| 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. |
- Merletti, F, et al.
(author)
-
Occupational factors and risk of adult bone sarcomas: A multicentric case-control study in Europe
- 2006
-
In: International Journal of Cancer. - : Wiley. - 0020-7136. ; 118:3, s. 721-727
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We investigated the association between occupational factors and risk of bone sarcoma, a rare tumor with a largely unknown aetiology. A multicentric case-control study was conducted in 7 European countries in 1995-97. Ninety-six cases aged 35-69 years with a centrally reviewed diagnosis of bone sarcoma (68 chondrosarcomas and 28 osteosarcomas) were compared to 2,632 population (68%) or colon cancer (32%) controls. Subjects were interviewed to obtain information on occupational, medical and reproductive history, smoking and alcohol consumption and selected exposures including use of pesticides. Response proportions were 90% among cases and 66% among controls. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for selected categories of job titles and branches of industry and for use of pesticides. We found an increased OR for bone sarcoma among blacksmiths, toolmakers, machine-tool operators (OR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.08-4.26), woodworkers (OR = 2.68, 95% CI 1.36-5.29) and construction workers (OR = 1.62, 95% CI 0.92-2.87). Ever users of pesticide had an OR of 2.33 (95% CI 1.31-4.13), with similar risks for exposure to insecticides and exposure to herbicides. Neither duration of employment in any of the analyzed occupational categories nor duration of use of pesticides showed an increasing trend in the risk of bone sarcoma. ORs of bone sarcoma were 1.03 (95% CI 0.23-4.57), 3.13 (95% CI 1.26-7.76) and 1.44 (95% CI 0.43-4.85) for the first, second and third fertile of days of use of pesticides. Our study suggests that novel and previously reported (woodworking) occupational factors play a role in the aetiology of bone sarcomas. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
|
|
