SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Public Health

Sec. Environmental Health and Exposome

Volume 13 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1491075

Chloroform Exposure and Risk of Leukemia: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Provisionally accepted
Yaser  SoleimaniYaser Soleimani1*Sheyda  MahmoudiSheyda Mahmoudi1Mahdi  DaraeiMahdi Daraei1Ali  AryanejadAli Aryanejad1Ali  Hosseini SaniAli Hosseini Sani1Alireza  KhazaliAlireza Khazali1Soroush  KhorsandSoroush Khorsand1Mohammadreza  MahdaviMohammadreza Mahdavi1Setareh  SabetiSetareh Sabeti1Hamid  SadeghiHamid Sadeghi1Mohammad  Javad ShahsavariMohammad Javad Shahsavari1Mahdieh  VarsehMahdieh Varseh2Saeideh  KaramianSaeideh Karamian1Seyed Alireza  Mosavi-JarrahiSeyed Alireza Mosavi-Jarrahi3Mohammad  Reza TaherianMohammad Reza Taherian4Goljamal  JorjaniGoljamal Jorjani4
  • 1Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • 2Khomein University of Medical Sciences, khomein, Iran
  • 3Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Alborz, Iran
  • 4Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Alborz, Iran

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the association between chloroform exposure and the risk of leukemia, quantify the overall risk, and identify potential sources of heterogeneity among different leukemia subtypes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify relevant epidemiological studies published up to December 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on human studies that assessed chloroform exposure and reported leukemia incidence or mortality. Data were extracted and analyzed using randomeffects models to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I², τ², and Cochran's Q test. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg's test. Results: Four case-control studies were included, spanning publication years from 2001 to 2023, with sample sizes ranging from 67 to 31,292 participants. The overall pooled OR for the association between chloroform exposure and leukemia was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.25-2.27), indicating no statistically significant association. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed (I² = 95%). Begg's test showed no significant publication bias (p = 1.0000). Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis did not find a significant overall association between chloroform exposure and leukemia risk. The significant association observed for AML suggests that chloroform exposure might increase the risk of this specific subtype, while the reduced risk for CLL warrants further investigation. The high heterogeneity underscores the need for standardized methodologies and further research to clarify these associations, particularly focusing on different leukemia subtypes, exposure levels, and population characteristics. These findings can inform public health policies and targeted prevention strategies to mitigate potential risks associated with chloroform exposure.

Keywords: Chloroform, Leukemia, Hematology, Systematic review, Meta - analysis

Received: 06 Sep 2024; Accepted: 08 Apr 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Soleimani, Mahmoudi, Daraei, Aryanejad, Sani, Khazali, Khorsand, Mahdavi, Sabeti, Sadeghi, Shahsavari, Varseh, Karamian, Mosavi-Jarrahi, Taherian and Jorjani. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Yaser Soleimani, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Research integrity at Frontiers

94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good

Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.


Find out more