Sex-specific incidence and temporal trends in solid tumours in young people from Northern England, 1968–2005

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study examined sex-specific patterns and temporal trends in the incidence of solid tumours in the Northern Region of England from 1968 to 2005. This updates earlier analyses from the region where sex was not considered in depth. Sex-specific analyses were carried out to determine whether sex differences might provide clues to aetiology.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Details of 3576 cases, aged 0–24 years, were obtained from a specialist population-based cancer registry. There were 1843 males (886 aged 0–14 years and 957 aged 15–24 years) and 1733 females (791 aged 0–14 years and 942 aged 15–24 years). Age-standardized incidence rates (per million population) were calculated. Linear regression was used to analyze temporal trends in incidence and annual percentage changes were estimated. Analyses were stratified by sex and by age-group.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were marked differences in incidence patterns and trends between males and females and also between age-groups. For males central nervous system (CNS) tumours formed the largest proportion of under-15 cases and germ cell tumours was the largest group in the 15–24's, whilst for females CNS tumours dominated in the under-15's and carcinomas in the older group. For 0–14 year olds there were male-specific increases in the incidence of rhabdomyosarcoma (2.4% per annum; 95% CI: 0.2%–4.5%) and non-melanotic skin cancer (9.6%; 95% CI: 0.0%–19.2%) and female-specific increases for sympathetic nervous system tumours (2.2%; 95% CI: 0.4%–3.9%), gonadal germ cell tumours (8.6%; 95% CI: 4.3%–12.9%) and non-gonadal germ cell tumours (5.4%; 95% CI: 2.8%–7.9%). For 15–24 year olds, there were male-specific increases in gonadal germ cell tumours (1.9%; 95% CI: 0.3%–3.4%), non-gonadal germ cell tumours (4.4%; 95% CI: 1.1%–7.7%) and non-melanotic skin cancer (4.7%; 95% CI: 0.5%–8.9%) and female-specific increases for osteosarcoma (3.5%; 95% CI: 0.5%–6.5%), thyroid cancer (2.8%; 95% CI: 0.1%–5.6%) and melanoma (4.6%; 95% CI: 2.2%–7.1%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study has highlighted notable differences between the sexes in incidence patterns and trends for solid tumours. Some of these sex-specific differences could have been obscured if males and females had been analysed together. Furthermore, they suggest aetiological differences or differential susceptibility to environmental factors between males and females.</p

Policy relevant results from an expert elicitation on the health risks of phthalates

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The EU 6th Framework Program (FP)-funded Health and Environment Network (HENVINET) aimed to support informed policy making by facilitating the availability of relevant knowledge on different environmental health issues. An approach was developed by which scientific agreement, disagreement, and knowledge gaps could be efficiently identified, and expert advice prepared in a way that is usable for policy makers. There were two aims of the project: 1) to apply the tool to a relevant issue; the potential health impacts of the widely used plasticizers, phthalates, and 2) to evaluate the method and the tool by asking both scientific experts and the target audience, namely policy makers and stakeholders, for their opinions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The tool consisted of an expert consultation in several steps on the issue of phthalates in environmental health. A diagram depicting the cause-effect chain, from the production and use of phthalates to potential health impacts, was prepared based on existing reviews. This was used as a basis for an online questionnaire, through which experts in the field were consulted. The results of this first round of consultation laid the foundation for a new questionnaire answered by an expert panel that, subsequently, also discussed approaches and results in a workshop. One major task of the expert panel was to pinpoint priorities from the cause-effect chain according to their impact on the extent of potential health risks and their relevance for reducing uncertainty. The results were condensed into a policy brief that was sent to policy makers and stakeholders for their evaluation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The experts agreed about the substantial knowledge gaps within the field of phthalates. The top three priorities for further research and policy action were: 1) intrauterine exposure, 2) reproductive toxicology, and 3) exposure from medical devices. Although not all relevant information from the cause-effect chain is known for phthalates, most experts thought that there are enough indications to justify a precautionary approach and to restrict their general use. Although some of the experts expressed some scepticism about such a tool, most felt that important issues were highlighted.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The approach used was an efficient way at summarising priority knowledge gaps as a starting point for health risk assessment of compounds, based on their relevance for the risk assessment outcome. We conclude that this approach is useful for supporting policy makers with state-of-the-art scientific knowledge weighed by experts. The method can assist future evidence-based policy making.</p

Policy relevant Results from an Expert Elicitation on the Human Health Risks of Decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) and Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)

Aim: Apply a recently developed expert elicitation procedure to evaluate the state of the current knowledge of the two brominated flame retardants (BFRs) most commonly used today; decabromo-diphenyl ether (decaBDE) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and their potential impact on human health in order to support policy considerations. This expert elicitation was organized by the HENVINET (Health and Environment Network) Consortium. Method: The HENVINET expert elicitation procedure that was used in the evaluations of decaBDE and HBCD is a rapid assessment tool aimed at highlighting areas of agreement and areas of disagreement on knowledge-related key issues for environment and health policy decision making. Results: The outcome of the expert consultation on BFRs was concrete expert advice for policy makers with specific priorities for further action made clear for both stakeholders and policy makers. The experts were not in agreement whether or not the knowledge currently available on decaBDE or HBCD is sufficient to justify policy actions, but most experts considered that enough data already exists to support a ban or restriction on the use of these compounds. All experts agreed on the necessity of more research on the compounds. Priority issues for further research were, among others: more studies on the extent of human exposure to the compounds. more studies on the fate and concentration in the human body of the compounds

Macrobioinformatics : the application of informatics methods to records of human remains

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo