New Exposure Biomarkers as Tools for Breast Cancer Epidemiology, Biomonitoring, and Prevention: A Systematic Approach Based on Animal Evidence

Background: Exposure to chemicals that cause rodent mammary gland tumors is common, but few studies have evaluated potential breast cancer risks of these chemicals in humans. Objective: The goal of this review was to identify and bring together the needed tools to facilitate the measurement of biomarkers of exposure to potential breast carcinogens in breast cancer studies and biomonitoring. Methods: We conducted a structured literature search to identify measurement methods for exposure biomarkers for 102 chemicals that cause rodent mammary tumors. To evaluate concordance, we compared human and animal evidence for agents identified as plausibly linked to breast cancer in major reviews. To facilitate future application of exposure biomarkers, we compiled information about relevant cohort studies. Results: Exposure biomarkers have been developed for nearly three-quarters of these rodent mammary carcinogens. Analytical methods have been published for 73 of the chemicals. Some of the remaining chemicals could be measured using modified versions of existing methods for related chemicals. In humans, biomarkers of exposure have been measured for 62 chemicals, and for 45 in a nonoccupationally exposed population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has measured 23 in the U.S. population. Seventy-five of the rodent mammary carcinogens fall into 17 groups, based on exposure potential, carcinogenicity, and structural similarity. Carcinogenicity in humans and rodents is generally consistent, although comparisons are limited because few agents have been studied in humans. We identified 44 cohort studies, with a total of > 3.5 million women enrolled, that have recorded breast cancer incidence and stored biological samples. Conclusions: Exposure measurement methods and cohort study resources are available to expand biomonitoring and epidemiology related to breast cancer etiology and prevention. Citation: Rudel RA, Ackerman JM, Attfield KR, Brody JG. 2014. New exposure biomarkers as tools for breast cancer epidemiology, biomonitoring, and prevention: a systematic approach based on animal evidence. Environ Health Perspect 122:881–895; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.130745

Janet Cardiff : The Missing Voice (Case Study B)

" Through 1999 Janet Cardiff realised her most ambitious work to date, The Missing Voice (Case Study B) in London's East End. Part urban guide, part detective fiction, part film noir, Janet Cardiff's The Missing Voice (Case Study B) entwines you in a narrative that shifts through time and space. Seductive, intimate, even conspiratorial, Cardiff's audio-walks are psychologically absorbing experiences - for an audience of one at a time. " -- Back cover

Interference in the shared-stroop task: a comparison of self- and other-monitoring

Co-acting participants represent and integrate each other’s actions, even when they are not required to monitor one another. However, monitoring the actions of a partner is an important component of successful interactions, and particularly of linguistic interactions. Moreover, monitoring others may rely on similar mechanisms to those that are involved in self-monitoring. In order to investigate the effect of monitoring on shared linguistic representations, we combined a monitoring task with the shared Stroop task. In the shared Stroop task, one participant named the colour of words in one colour (e.g., red) while ignoring stimuli in the other colour (e.g., green); the other participant either named the colour of words in the other colour or did not respond. Crucially, participants either had to provide feedback about the correctness of their partner’s response (Experiment 3) or did not (Experiment 2). The results showed that interference was greater when both participants responded than when they did not, but only when partners provided feedback. We argue that feedback increased joint task interference because in order to monitor their partner, participants had to represent their target utterance, and this representation interfered with self-monitoring of their own utterance