| 2. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(författare)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
| 3. |
- Williams, Edward H, et al.
(författare)
-
CamGFR v2: A New Model for Estimating the Glomerular Filtration Rate from Standardized or Non-standardized Creatinine in Patients with Cancer.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. - 1557-3265. ; 27:5, s. 1381-1390
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Management of patients with cancer, specifically carboplatin dosing, requires accurate knowledge of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Direct measurement of GFR is resource limited. Available models for estimated GFR (eGFR) are optimized for patients without cancer and either isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)- or non-IDMS-standardized creatinine measurements. We present an eGFR model for patients with cancer compatible with both creatinine measurement methods.GFR measurements, biometrics, and IDMS- or non-IDMS-standardized creatinine values were collected for adult patients from three cancer centers. Using statistical modeling, an IDMS and non-IDMS creatinine-compatible eGFR model (CamGFR v2) was developed. Its performance was compared with that of the existing models Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Full Age Spectrum (FAS), Lund-Malmö revised, and CamGFR v1, using statistics for bias, precision, accuracy, and clinical robustness.A total of 3,083 IDMS- and 4,612 non-IDMS-standardized creatinine measurements were obtained from 7,240 patients. IDMS-standardized creatinine values were lower than non-IDMS-standardized values in within-center comparisons (13.8% lower in Cambridge; P < 0.0001 and 19.3% lower in Manchester; P < 0.0001), and more consistent between centers. CamGFR v2 was the most accurate [root-mean-squared error for IDMS, 14.97 mL/minute (95% confidence interval, 13.84-16.13) and non-IDMS, 15.74 mL/minute (14.86-16.63)], most clinically robust [proportion with >20% error of calculated carboplatin dose for IDMS, 0.12 (0.09-0.14) and non-IDMS, 0.17 (0.15-0.2)], and least biased [median residual for IDMS, 0.73 mL/minute (-0.68 to 2.2) and non-IDMS, -0.43 mL/minute (-1.48 to 0.91)] eGFR model, particularly when eGFR was larger than 60 ml/minute.CamGFR v2 can utilize IDMS- and non-IDMS-standardized creatinine measurements and outperforms previous models. CamGFR v2 should be examined prospectively as a practice-changing standard of care for eGFR-based carboplatin dosing.
|
|
