Racism as a public health issue in environmental health disparities and environmental justice: working toward solutions.

BACKGROUND: Environmental health research in the US has shown that racial and ethnic minorities and members of low-socioeconomic groups, are disproportionately burdened by harmful environmental exposures, in their homes, workplace, and neighborhood environments that impact their overall health and well-being. Systemic racism is a fundamental cause of these disproportionate exposures and associated health effects. To invigorate and inform current efforts on environmental justice and to raise awareness of environmental racism, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) hosted a workshop where community leaders, academic researchers, and NIEHS staff shared perspectives and discussed ways to inform future work to address health disparities. OBJECTIVES: To share best practices learned and experienced in partnerships between academic researchers and communities that are addressing environmental racism across the US; and to outline critical needs and future actions for NIEHS, other federal agencies, and anyone who is interested in conducting or funding research that addresses environmental racism and advances health equity for all communities. DISCUSSION: Through this workshop with community leaders and researchers funded by NIEHS, we learned that partnerships between academics and communities hold great promise for addressing environmental racism; however, there are still profound obstacles. To overcome these barriers, translation of research into plain language and health-protective interventions is needed. Structural changes are also needed in current funding mechanisms and training programs across federal agencies. We also learned the importance of leveraging advances in technology to develop creative solutions that can protect public health.

An Approach to Assessing the Influence of Environmental and Occupational Cancer Hazard Identification on Policy Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Cancer hazard identification is critical to informing decisions on preventive actions. However, the influence of cancer hazard assessments on the creation of health-protective regulations is poorly understood. Although prior studies have measured the health and economic benefits of regulatory actions in general, we are not aware of efforts to explicitly study the influence of cancer hazard identification on policy decisions in the United States. OBJECTIVES: In this commentary, we present an approach to examine whether formal identification of a substance as a human carcinogen may prompt a regulatory action to reduce exposure to carcinogens and enhance public health. Further, we discuss the broader implications of cancer hazard identification on policy decision-making, including identifying gaps and providing recommendations. METHODS: Using the Report on Carcinogens (RoC) as a test case, we systematically searched U.S. federal and state databases for notices of regulations mentioning the RoC from 1995 to 2023. For each regulation, we extracted information on the carcinogen(s) regulated, the regulatory agency, the regulatory purpose, the economic sector exposure sources, and the analyzed public health benefits and costs. We created a publicly available, web-based interactive tool to visualize the data. DISCUSSION: U.S. regulatory agencies have been using cancer hazard evaluations, such as the RoC, for decades to inform public health policy actions to prevent or mitigate cancer risks. Specifically, nonregulatory cancer hazard assessments have been used to prioritize chemical evaluations, support regulatory-based assessments, and trigger regulatory action. Our approach showed that assessing the influence of cancer hazard identification on science-based public health policies is feasible, informative, and needed, and our study is a first step in this direction. We recommend expanding this approach to other cancer and noncancer hazard assessments to ultimately inform our understanding of the influence of hazard classifications on policymaking. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12681.

