive organs, respiratory tract, skin, thyroid, and urinary tract. Notably, breast, thyroid, and head and neck cancers were not previously included in the IARC 2006 monograph. Across all site-specific cancers examined, at least one study reported an association with lead exposure except for skin cancer. Respiratory tract cancers had the most epidemiologic studies showing positive associations with lead exposure. Study limitations were commonly tied to risk of bias for confounding, exposure characterization, and outcome assessments. Taken together, future studies would benefit from robust experimental designs with thorough adjustments for confounders, large diverse populations, and standardized exposure assessments particularly for cancers with limited data.

Indexed as

Environmental ExposureEnvironmental PollutantsLeadNeoplasmsAnimalsBiasHumansRisk AssessmentEnvironmental PollutantsLeadcancerleadnarrative reviewrisk of bias

Identifiers

PMID41965259
PMCPMC13130192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.