Critical reviews of exposure assessment in carcinogenic hazard identification: the IARC Monographs experience.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the rationale, workflow and recommendations for the conduct of exposure assessment critiques in key human studies evaluated for International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards. METHODS: Approaches to evaluating exposure assessment quality in human cancer and mechanistic studies were reviewed according to the precepts outlined in the IARC Monographs Preamble, using two agents as case studies. Exposure assessment 'domains', that is, salient aspects of exposure assessment for the agent under evaluation, were selected for review across the key human studies. RESULTS: The case studies of night shift work (volume 124) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (volume 130) used a common approach, tailored to the agents' specific exposure scenarios, to evaluate exposure assessment quality. Based on the experiences of IARC Working Groups to date, the implementation of exposure assessment critique requires the need for agent-specific knowledge, consideration of the validity of time-varying exposure metrics related to duration and intensity, and transparent, concise reviews that prioritise the most important strengths and limitations of exposure assessment methods used in human studies. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure assessment has not historically been a fully appreciated component for evaluating the quality of epidemiological studies in cancer hazard identification. Exposure assessment critique in key human cancer and mechanistic studies is now an integral part of IARC Monographs evaluations and its conduct will continue to evolve as new agents are evaluated. The approaches identified here should be considered as a potential framework by others when evaluating the exposure assessment component of epidemiological studies for systematic reviews.

Bladder cancer risk in relation to occupations held in a nationwide case-control study in Iran.

Globally, bladder cancer has been identified as one of the most frequent occupational cancers, but our understanding of occupational bladder cancer risk in Iran is less advanced. This study aimed to assess the risk of bladder cancer in relation to occupation in Iran. We used the IROPICAN case-control study data including 717 incident cases and 3477 controls. We assessed the risk of bladder cancer in relation to ever working in major groups of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-68) while controlling for cigarette smoking, opium consumption. Logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). In men, decreased ORs for bladder cancer were observed in administrative and managerial workers (OR 0.4; CI: 0.2, 0.9), and clerks (OR 0.6; CI: 0.4, 0.9). Elevated ORs were observed in metal processors (OR 5.4; CI: 1.3, 23.4), and workers in occupations with likely exposure to aromatic amines (OR 2.2; CI: 1.2, 4.0). There was no evidence of interactions between working in aromatic amines-exposed occupations and tobacco smoking or opium use. Elevated risk of bladder cancer in men in metal processors and workers likely exposed to aromatic amines aligns with associations observed outside Iran. Other previously confirmed associations between high-risk occupations and bladder cancer were not observed, possibly due to small numbers or lack of details on exposure. Future epidemiological studies in Iran would benefit from the development of exposure assessment tools such as job exposure matrices, generally applicable for retrospective exposure assessment in epidemiological studies.

Barriers and facilitators for the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Antineoplastic drugs are widely used in the treatment of cancer. However, some are known carcinogens and reproductive toxins, and incidental low-level exposure to workers is a health concern. CAREX Canada estimated that approximately 75,000 Canadians are exposed to antineoplastic drugs in workplace settings. While policies and guidelines on safe handling of antineoplastic drugs are available, evidence suggests that compliance is low. In this paper, we identify barriers and facilitators for safe handling of antineoplastic drugs in workplace settings. METHODS: We utilized a unique method to study public policy which involved compiling policy levers, developing a logic model, conducting a literature review, and contextualizing data through a deliberative process with stakeholders to explore in-depth contextual factors and experiences for the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs. RESULTS: The most common barriers identified in the literature were: poor training (46%), poor safety culture (41%), and inconsistent policies (36%). The most common facilitators were: adequate safety training (41%), leadership support (23%), and consistent policies (21%). Several of these factors are intertwined and while this means one barrier can cause other barriers, it also allows healthcare employers to mitigate these barriers by implementing small but meaningful changes in the workplace. CONCLUSION: The combination of barriers and facilitators identified in our review highlight the importance of creating work environments where safety is a priority for the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs. The results of this study will assist policy makers and managers in identifying gaps and enhancing strategies that reduce occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs.

Comparing negative health indicators in male and female veterans with the Canadian general population.