Indoor wood-burning from stoves and fireplaces and incident lung cancer among Sister Study participants.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Epidemiological studies conducted mostly in low- and middle-income countries have found a positive association between household combustion of wood and lung cancer. However, most studies have been retrospective, and few have been conducted in the United States where indoor wood-burning usage patterns differ. We examined the association of exposure to indoor wood smoke from fireplaces and stoves with incident lung cancer in a U.S.-wide cohort of women. METHODS: We included 50,226 women without prior lung cancer participating in the U.S.-based prospective Sister Study. At enrollment (2003-2009), women reported frequency of use of wood-burning stoves and/or fireplaces in their longest-lived adult residence. Cox regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRadj) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for the association between indoor wood-burning fireplace/stove use and incident lung cancer. Lung cancer was self-reported and confirmed with medical records. RESULTS: During an average 11.3 years of follow-up, 347 medically confirmed lung cancer cases accrued. Overall, 62.3 % of the study population reported the presence of an indoor wood-burning fireplace/stove at their longest-lived adult residence and 20.6 % reported annual usage of ≥30 days/year. Compared to those without a wood-burning fireplace/stove, women who used their wood-burning fireplace/stove ≥30 days/year had an elevated rate of lung cancer (HRadj = 1.68; 95 % CI = 1.27, 2.20). In never smokers, positive associations were seen for use 1-29 days/year (HRadj = 1.64; 95 % CI = 0.87, 3.10) and ≥30 days/year (HRadj = 1.99; 95 % CI = 1.02, 3.89). Associations were also elevated across all income groups, in Northeastern, Western or Midwestern U.S. regions, and among those who lived in urban or rural/small town settings. CONCLUSIONS: Our prospective analysis of a cohort of U.S. women found that increasing frequency of wood-burning indoor fireplace/stove usage was associated with incident lung cancer, even among never smokers.

Cancer Hazard Evaluations for Contemporary Needs: Highlights From New National Toxicology Program Evaluations and Methodological Advancements.

The National Toxicology Program strives to raise awareness of cancer hazards in our environment. Identifying cancer hazards is key to primary prevention, informing public health decision making, and decreasing the global cancer burden. In December 2021, the US congressionally mandated 15th Report on Carcinogens was released, adding 8 new substances to the cumulative report. Chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori is listed as "known to be a human carcinogen." Antimony trioxide and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection by-products-dichloroacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, bromochloroacetic acid, tribromoacetic acid, bromodichloroacetic acid, chlorodibromoacetic acid-are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." A new dashboard provides interactive visualization and interrogation of the 256 listed substances, their uses, and associated cancers. Also, the National Toxicology Program recently published a Cancer Hazard Assessment Report on exposure scenarios associated with circadian disruption, concluding that persistent night shift work can cause breast cancer and certain lighting conditions may cause cancer. As highlighted in these reports and evaluations, we are evolving our approaches to meet contemporary challenges. These approaches include focusing on real-world exposures and advancing our methods to address challenges in cancer hazard assessments (eg, developing more structured approaches to evaluate mechanistic data and incorporating read-across approaches to assess chemicals lacking adequate human or animal cancer data). To promote public health, we provide information on environmental health disparities and disease prevention. Building on these efforts, we aim to continue our contributions to the war on cancer, declared 50 years ago.

Commentary: Role and communications of cancer hazard determinations.

This commentary is written in response to a recent commentary in Carcinogenesis that provides several viewpoints on the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) Monographs program on cancer hazard identification. This commentary offers an alternative viewpoint of the role of cancer hazard identification derived from cancer epidemiology studies in risk characterization, as well as clarification on the previous commentary's interpretation of the purpose of the Monographs and other programs of cancer hazard identification and how IARC communicates the findings of the Monographs.

Catalyzing Knowledge-Driven Discovery in Environmental Health Sciences through a Community-Driven Harmonized Language.

Harmonized language is critical for helping researchers to find data, collecting scientific data to facilitate comparison, and performing pooled and meta-analyses. Using standard terms to link data to knowledge systems facilitates knowledge-driven analysis, allows for the use of biomedical knowledge bases for scientific interpretation and hypothesis generation, and increasingly supports artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. Due to the breadth of environmental health sciences (EHS) research and the continuous evolution in scientific methods, the gaps in standard terminologies, vocabularies, ontologies, and related tools hamper the capabilities to address large-scale, complex EHS research questions that require the integration of disparate data and knowledge sources. The results of prior workshops to advance a harmonized environmental health language demonstrate that future efforts should be sustained and grounded in scientific need. We describe a community initiative whose mission was to advance integrative environmental health sciences research via the development and adoption of a harmonized language. The products, outcomes, and recommendations developed and endorsed by this community are expected to enhance data collection and management efforts for NIEHS and the EHS community, making data more findable and interoperable. This initiative will provide a community of practice space to exchange information and expertise, be a coordination hub for identifying and prioritizing activities, and a collaboration platform for the development and adoption of semantic solutions. We encourage anyone interested in advancing this mission to engage in this community.

