The Science and Practice of Carcinogen Identification and Evaluation

Several national and international health agencies have established programs with the aim of identifying agents and exposures that cause cancer in humans. Carcinogen identification is an activity grounded in the scientific evaluation of the results of human epidemiologic studies, long-term bioassays in experimental animals, and other data relevant to an evaluation of carcinogenicity and its mechanisms. In this commentary, after a brief discussion of the science basis common to the evaluation of carcinogens across different programs, we discuss in more detail the principles and procedures currently used by the IARC Monographs program

Exposure Assessment for Endocrine Disruptors: Some Considerations in the Design of Studies

Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives. doi:10.1289/ehp.5798In studies designed to evaluate exposure-response relationships in children's development from conception through puberty, multiple factors that affect the generation of meaningful exposure metrics must be considered. These factors include multiple routes of exposure; the timing, frequency, and duration of exposure; need for qualitative and quantitative data; sample collection and storage protocols; and the selection and documentation of analytic methods. The methods for exposure data collection and analysis must be sufficiently robust to accommodate the a priori hypotheses to be tested, as well as hypotheses generated from the data. A number of issues that must be considered in study design are summarized here

Meeting Report: Summary of IARC Monographs on Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol, and 1-tert-Butoxy-2-Propanol

An international, interdisciplinary working group of expert scientists met in June 2004 to develop IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans (IARC Monographs) on formaldehyde, 2-butoxyethanol, and 1-tert-butoxy-2-propanol. Each IARC Monograph includes a critical review of the pertinent scientific literature and an evaluation of an agent’s potential to cause cancer in humans. After a thorough discussion of the epidemiologic, experimental, and other relevant data, the working group concluded that formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans, based on sufficient evidence in humans and in experimental animals. In the epidemiologic studies, there was sufficient evidence that formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal cancer, “strong but not sufficient” evidence of leukemia, and limited evidence of sinonasal cancer. The working group also concluded that 2-butoxyethanol and 1-tert-butoxy-2-propanol are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans, each having limited evidence in experimental animals and inadequate evidence in humans. These three evaluations and the supporting data will be-published as Volume 88 of the IARC Monographs

Meeting Report: Moving Upstream—Evaluating Adverse Upstream End Points for Improved Risk Assessment and Decision-Making

Background Assessing adverse effects from environmental chemical exposure is integral to public health policies. Toxicology assays identifying early biological changes from chemical exposure are increasing our ability to evaluate links between early biological disturbances and subsequent overt downstream effects. A workshop was held to consider how the resulting data inform consideration of an “adverse effect” in the context of hazard identification and risk assessment. Objectives Our objective here is to review what is known about the relationships between chemical exposure, early biological effects (upstream events), and later overt effects (downstream events) through three case studies (thyroid hormone disruption, antiandrogen effects, immune system disruption) and to consider how to evaluate hazard and risk when early biological effect data are available. Discussion Each case study presents data on the toxicity pathways linking early biological perturbations with downstream overt effects. Case studies also emphasize several factors that can influence risk of overt disease as a result from early biological perturbations, including background chemical exposures, underlying individual biological processes, and disease susceptibility. Certain effects resulting from exposure during periods of sensitivity may be irreversible. A chemical can act through multiple modes of action, resulting in similar or different overt effects. Conclusions For certain classes of early perturbations, sufficient information on the disease process is known, so hazard and quantitative risk assessment can proceed using information on upstream biological perturbations. Upstream data will support improved approaches for considering developmental stage, background exposures, disease status, and other factors important to assessing hazard and risk for the whole population

Meta-analysis of the relation between European and American smokeless tobacco and oral cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco is often referred to as a major contributor to oral cancer. In some regions, especially Southeast Asia, the risk is difficult to quantify due to the variety of products, compositions (including non-tobacco ingredients) and usage practices involved. In Western populations, the evidence of an increased risk in smokeless tobacco users seems unclear, previous reviews having reached somewhat differing conclusions. We report a detailed quantitative review of the evidence in American and European smokeless tobacco users, and compare our findings with previous reviews and meta-analyses.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Following literature review a meta-analysis was conducted of 32 epidemiological studies published between 1920 and 2005 including tests for homogeneity and publication bias.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Based on 38 heterogeneous study-specific estimates of the odds ratio or relative risk for smokeless tobacco use, the random-effects estimate was 1.87 (95% confidence interval 1.40–2.48). The increase was mainly evident in studies conducted before 1980. No increase was seen in studies in Scandinavia. Restricting attention to the seven estimates adjusted for smoking and alcohol eliminated both heterogeneity and excess risk (1.02; 0.82–1.28). Estimates also varied by sex (higher in females) and by study design (higher in case-control studies with hospital controls) but more clearly in studies where estimates were unadjusted, even for age. The pattern of estimates suggests some publication bias. Based on limited data specific to never smokers, the random-effects estimate was 1.94 (0.88–4.28), the eight individual estimates being heterogeneous and based on few exposed cases.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco, as used in America or Europe, carries at most a minor increased risk of oral cancer. However, elevated risks in specific populations or from specific products cannot definitely be excluded.</p

The IARC Monographs: Updated procedures for modern and transparent evidence synthesis in cancer hazard identification

The Monographs produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) apply rigorous procedures for the scientific review and evaluation of carcinogenic hazards by independent experts. The Preamble to the IARC Monographs, which outlines these procedures, was updated in 2019, following recommendations of a 2018 expert Advisory Group. This article presents the key features of the updated Preamble, a major milestone that will enable IARC to take advantage of recent scientific and procedural advances made during the 12 years since the last Preamble amendments. The updated Preamble formalizes important developments already being pioneered in the Monographs Programme. These developments were taken forward in a clarified and strengthened process for identifying, reviewing, evaluating and integrating evidence to identify causes of human cancer. The advancements adopted include strengthening of systematic review methodologies; greater emphasis on mechanistic evidence, based on key characteristics of carcinogens; greater consideration of quality and informativeness in the critical evaluation of epidemiological studies, including their exposure assessment methods; improved harmonization of evaluation criteria for the different evidence streams; and a single-step process of integrating evidence on cancer in humans, cancer in experimental animals and mechanisms for reaching overall evaluations. In all, the updated Preamble underpins a stronger and more transparent method for the identification of carcinogenic hazards, the essential first step in cancer prevention

Lung cancer risk in painters: a meta-analysis

We conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively compare the association between occupation as a painter and the incidence or mortality from lung cancer. PubMed and the reference lists of pertinent publications were searched and reviewed. For the meta-analysis, we used data from 47 independent cohort, record linkage, and case-control studies (from a total of 74 reports), including > 11,000 incident cases or deaths from lung cancer among painters. Three authors independently abstracted data and assessed study quality. The summary relative risk (meta-RR, random effects) for lung cancer in paint-ers was 1.35 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.29-1.41; 47 studies] and 1.35 (95% CI, 1.21-1.51; 27 studies) after controlling for smoking. The relative risk was higher in never-smokers (meta-RR = 2.00; 95% CI, 1.09-3.67; 3studies) and persisted when restricted to studies that adjusted for other occupational exposures (meta-RR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.21-2.04; 5 studies). These results support the conclusion that occupational exposures in painters are causally associated with the risk of lung cancer