| 1. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(author)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
In: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Guha, N, et al.
(author)
-
Lung cancer risk in painters: results from the SYNERGY pooled case-control study consortium
- 2021
-
In: Occupational and environmental medicine. - : BMJ. - 1470-7926 .- 1351-0711. ; 78:4, s. 269-278
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We evaluated the risk of lung cancer associated with ever working as a painter, duration of employment and type of painter by histological subtype as well as joint effects with smoking, within the SYNERGY project.MethodsData were pooled from 16 participating case–control studies conducted internationally. Detailed individual occupational and smoking histories were available for 19 369 lung cancer cases (684 ever employed as painters) and 23 674 age-matched and sex-matched controls (532 painters). Multivariable unconditional logistic regression models were adjusted for age, sex, centre, cigarette pack-years, time-since-smoking cessation and lifetime work in other jobs that entailed exposure to lung carcinogens.ResultsEver having worked as a painter was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer in men (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.50). The association was strongest for construction and repair painters and the risk was elevated for all histological subtypes, although more evident for small cell and squamous cell lung cancer than for adenocarcinoma and large cell carcinoma. There was evidence of interaction on the additive scale between smoking and employment as a painter (relative excess risk due to interaction >0).ConclusionsOur results by type/industry of painter may aid future identification of causative agents or exposure scenarios to develop evidence-based practices for reducing harmful exposures in painters.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Pasqual, E, et al.
(author)
-
Exposure to Medical Radiation during Fetal Life, Childhood and Adolescence and Risk of Brain Tumor in Young Age: Results from The MOBI-Kids Case-Control Study
- 2020
-
In: Neuroepidemiology. - : S. Karger AG. - 1423-0208 .- 0251-5350. ; 54:4, s. 343-355
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- <b><i>Background:</i></b> We explored the association between ionizing radiation (IR) from pre-natal and post-natal radio-diagnostic procedures and brain cancer risk within the MOBI-kids study. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> MOBI-kids is an international (Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Spain, The Netherlands) case-control study including 899 brain tumor (645 neuroepithelial) cases aged 10–24 years and 1,910 sex-, age-, country-matched controls. Medical radiological history was collected through personal interview. We estimated brain IR dose for each procedure, building a look-up table by age and time period. Lifetime cumulative doses were calculated using 2 and 5 years lags from the diagnostic date. Risk was estimated using conditional logistic regression. Neurological, psychological and genetic conditions were evaluated as potential confounders. The main analyses focused on neuroepithelial tumors. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Overall, doses were very low, with a skewed distribution (median 0.02 mGy, maximum 217 mGy). ORs for post-natal exposure were generally below 1. ORs were increased in the highest dose categories both for post and pre-natal exposures: 1.63 (95% CI 0.44–6.00) and 1.55 (0.57–4.23), respectively, based on very small numbers of cases. The change in risk estimates after adjustment for medical conditions was modest. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> There was little evidence for an association between IR from radio-diagnostic procedures and brain tumor risk in children and adolescents. Though doses were very low, our results suggest a higher risk for pre-natal and early life exposure, in line with current evidence.
|
|
