The association between perineal talc use and ovarian cancer has been evaluated in several epidemiology studies. Some case-control studies reported weak positive associations, while other case-control and three large prospective cohort investigations found this association to be null. A weight-of-evidence evaluation was conducted of the epidemiology, toxicity, exposure, transport, in vitro, and mechanistic evidence to determine whether, collectively, these data support a causal association. Our review of the literature indicated that, while both case-control and cohort studies may be impacted by bias, the possibility of recall and other biases from the low participation rates and retrospective self-reporting of talc exposure cannot be ruled out for any of the case-control studies. The hypothesis that talc exposure induces ovarian cancer is only supported if one discounts the null results of the cohort studies and the fact that significant bias and/or confounding are likely reasons for the associations reported in some case-control investigations. In addition, one would need to ignore the evidence from animal experiments that show no marked association with cancer, in vitro and genotoxicity studies that did not indicate a carcinogenic mechanism of action for talc, and mechanistic and transport investigations that did not support the retrograde transport of talc to the ovaries. An alternative hypothesis that talc does not produce ovarian cancer, and that bias and confounding contribute the reported positive associations in case-control studies, is better supported by the evidence across all scientific disciplines. It is concluded that the evidence does not support a causal association between perineal talc use and ovarian cancer.
Keywords: Talc; mode of action; ovarian cancer; weight of evidence.