Urinary polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolites and mortality in the United States: A prospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are ubiquitous organic compounds associated with chronic disease in epidemiologic studies, though the contribution of PAH exposure on fatal outcomes in the U.S. is largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: We investigated urinary hydroxylated PAH metabolites (OH-PAHs) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a representative sample of the U.S. population. METHODS: Study participants were ≥20 years old from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2014. Concentrations (nmol/L) of eight OH-PAHs from four parent PAHs (naphthalene, fluorene, phenanthrene, pyrene) were measured in spot urine samples at examination. We identified all-cause, cancer-specific, and cardiovascular-specific deaths through 2015 using the National Death Index. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between ΣOH-PAHs and mortality endpoints. We assessed potential heterogeneity by age, gender, smoking status, poverty, and race/ethnicity. Additionally, we examined the overall mixture effect using quantile g-computation. RESULTS: In 9,739 eligible participants, there were 934 all-cause deaths, 159 cancer-specific deaths, and 108 cardiovascular-specific deaths (median 6.75 years follow-up). A log10 increase in ΣOH-PAHs was associated with higher all-cause mortality (HRadj = 1.39 [95%CI: 1.21, 1.61]), and possibly cancer-specific mortality (HRadj = 1.15 [95%CI: 0.79, 1.69]), and cardiovascular-specific mortality (HRadj = 1.49 [95%CI: 0.94, 2.33]). We observed substantial effect modification by age, smoking status, gender, and race/ethnicity across mortality endpoints. Risk of cardiovascular mortality was higher for non-Hispanic blacks and those in poverty, indicating potential disparities. Quantile g-computation joint associations for a simultaneous quartile increase in OH-PAHs were HRadj = 1.15 [95%CI: 1.02, 1.31], HRadj = 1.41 [95%CI: 1.05, 1.90], and HRadj = 0.98 [95%CI: 0.66, 1.47] for all-cause, cancer-specific, and cardiovascular-specific mortalities, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our results support a role for total PAH exposure in all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the U.S. population.

A tiered approach to prioritizing registered pesticides for potential cancer hazard evaluations: implications for decision making.

BACKGROUND: Over 800 pesticides are registered for use in the United States. Human studies indicate concern that some pesticides currently in use in large quantities may also pose a carcinogenic hazard. Our objective is to identify candidates for future hazard evaluations among pesticides used in high volumes in the United States and also classified as potential carcinogens by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). We also identify data gaps where further research is needed. METHODS: We used a systematic, two-tiered review approach to prioritize pesticides. First, we identified currently registered pesticides classified by USEPA as "possible", "suggestive", or "likely" human carcinogens. Among these, we selected pesticides USEPA has listed as commonly used by volume in at least one sector (agriculture, home and garden, or industry, commercial, and/or government), and those without a published hazard evaluation in the past 5 years. Second, we searched primary literature databases for peer-reviewed human cancer studies reporting pesticide-specific data published since the last USEPA carcinogenicity evaluation for each pesticide, and created evidence maps of the number of studies meeting our criteria for each identified pesticide. No evaluation of study results or risk-of-bias assessments were conducted. RESULTS: We identified 18 pesticides meeting our selection criteria, 16 pesticides had information from human cancer studies published after their initial carcinogenicity review. Of these, eight pesticides had at least three studies for one or more cancer sites: carbaryl, dichloropropene, dimethoate, mancozeb, metolachlor, pendimethalin, permethrin, and trifluralin. A major limitation in the literature revealed a shortage of studies reporting risk estimates for individual pesticides, rather pesticides were grouped by chemical class. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping report provides a map of the existing literature on real-world exposures and human cancer that has accumulated on pesticides classified as potential carcinogens by USEPA and used in high volumes. We also illustrate that several pesticides which are "data-rich" may warrant updated authoritative hazard evaluations. Our two-tiered approach and utilization of evidence mapping can be used to inform future decision-making to update cancer hazard evaluations.

Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health.

Systematic reviews are powerful tools for drawing causal inference for evidence-based decision-making. Published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of environmental and occupational epidemiology studies have increased dramatically in recent years; however, the quality and utility of published reviews are variable. Most methodologies were adapted from clinical epidemiology and have not been adequately modified to evaluate and integrate evidence from observational epidemiology studies assessing environmental and occupational hazards, especially in evaluating the quality of exposure assessments. Although many reviews conduct a systematic and transparent assessment for the potential for bias, they are often deficient in subsequently integrating across a body of evidence. A cohesive review considers the impact of the direction and magnitude of potential biases on the results, systematically evaluates important scientific issues such as study sensitivity and effect modifiers, identifies how different studies complement each other, and assesses other potential sources of heterogeneity. Given these challenges of conducting informative systematic reviews of observational studies, we provide a series of specific recommendations based on practical examples for cohesive evidence integration to reach an overall conclusion on a body of evidence to better support policy making in public health.

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.

A Prospective Analysis of Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Women.

BACKGROUND: Red and processed meats have been implicated as risk factors in the development of colorectal cancer in U.S. women, but associations with cooking practices are less well established. METHODS: Data are from the Sister Study, a cohort of women ages 35 to 74 years from the United States and Puerto Rico who have a sister diagnosed with breast cancer. Red and processed meat consumption, meat cooking practices, and intake of common meat products were collected at baseline using self-administered questionnaires (N = 48,704). Multivariable HRs (HRadj) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated. RESULTS: During a median 8.7 years' follow-up (range <1-12.7 years), 216 colorectal cancer cases were diagnosed. In categorical analyses, an increased risk of colorectal cancer was seen in the highest quartile of processed meat consumption compared with the lowest [HRadj = 1.52 (95% CI, 1.01-2.30); P trend = 0.02], and for specific meat products, including breakfast sausages [HRadj = 1.85 (95% CI, 1.30-2.64)] and bacon [HRadj = 1.46 (95% CI, 1.01-2.11)]. The HRadj for the highest quartile of red meat consumption was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.68-1.60), and little evidence of association was observed for cooking practices or doneness of red meat. We observed positive associations with specific red meat products when cooking methods were considered, for example, grilled/barbequed steaks [HRadj = 2.23 (95% CI, 1.20-4.14)] and hamburgers [HRadj = 1.98 (95% CI, 1.00-3.91)]. CONCLUSIONS: Higher reported daily intake of processed meats and consumption of barbecued/grilled red meat products were associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer in women. IMPACT: Variability in colorectal risk risk by meat type and cooking method should be considered when evaluating meat consumption.

New Perspectives for Cancer Hazard Evaluation by the Report on Carcinogens: A Case Study Using Read-Across Methods in the Evaluation of Haloacetic Acids Found as Water Disinfection By-Products.