INTRODUCTION: Sex-based information on differences between Canadian veterans and the general population is important to understand veterans' unique health needs and identify areas requiring further research. This study compared various health indicators in male and female veterans with their Canadian counterparts. METHODS: Health indicators for recent-era Regular Force veterans (released between 1998 and 2015) were obtained from the 2016 Life After Service Survey and compared with the general population in the 2015-16 Canadian Community Health Survey using a cross-sectional approach. Age-adjusted rates and 95% CIs were calculated for males and females separately. RESULTS: Compared with Canadians, veterans (both sexes) reported higher prevalence of fair or poor health and mental health, needing help with one or more activity of daily living, lifetime suicidal ideation and being diagnosed with mood and anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, migraines, back problems, chronic pain, arthritis, ever having cancer, hearing problems, chronic pain and gastrointestinal problems. A higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease (all types) and high blood pressure was observed in male veterans compared with their Canadian counterparts. Within veterans only, males reported a higher prevalence of diagnosed hearing problems and cardiovascular disease compared with females; conversely females reported a higher prevalence of diagnosed migraines, mood, anxiety and gastrointestinal disorders, and needing help with activities of daily living. These sex differences are similar to the Canadian general population. Some similarities in reporting prevalence between male and female veterans (eg, fair or poor mental health, lifetime suicidal ideation, arthritis, asthma, lifetime cancer incidence, chronic pain and diabetes) were not observed in other Canadians. CONCLUSION: Male and female veterans differed from comparable Canadians, and from each other, in various areas of health. Further research is needed to explore these findings, and veteran-based policies and services should consider sex differences.

Occupational Exposure to Carcinogens and Occupational Epidemiological Cancer Studies in Iran: A Review.

INTRODUCTION: The extent of exposure to occupational carcinogens is not well characterized in Iran, and little is known about the burden of occupational cancer. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe exposure to occupational carcinogens and occupational epidemiology studies in Iran. METHODS: Relevant studies up to January 2021 in Iran were identified through three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar). RESULTS: Forty-nine publications from 2009 to 2020 (one cohort, 11 case-control, 34 exposure monitoring studies, and three cancer burden studies) were included. The exposure monitoring studies were conducted mainly in the petroleum industry, metal industry, manufacturing of electronics, manufacturing of plastics, construction industry, and service industry. A few of the case-control studies also reported increased risk of cancers in relation to work in those industries. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational cancer epidemiology in Iran is at an early stage. Both epidemiological and exposure monitoring studies are generally limited in size to provide robust evidence of occupational cancer risks. A coherent strategy to estimate the occupational cancer burden in Iran should start with conducting epidemiological studies along with systematic monitoring of occupational carcinogens for use in hazard control and research.

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 program. 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 the 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.

Laryngeal Cancer Risks in Workers Exposed to Lung Carcinogens: Exposure-Effect Analyses Using a Quantitative Job Exposure Matrix.

INTRODUCTION: Various established occupational lung carcinogens are also suspected risk factors for laryngeal cancer. However, individual studies are often inadequate in size to investigate this relatively rare outcome. Other limitations include imprecise exposure assessment and inadequate adjustment for confounders. METHODS: This study applied a quantitative job exposure matrix (SYN-JEM) for four established occupational lung carcinogens to five case-control studies within the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium. We used occupational histories for 2256 laryngeal cancer cases and 7857 controls recruited from 1989 to 2007. We assigned quantitative exposure levels for asbestos, respirable crystalline silica, chromium-VI, and chromium-VI and nickel combined (to address highly correlated exposures) via SYN-JEM. We assessed effects of occupational exposure on cancer risk for males (asbestos, respirable crystalline silica, chromium-VI, and chromium-VI and nickel combined) and females (asbestos and respirable crystalline silica), adjusting for age, study, tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, and asbestos exposure where relevant. RESULTS: Among females, odds ratios (ORs) were increased for ever versus never exposed. Among males, P values for linear trend were <0.05 for estimated cumulative exposure (all agents) and <0.05 for exposure duration (respirable crystalline silica, chromium-VI, and chromium-VI and nickel combined); strongest associations were for asbestos at >90th percentile cumulative exposure (OR = 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0, 1.6), respirable crystalline silica at 30+ years duration (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.2, 1.7) and 75th-90th percentile cumulative exposure (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.1, 1.8), chromium-VI at >75th percentile cumulative exposure (OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.2, 3.0), and chromium-VI and nickel combined at 20-29 years duration (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1, 2.2). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support hypotheses of causal links between four lung carcinogens (asbestos, respirable crystalline silica, chromium-VI, and nickel) and laryngeal cancer.

