Document 6RZ5ez3XZ16wKpNwvnkbrR1NR

ctr chemical MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION March 2, 1988 Dear Vinyl Chloride Panel Members: As mentioned in my enclosed letter to Dr. Bennett, I will confer with Dr. Bill Gafffey as to what additional steps CMA Panel Members can take to resolve issues mentioned in the enclosed letter from Sir Richard Doll. I would appreciate receiving any suggestions you may have to resolve discrepancies identified by Dr. Geoff Paddle betw en the ASL Registry and the CMA Vinyl Chloride epidemiology study. Please call me at (202) 887-1192 with your thoughts. Sincerely, \!r!G-o > Hasmufch Shah, Ph.D. Manager Vinyl Chloride Panel COEFIDEIfTIAL Subject to Protective Order in Roes v. Conoco, Inc. No. 90-4837 14th Judicial District Court Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana 2501 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037 202-887-1100 Telex 89617 (CMA WSH) 123SA cn CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION March 1, 1988 Dr. B. Bennett ICI Chemicals and Polymers Limited Occupational Health Department Hillhouse Site P.O. Box 4 Thornton-Cleveleys Blackpool FY540D Dear Dr. Bennett: Thank you for your letter of 18 February, 1988. copies of Sir Richard Doll and your letters have been sent to the CMA Vinyl Chloride Program Panel and EHA for their information. The Panel is already addressing some of the issues raised in Sir Richard Doll's letter. I will consult withfDt. William Gaffey, the chairman of the CMA TTinyl chloride Panel, to discuss a course of action to resolve the remainder of the issues. I will inform you of our decision in the near future.' To resolve the issue of accurate diagnosis of angiosarcomas, "other" liver tumors, and biliary tract tumors, CM has con tracted with EHA to retrieve pathologic materials (tissue blocks and/or slides) from each of the 37 persons who died from these tumors. If EHA is successful in retrieving these samples. Dr. Kamal Ishak of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology will study these samples. He will ascertain whether "other" liver tumors and biliary tract tumors are really misdiagnosed angio sarcomas or are truly non-angiosarcomas. I will inform you of the outcome of this study when adequate information becomes available. Please plan to visit me in September when you are in the United States. Hopefully, by .that time I will have additional information to resolve the discrepancies mentioned in Sir Richard Doll's letter. Meanwhile, I would appreciate a copy of Dr. Geoff Paddle's letter to Sir Richard Doll that is mentioned in your February 18 letter. Looking forward to seeing you in September. Sincerely, CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Order In Ross v. Conoco. Ino,, Wo. 90-4837 14th Judicial District Court Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana Kasmukh Shah, Ph.D. Manager Vinyl Chloride Program 2501 M Strwt, NW. Wasninglon. 0C 20037 202-887.1100 Telex 89617 (CMA WSH) CHa 012355 IQChMlntuml Paiyimn UmlMd OeeupMone HmMi Dapetmant HittnuMSiMP O. Box4 TbomioivOevsIeygBlackpool FY5400 Talaphone (0253)88102 OractUw (0283) Ml370 Saamev (0253)881444 SwScMoan1 FacwMa (0253)861881 Talax 67483ICIPLHG Dr Has Shah CMA 2501 H Straat IW WASHINGTON DC 20037 C Chemicals and Polymers Limited P Hillhouse Site Your ral Our ml qm 18 Fab 88 Daar Dr. Shah, ASL After the publication of tbo Doll Report, Dr. W. tan Barge, Statistician, belonging to DSM, Holland, has co^arad the nuaber of cases of ASL in the Register against the maker of cases in the USA, CMA VOf Rpideeiologieal Study. He believes that he has found certain discrepancies and, as a result, wrote to Sir Richard Doll, through Dr. Geoff Paddle, asking for an explanation. I aa enclosing a copy of the Doll letter, highlighting the differences between the Reports. Dr. Diets, of B F Goodrich, Ohio, suggested that you eight be the appropriate person to look at the queries raised, and I should be nost grataful, if the task is at all possible, if you could look at it for as, and help to clarify the sltuetion. I hope that you found the information in the recant ASL Registar of interest. /over 14th Judic Calcasieu OOiamcaaaPoiyimnUMad nagwaraamEngland ns3Sa&K naeawMOMca ThaHaaai amen Oa*a*A74QF Aamtoeyoici CMA 012356 IMPERIAL CANCER RESEARCH FUND Cancer Epidemiology and Clinical Triala Unit UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD Acting Dinar Eawrtne frofiwui 3k Rkhtri Dot, out, ini TiitpAmm (OHiUJHl 22 December 1987 Gibson Building The Radclilte Infirmary Oxford 0X2 6HE RD/CB Dr C.M. Paddle, Imperial Chemical Industries FLC, Epidemiology Unit, Alderley Park, Maccleefleld, Cheehlre SK10 4TJ. I am aorry not to have replied to your letter of 20.10.87 before but It needed detailed attention end 1 one very herd preened to complete a major report for NKPB on the UK atom bomb particlpanta which had to be completed by a fixed date. I have now had time to think about Dr ten Barge'a letter. He haa a good point. 1 agree that only 20 of the 37 liver cancer caaaa eaualng death in the EHA atudy are In the kegiatry aa having cauaed death before 31.12.82 whereaa there ahould have been 29 (though 1 dlaagree with one of hla nunbora - I identified no. 31 in the kegiatry and failed to identify no. 29). Approximately 6 deatha from liver and gall-bladder cnoc-.ir were expected so that cuat chat leavea approximately 11 deatha that are either angloaarcomaa mlaaed by the kegiatry, excaaa liver (or gall-bladder) deatha other then angioaarcoma, or an exceaa number of miadiagnoaea. Any of theee might be the true explanation, but meanwhile my confident conclueion that the only tinour of the liver produced by vinyl chloride la angioaarcoma la weakened. Neverthcleee the fit with the Brltleh, Canadian, and Italian data nakea me atlll put ay money on lta truth - in which caae a fair proportion of the 11 extra deatha moat be angloaarcomaa not picked up by the regiatry. Thla would be aa Important coocluaioe and nakea it worth your trying to discover what the EHA liver eancer deatha actually were (noa. 2, 3, 4, 3, 6, 7, 9, 14, 16, 21, 24, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 34). Two f Chen could conceivably be in the kegiatry with aone wrong Information (i.e. 9 kegiatry no. 32 and 37 kegiatry no. 19) but I doubt if they are. The ether things we want to know are whether: (i) the mlealng kegiatry caeee came from companies chat did not participate in the EHA study (which might account for kegiatry makers 12 (though It aeons unlikely chat rirestone didn't) 23 (Croat American Chemical Co.) and 32 (Monsanto), and (11) what were the certified causes of death of men who presumably should have been In the EHA study and (If liver or gall-bladder eancer) why weren't they there: namely 08, 10, 18, 19, 20, and 23 (and 12, 23, and 32 If the relevant companies were included). Xi chare any chance of your obtaining any of this information? Ulth beat wishes for the New Tear, CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Order in Boss v. Conoco, Ino., Ho. 90-4837 14th Judicial District Court Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana OSh* we* PaaA P.O. N& 123, Lmfc'i la PM*. --J-- WCIA JPX ....... .. N* 20MJI "71 n. a*-.. CMA 012357