BACKGROUND: Due to the large number of chemicals not yet tested for carcinogenicity but to which people are exposed, the limited number of human and animal cancer studies conducted each year, and the frequent need for a timely response, mechanistic data are playing an increasingly important role in carcinogen hazard identification. OBJECTIVES: To provide a targeted approach to identify relevant mechanistic data in our cancer evaluation of haloacetic acids (HAAs), we used several approaches including systematic review, the 10 key characteristics of carcinogens (KCs), and read-across methods. Our objective in this commentary is to discuss the strengths, limitations, and challenges of these approaches in a cancer hazard assessment. METHODS: A cancer hazard assessment for 13 HAAs found as water disinfection by-products was conducted. Literature searches for mechanistic studies focused on the KCs and individual HAAs. Studies were screened for relevance and categorized by KCs and other relevant data, including chemical properties, toxicokinetics, and biological effects other than KCs. Mechanistic data were organized using the KCs, and strength of evidence was evaluated; this information informed potential modes of action (MOAs) and read-across-like approaches. Three read-across options were considered: evaluating HAAs as a class, as subclass(es), or as individual HAAs (analog approach). DISCUSSION: Because of data limitations and uncertainties, listing as a class or subclass(es) was ruled out, and an analog approach was used. Two brominated HAAs were identified as target (untested) chemicals based on their metabolism and similarity to source (tested) chemicals. In addition, four HAAs with animal cancer data had sufficient evidence for potential listing in the Report on Carcinogens (RoC). This is the first time that the KCs and other relevant data, in combination with read-across principles, were used to support a recommendation to list chemicals in the RoC that did not have animal cancer data. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5672.

Welding fumes and lung cancer: a meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 110 million workers are exposed to welding fumes worldwide. Welding fumes are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as carcinogenic to humans (group 1), based on sufficient evidence of lung cancer from epidemiological studies. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies on welding or exposure to welding fumes and risk of lung cancer, accounting for confounding by exposure to asbestos and tobacco smoking. METHODS: The literature was searched comprehensively in PubMed, reference lists of relevant publications and additional databases. Overlapping populations were removed. Meta-relative risks (mRRs) were calculated using random effects models. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot, Eggers's test and Begg's test. RESULTS: Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (20 case-control, 25 cohort/nested case-control), which reduced to 37 when overlapping study populations were removed. For 'ever' compared with 'never' being a welder or exposed to welding fumes, mRRs and 95% CIs were 1.29 (1.20 to 1.39; I2=26.4%; 22 studies) for cohort studies, 1.87 (1.53 to 2.29; I2=44.1%; 15 studies) for case-control studies and 1.17 (1.04 to 1.38; I2=41.2%) for 8 case-control studies that adjusted for smoking and asbestos exposure. The mRRs were 1.32 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.45; I2=6.3%; 15 studies) among 'shipyard welders', 1.44 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.95; I2=35.8%; 3 studies) for 'mild steel welders' and 1.38 (95% CI 0.89 to 2.13; I2=68.1%; 5 studies) among 'stainless steel welders'. Increased risks persisted regardless of time period, geographic location, study design, occupational setting, exposure assessment method and histological subtype. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the conclusion that exposure to welding fumes increases the risk of lung cancer, regardless of the type of steel welded, the welding method (arc vs gas welding) and independent of exposure to asbestos or tobacco smoking.

Software Tools to Facilitate Systematic Review Used for Cancer Hazard Identification.

Objective and systematic methods to search, review, and synthesize published studies are a fundamental aspect of carcinogen hazard classification. Systematic review is a historical strength of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Program and the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP) Office of the Report on Carcinogens (RoC). Both organizations are tasked with evaluating peer-reviewed, published evidence to determine whether specific substances, exposure scenarios, or mixtures pose a cancer hazard to humans. This evidence synthesis is based on objective, transparent, published methods that call for extracting and interpreting data in a systematic manner from multiple domains, including a) human exposure, b) epidemiological evidence, c) evidence from experimental animals, and d) mechanistic evidence. The process involves multiple collaborators and requires an extensive literature search, review, and synthesis of the evidence. Several online tools have been implemented to facilitate these collaborative systematic review processes. Specifically, Health Assessment Workplace Collaborative (HAWC) and Table Builder are custom solutions designed to record and share the results of the systematic literature search, data extraction, and analyses. In addition, a content management system for web-based project management and document submission has been adopted to enable access to submitted drafts simultaneously by multiple co-authors and to facilitate their peer review and revision. These advancements in cancer hazard classification have applicability in multiple systematic review efforts. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4224.

Tumour virus epidemiology.

A viral etiology of cancer was first demonstrated in 1911 by Peyton Rous who injected cell-free filtrate from a chicken sarcoma into healthy chickens and found it induced a tumour. Since the discovery over 50 years ago of the Epstein-Barr virus as the cause of Burkitt lymphoma, seven other human viruses or groups of viruses-hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus type 1, some human papillomaviruses, human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1, Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus and Merkel cell polyomavirus-have been linked to human cancer. Collectively, these eight viruses cause over 20 different types of cancer and contribute to 10-12% of all cancer, with a greater burden in low- and middle-income countries. For many viruses, immunosuppression greatly increases the risks of persistent infection, development of chronic sequelae and cancer. Although several viruses share similar routes of transmission (especially sexual activity, injection drug use and mother-to-child transmission), the predominant route of transmission varies across viruses, and for the same virus can vary by geographical location. In general, vulnerable populations at the greatest risk for viral infections and their associated diseases include people, especially children, living in low- to middle-income countries, men who have sex with men, people who use injection drugs and female sex workers.This article is part of the themed issue 'Human oncogenic viruses'.

Health consequences of electric lighting practices in the modern world: A report on the National Toxicology Program's workshop on shift work at night, artificial light at night, and circadian disruption.

The invention of electric light has facilitated a society in which people work, sleep, eat, and play at all hours of the 24-hour day. Although electric light clearly has benefited humankind, exposures to electric light, especially light at night (LAN), may disrupt sleep and biological processes controlled by endogenous circadian clocks, potentially resulting in adverse health outcomes. Many of the studies evaluating adverse health effects have been conducted among night- and rotating-shift workers, because this scenario gives rise to significant exposure to LAN. Because of the complexity of this topic, the National Toxicology Program convened an expert panel at a public workshop entitled "Shift Work at Night, Artificial Light at Night, and Circadian Disruption" to obtain input on conducting literature-based health hazard assessments and to identify data gaps and research needs. The Panel suggested describing light both as a direct effector of endogenous circadian clocks and rhythms and as an enabler of additional activities or behaviors that may lead to circadian disruption, such as night-shift work and atypical and inconsistent sleep-wake patterns that can lead to social jet lag. Future studies should more comprehensively characterize and measure the relevant light-related exposures and link these exposures to both time-independent biomarkers of circadian disruption and biomarkers of adverse health outcomes. This information should lead to improvements in human epidemiological and animal or in vitro models, more rigorous health hazard assessments, and intervention strategies to minimize the occurrence of adverse health outcomes due to these exposures.

Study sensitivity: Evaluating the ability to detect effects in systematic reviews of chemical exposures.

A critical step in systematic reviews of potential health hazards is the structured evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the included studies; risk of bias is a term often used to represent this process, specifically with respect to the evaluation of systematic errors that can lead to inaccurate (biased) results (i.e. focusing on internal validity). Systematic review methods developed in the clinical medicine arena have been adapted for use in evaluating environmental health hazards; this expansion raises questions about the scope of risk of bias tools and the extent to which they capture the elements that can affect the interpretation of results from environmental and occupational epidemiology studies and in vivo animal toxicology studies, (the studies typically available for assessment of risk of chemicals). One such element, described here as "sensitivity", is a measure of the ability of a study to detect a true effect or hazard. This concept is similar to the concept of the sensitivity of an assay; an insensitive study may fail to show a difference that truly exists, leading to a false conclusion of no effect. Factors relating to study sensitivity should be evaluated in a systematic manner with the same rigor as the evaluation of other elements within a risk of bias framework. We discuss the importance of this component for the interpretation of individual studies, examine approaches proposed or in use to address it, and describe how it relates to other evaluation components. The evaluation domains contained within a risk of bias tool can include, or can be modified to include, some features relating to study sensitivity; the explicit inclusion of these sensitivity criteria with the same rigor and at the same stage of study evaluation as other bias-related criteria can improve the evaluation process. In some cases, these and other features may be better addressed through a separate sensitivity domain. The combined evaluation of risk of bias and sensitivity can be used to identify the most informative studies, to evaluate the confidence of the findings from individual studies and to identify those study elements that may help to explain heterogeneity across the body of literature.

