Cohort analysis reveals higher rates of thyroid cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among users of hair products, suggesting potential health risks.
Background Use of hair straighteners and chemical relaxers has been associated with increased incidence of breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers. However, their potential association with non-reproductive cancers remains unknown, despite evidence that some ingredients in these products may be genotoxic. We therefore examined use of hair straighteners/chemical relaxers in relation to the incidence of non-reproductive cancers. Material and Methods We analyzed data from 46,287 cancer-free women from the Sister Study, a U.S.-wide cohort enrolled between 2003–2009 (ages 35–74). Participants reported frequency of hair straightener/chemical relaxer use in the 12 months prior to enrollment. Incident cancers (melanoma, thyroid, lung, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia, pancreatic, colorectal, and kidney cancers) were self-reported and confirmed with pathology reports when possible. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for hair straighteners/chemical relaxer use and incident cancers, adjusting age, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, and smoking status. Results During a median follow-up of 13.1 years, use of hair straighteners/chemical relaxers was associated with a higher incidence of thyroid cancer (n = 225 cases; HR:1.71, 95% CI : 1.01-2.89), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n = 313 cases; HR : 1.62, 95% CI : 0.94- 2.80), and pancreatic cancer (n = 138 cases; HR : 2.66, 95% CI: 1.25-5.66). There was little evidence of dose-response with increasing frequency of use. We observed negligible or imprecise associations for the remaining cancer types. Conclusions and Relevance Use of hair straighteners/chemical relaxers may be associated with a higher incidence of thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bailey et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: