Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42487121›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health : a global access science source2026

Bisphenol A and cancer: a critical review of the epidemiologic literature with an emphasis on exposure assessment.

Neela Guha, Gwendolyn Osborne, M Elizabeth Marder, Martha S Sandy, Meng Sun, Nancy Firchow, Vincent J Cogliano

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health : a global access science source, 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

7 authors.

Neela GuhaCalifornia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oakland, United States. neela@berkeley.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3991-4662
Gwendolyn OsborneCalifornia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oakland, United States.
M Elizabeth MarderCalifornia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Sacramento, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9068-9280
Martha S SandyCalifornia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oakland, United States. martha.sandy@oehha.ca.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8468-5745
Meng SunCalifornia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Sacramento, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-1436-0506
Nancy FirchowCalifornia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Sacramento, United States.
Vincent J CoglianoCalifornia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oakland, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBisphenol A (BPA) is a high production volume chemical that has been used for decades in numerous consumer and industrial applications. Daily exposure to BPA is likely; it is readily detected in >90% of the general population despite being rapidly metabolized and excreted. BPA's toxicity, including endocrine disrupting activity, has sparked public health concern. We comprehensively reviewed the epidemiologic literature on the carcinogenicity of BPA and highlighted exposure assessment considerations that impact study interpretation.

methodsMultiple biomedical databases were searched through February 2025 for peer-reviewed cancer epidemiology studies that assessed associations with BPA exposure. Studies of the following designs (or a variant) were included: cohort, case-control, cross-sectional. A detailed bias assessment was conducted with guidance from the Report on Carcinogens Handbook and the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs Preamble.

resultsOf the 139 records identified, 43 epidemiological studies were reviewed; all were conducted in the general population. We focused the review on cancers of the breast and prostate because they had the highest number of cohort or case-control studies, but all cancer sites were summarized in the appendix for completeness. Generally, there were mixed results for associations with BPA. Interpretation was hampered by the high potential for exposure measurement error and the inability to characterize past BPA exposure, necessary to assess cancer outcomes with long latency. The majority of studies relied on biomonitoring using short-term biomarkers of recent BPA exposure, and measured BPA in urine at a single time point post-diagnosis; this failed to capture the critical time window of susceptibility, rule out reverse causation, or characterize temporal variation in BPA exposure.

conclusionsThe epidemiologic evidence was inadequate to evaluate the carcinogenicity of BPA - mainly due to exposure measurement error and misclassification, limited number of studies by cancer site, and heterogeneity in the results and study methodology. The inadequate evidence base cannot rule out potential carcinogenicity of BPA in humans. Future studies conducted within highly exposed occupational cohorts, with prospective and longitudinal collection of quantitative exposure data (e.g., BPA levels) and assessment of cancer outcomes or acute endpoints involved in established mechanisms of carcinogenesis (e.g., receptor mediated effects) are likely to be informative.

Indexed as

Benzhydryl CompoundsEndocrine DisruptorsEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental PollutantsNeoplasmsPhenolsBisphenol A CompoundsHumansBenzhydryl Compoundsbisphenol ABisphenol A CompoundsEndocrine DisruptorsEnvironmental PollutantsPhenolsBiomonitoringBisphenol ACancerEpidemiologyExposure AssessmentExposure MisclassificationReview

Identifiers

PMID42487121
PMCPMC13393274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.