Comment on “A Nested Case–Control Study of Serum Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Testicular Germ Cell Tumors among U.S. Air Force Servicemen”

uorooctanesulfo-nate

https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13708Refers to https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12603and https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13212 We read with interest the recently published paper by Purdue et al. 1 and its accompanying Invited Perspective by Steenland. 2urdue et al. conducted a nested case-control study of 530 active-duty U.S. Air Force servicemen, their serum concentrations of nine per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and their diagnoses of testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) between 1990 and 2018.Using conditional logistic regression on a second prediagnostic sample of 187 case-control matched pairs, they reported a positive association with serum perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) concentration and TGCT.The odds ratio, comparing the fourth to the first quartile, was 2.6 (95% confidence interval: 1.1, 6.4) when adjusted for military ranking and number of deployments.The overall trend across these quartiles was p trend = 0:02.There was no association between perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and TGCT in this study.
Both Purdue et al. 1 and Steenland 2 cited limited toxicological data related to PFOS and testicular tumors.Neither of these authors considered the study results by Thomford, 3 later summarized by Butenhoff et al. 4 from a 2-year Good Laboratory Practice oral bioassay in Sprague-Dawley rats with PFOS.Because of the null findings on the testes, Thomford's testicular tumor incidence data were not presented or discussed in detail by Butenhoff et al. 4 As two of the co-authors (S.C. and G.W.O.) of Butenhoff et al., 4 we take this opportunity to share the testicular tumor incidence data from the original study report. 3Table 1 presents the neoplastic tumor data for male rat testes excerpted from this 2year bioassay.
Although both Purdue et al. 1 and Steenland 2 suggested additional epidemiological research is needed, the data from this 2year bioassay, in which the serum PFOS concentrations were much higher in magnitude than the levels reported by Purdue et al., 1 did not support a PFOS-related effect on testicular tumors in rats.
Editor's Note: In accordance with journal policy, Purdue et al. and Steenland were invited to respond to this letter.They chose not to do so.Address correspondence to Geary W. Olsen, 3M Company, 3M Center 220-07-E-06, St. Paul, MN 55144 USA.Email: gwolsen@mmm.com The authors are employees of 3M Company, a former manufacturer of PFOAand PFOS-related materials, which supported the work reported in the article.
Note to readers with disabilities: EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers.However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented.If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact ehpsubmissions@niehs.nih.gov.Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.
Letter to the Editor

Table 1 .
Results of statistical analyses of neoplastic lesions in male rats (transcribed from text Table5on page 79 of Thomford 3 ).
a Incidences across groups do not meet selection criterion.