| 1. |
- Ahrens, Wolfgang, et al.
(author)
-
Risk factors for extrahepatic biliary tract carcinoma in men: medical conditions and lifestyle: results from a European multicentre case-control study
- 2007
-
In: European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepathology. - 1473-5687. ; 19:8, s. 623-630
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: To identify risk factors of carcinoma of the extrahepatic biliary tract in men. METHODS: Newly diagnosed and histologically confirmed patients, 35-70 years old, were interviewed between 1995 and 1997 in Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany and Italy. Population controls were frequency-matched by age and region. Adjusted odds ratios and 95%-confidence intervals were estimated by logistic regression. RESULTS: The analysis included 153 patients and 1421 controls. The participation proportion was 71% for patients and 61% for controls. Gallstone disease was corroborated as a risk factor for extrahepatic biliary tract carcinoma in men (odds ratio 2.49; 95% confidence interval 1.32-4.70), particularly for gall bladder tumors (odds ratio 4.68; 95% confidence interval 1.85-11.84). For a body mass index [height (m) divided by squared weight (kg2)] >30 at age 35 years, an excess risk was observed (odds ratio 2.58; 95% confidence interval 1.07-6.23, reference: body mass index 18.5-25) that was even stronger if the body mass index was >30 for the lowest weight in adulthood (odds ratio 4.68; 95% confidence interval 1.13-19.40). Infection of the gall bladder, chronic inflammatory bowel disease, hepatitis or smoking showed no clear association, whereas some increase in risk was suggested for consumption of 40-80 g alcohol per day and more. CONCLUSIONS: Our study corroborates gallstones as a risk indicator in extrahepatic biliary tract carcinoma. Permanent overweight and obesity in adult life was identified as a strong risk factor for extrahepatic biliary tract carcinoma, whereas we did not find any strong lifestyle-associated risk factors. Inconsistent results across studies concerning the association of extrahepatic biliary tract carcinoma with overweight and obesity may be explained by the different approaches to assess this variable.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