How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards.

Environmental health hazard assessments are routinely relied upon for public health decision-making. The evidence base used in these assessments is typically developed from a collection of diverse sources of information of varying quality. It is critical that literature-based evaluations consider the credibility of individual studies used to reach conclusions through consistent, transparent and accepted methods. Systematic review procedures address study credibility by assessing internal validity or "risk of bias" - the assessment of whether the design and conduct of a study compromised the credibility of the link between exposure/intervention and outcome. This paper describes the commonalities and differences in risk-of-bias methods developed or used by five groups that conduct or provide methodological input for performing environmental health hazard assessments: the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, the Navigation Guide, the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) and Office of the Report on Carcinogens (ORoC), and the Integrated Risk Information System of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-IRIS). Each of these groups have been developing and applying rigorous assessment methods for integrating across a heterogeneous collection of human and animal studies to inform conclusions on potential environmental health hazards. There is substantial consistency across the groups in the consideration of risk-of-bias issues or "domains" for assessing observational human studies. There is a similar overlap in terms of domains addressed for animal studies; however, the groups differ in the relative emphasis placed on different aspects of risk of bias. Future directions for the continued harmonization and improvement of these methods are also discussed.

Research recommendations for selected IARC-classified agents.

OBJECTIVES: There are some common occupational agents and exposure circumstances for which evidence of carcinogenicity is substantial but not yet conclusive for humans. Our objectives were to identify research gaps and needs for 20 agents prioritized for review based on evidence of widespread human exposures and potential carcinogenicity in animals or humans. DATA SOURCES: For each chemical agent (or category of agents), a systematic review was conducted of new data published since the most recent pertinent International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph meeting on that agent. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers were charged with identifying data gaps and general and specific approaches to address them, focusing on research that would be important in resolving classification uncertainties. An expert meeting brought reviewers together to discuss each agent and the identified data gaps and approaches. DATA SYNTHESIS: Several overarching issues were identified that pertained to multiple agents; these included the importance of recognizing that carcinogenic agents can act through multiple toxicity pathways and mechanisms, including epigenetic mechanisms, oxidative stress, and immuno- and hormonal modulation. CONCLUSIONS: Studies in occupational populations provide important opportunities to understand the mechanisms through which exogenous agents cause cancer and intervene to prevent human exposure and/or prevent or detect cancer among those already exposed. Scientific developments are likely to increase the challenges and complexities of carcinogen testing and evaluation in the future, and epidemiologic studies will be particularly critical to inform carcinogen classification and risk assessment processes.

Cadmium-induced cancers in animals and in humans.

Discovered in the early 1800s, the use of cadmium and various cadmium salts started to become industrially important near the close of the 19th century, rapidly thereafter began to flourish, yet has diminished more recently. Most cadmium used in the United States is a byproduct from the smelting of zinc, lead, or copper ores, and is used to manufacture batteries. Carcinogenic activity of cadmium was discovered first in animals and only subsequently in humans. Cadmium and cadmium compounds have been classified as known human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Toxicology Program based on epidemiologic studies showing a causal association with lung cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, and studies in experimental animals, demonstrating that cadmium causes tumors at multiple tissue sites, by various routes of exposure, and in several species and strains. Epidemiologic studies published since these evaluations suggest that cadmium is also associated with cancers of the breast, kidney, pancreas, and urinary bladder. The basic metal cationic portion of cadmium is responsible for both toxic and carcinogenic activity, and the mechanism of carcinogenicity appears to be multifactorial. Available information about the carcinogenicity of cadmium and cadmium compounds is reviewed, evaluated, and discussed.