| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Axelson, Olav, 1937-, et al.
(författare)
-
Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology.
- 2003
-
Ingår i: International journal of occupational and environmental health. - 1077-3525 .- 2049-3967. ; 9, s. 386-389
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- 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.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Settimi, Laura, et al.
(författare)
-
Cancer risk among female agricultural workers : a multi-center case-control study
- 1999
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Industrial Medicine. - 0271-3586 .- 1097-0274. ; 36:1, s. 135-141
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundCancer risk among women engaged in farming has been poorly investigated. This group of female workers is of particular interest, however, since they may experience exposure to several potential agricultural hazards.MethodsA hospital-based case-control study was conducted in five Italian rural areas to examine the association between cancer and farming among women. The areas selected were located in three different regions (i.e., Piedmont, Tuscany, and Emilia-Romagna). The following cancer sites were selected for the study: stomach, colon, rectum, lung, skin melanoma, skin non-melanoma, breast, cervix and corpus uteri, ovary, bladder, kidney. Cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were also included. Altogether, 1,044 newly diagnosed cases aged 20–75 years were ascertained from hospital records from March 1990 to September 1992, and for 945 of them detailed information was collected by a standard questionnaire. The analyses of data were performed comparing each case series to a reference group drawn from among the other sites. Unconditional logistic regression models were used in the statistical analyses.ResultsStatistically significant increased risks in association with farming were estimated for skin melanoma (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2–5.8) and bladder cancer (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2–6.1). Lung cancer was also found increased but not at a statistically significant level (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.7–4.4). An OR lower than unity was observed for postmenopausal breast cancer (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3–0.7).ConclusionsThe present study suggests that women in farming might experience increased risk of cancers, not usually found in excess among male farmers, as well as a protective effect for postmenopausal breast cancer. The role of different patterns of exposure or gender specific responses should be considered in further studies.
|
|