Priority Setting for Occupational Cancer Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Selecting priority occupational carcinogens is important for cancer prevention efforts; however, standardized selection methods are not available. The objective of this paper was to describe the methods used by CAREX Canada in 2015 to establish priorities for preventing occupational cancer, with a focus on exposure estimation and descriptive profiles. METHODS: Four criteria were used in an expert assessment process to guide carcinogen prioritization: (1) the likelihood of presence and/or use in Canadian workplaces; (2) toxicity of the substance (strength of evidence for carcinogenicity and other health effects); (3) feasibility of producing a carcinogen profile and/or an occupational estimate; and (4) special interest from the public/scientific community. Carcinogens were ranked as high, medium or low priority based on specific conditions regarding these criteria, and stakeholder input was incorporated. Priorities were set separately for the creation of new carcinogen profiles and for new occupational exposure estimates. RESULTS: Overall, 246 agents were reviewed for inclusion in the occupational priorities list. For carcinogen profile generation, 103 were prioritized (11 high, 33 medium, and 59 low priority), and 36 carcinogens were deemed priorities for occupational exposure estimation (13 high, 17 medium, and 6 low priority). CONCLUSION: Prioritizing and ranking occupational carcinogens is required for a variety of purposes, including research, resource allocation at different jurisdictional levels, calculations of occupational cancer burden, and planning of CAREX-type projects in different countries. This paper outlines how this process was achieved in Canada; this may provide a model for other countries and jurisdictions as a part of occupational cancer prevention efforts.

Identifying occupational carcinogens: an update from the IARC Monographs.

The recognition of occupational carcinogens is important for primary prevention, compensation and surveillance of exposed workers, as well as identifying causes of cancer in the general population. This study updates previously published lists of known occupational carcinogens while providing additional information on cancer type, exposure scenarios and routes, and discussing trends in the identification of carcinogens over time. Data were extracted from International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs covering the years 1971-2017, using specific criteria to ensure occupational relevance and provide high confidence in the causality of observed exposure-disease associations. Selected agents were substances, mixtures or types of radiation classified in IARC Group 1 with 'sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity' in humans from studies of exposed workers and evidence of occupational exposure documented in the pertinent monograph. The number of known occupational carcinogens has increased over time: 47 agents were identified as known occupational carcinogens in 2017 compared with 28 in 2004. These estimates are conservative and likely underestimate the number of carcinogenic agents present in workplaces. Exposure to these agents causes a wide range of cancers; cancers of the lung and other respiratory sites, followed by skin, account for the largest proportion. The dominant routes of exposure are inhalation and dermal contact. Important progress has been made in identifying occupational carcinogens; nevertheless, there is an ongoing need for research on the causes of work-related cancer. Most workplace exposures have not been evaluated for their carcinogenic potential due to inadequate epidemiologic evidence and a paucity of quantitative exposure data.

Estimating National-Level Exposure to Antineoplastic Agents in the Workplace: CAREX Canada Findings and Future Research Needs.

OBJECTIVES: Occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents occurs in various environments and is associated with increased cancer risk and adverse reproductive outcomes. National-level information describing the location and extent of occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents is unavailable in Canada and most other countries. CAREX Canada aimed to estimate the prevalence and relative levels of occupational exposures to antineoplastic agents across work setting, occupation, and sex. METHODS: 'Exposure' was defined as any potential for worker contact with antineoplastic agents. Baseline numbers of licensed workers were obtained from their respective professional bodies. For unlicensed workers, Census data or data extrapolated from human resources reports (e.g., staffing ratios) were used. Prevalence was estimated by combining population estimates with exposure proportions from peer-reviewed and grey literature. Exposure levels (classified as low, moderate, and high) by occupation and work setting were estimated qualitatively by combining estimates of contact frequency and exposure control practices. RESULTS: Approximately 75000 Canadians (0.42% of the total workforce) are estimated as occupationally exposed to antineoplastic agents; over 75% are female. The largest occupational group exposed to antineoplastic agents is community pharmacy workers, with 30200 exposed. By work setting, 39000 workers (52% of all exposed) are located in non-hospital settings; the remaining 48% are exposed in hospitals. The majority (75%) of workers are in the moderate exposure category. CONCLUSIONS: These estimates of the prevalence and location of occupational exposures to antineoplastic agents could be used to identify high-risk groups, estimate disease burden, and target new research and prevention activities. The limited secondary data available for developing these estimates highlights the need for increased quantitative measurement and documentation of antineoplastic agent contamination and exposure, particularly in work environments where use is emerging.

CAREX Canada: an enhanced model for assessing occupational carcinogen exposure.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the numbers of workers exposed to known and suspected occupational carcinogens in Canada, building on the methods of CARcinogen EXposure (CAREX) projects in the European Union (EU). METHODS: CAREX Canada consists of estimates of the prevalence and level of exposure to occupational carcinogens. CAREX Canada includes occupational agents evaluated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as known, probable or possible human carcinogens that were present and feasible to assess in Canadian workplaces. A Canadian Workplace Exposure Database was established to identify the potential for exposure in particular industries and occupations, and to create exposure level estimates among priority agents, where possible. CAREX EU data were reviewed for relevance to the Canadian context and the proportion of workers likely to be exposed by industry and occupation in Canada was assigned using expert assessment and agreement by a minimum of two occupational hygienists. These proportions were used to generate prevalence estimates by linkage with the Census of Population for 2006, and these estimates are available by industry, occupation, sex and province. RESULTS: CAREX Canada estimated the number of workers exposed to 44 known, probable and suspected carcinogens. Estimates of levels of exposure were further developed for 18 priority agents. Common exposures included night shift work (1.9 million exposed), solar ultraviolet radiation exposure (1.5 million exposed) and diesel engine exhaust (781 000 exposed). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of Canadian workers are exposed to known and suspected carcinogens at work.

Exposed! Or not? The diminishing record of workplace exposure in Canada.

The Canadian Workplace Exposure Database (CWED) is the first of its kind in Canada. It was originally developed in 2008 by the Canadian Carcinogen Exposure project (CAREX Canada) to assist in estimating worker exposures to carcinogens across the country.Following the CWED's establishment, all Canadian federal and provincial agencies responsible for administering occupational health and safety regulation were surveyed to obtain a clearer picture of the quantity and quality of regulatory exposure data available. This revealed troubling reductions in exposure measurement collection, retention, and centralization by these agencies in recent years.Such trends will limit access to workplace exposure measurements for federal and provincial regulatory agencies as well as health researchers. Workplace exposure databases are used around the world for a variety of important purposes, such as identifying hazardous workplaces and workers at risk, assessing temporal-spatial trends, setting priorities for prevention, and informing epidemiological research.Efforts are underway to preserve historical data and promote prospective collection, however future success of the CWED will require collaboration and long-term vision on the part of those responsible for collecting workplace exposure measurements in Canada.

Occupational exposures to antineoplastic drugs and ionizing radiation in Canadian veterinary settings: findings from a national surveillance project.

OBJECTIVES: Although veterinary workers may encounter various occupational health hazards, a national characterization of exposures is lacking in Canada. This study used secondary data sources to identify veterinary exposure prevalence for ionizing radiation and antineoplastic agents, as part of a national surveillance project. METHODS: For ionizing radiation, data from the Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada were used to identify veterinarians and veterinary technicians monitored in 2006. This was combined with Census statistics to estimate a prevalence range and dose levels. For antineoplastic agents, exposure prevalence was estimated using statistics on employment by practice type and antineoplastic agent usage rates, obtained from veterinary licensing bodies and peer-reviewed literature. RESULTS: In 2006, 7,013 (37% of all) Canadian veterinary workers were monitored for ionizing radiation exposure. An estimated 3.3% to 8.2% of all veterinarians and 2.4% to 7.2% of veterinary technicians were exposed to an annual ionizing radiation dose above 0.1 mSv, representing a total of between 536 and 1,450 workers. All monitored doses were below regulatory limits. For antineoplastic agents, exposure was predicted in up to 5,300 (23%) of all veterinary workers, with an estimated prevalence range of 22% to 24% of veterinarians and 20% to 21% of veterinary technicians. CONCLUSION: This is the first national-level assessment of exposure to ionizing radiation and antineoplastic agents in Canadian veterinary settings. These hazards may pose considerable health risks. Exposures appeared to be low, however our estimates should be validated with comprehensive exposure monitoring and examination of determinants across practice areas, occupations, and tasks.