Visión 360º en cáncer y trabajo. Guía de actuación / 360º vision in cancer and work. Guidelines for action

El cáncer es una enfermedad cuya prevalencia aumenta en todos los países de forma inversa al descenso en su mortalidad debido a los avances diagnósticos y a los tratamientos actuales. En el caso concreto del cáncer laboral el objetivo es actuar en prevención y para ello hay que conocer sus causas y evitarlas: eliminar o reducir las sustancias que pueden producir cáncer, minimizar los tiempos de exposición e incrementar la protección colectiva e individual de la población trabajadora expuesta a cancerígenos. No obstante, esta enfermedad es multicausal, e incluye la exposición a factores medioambientales, individuales y laborales, lo que dificulta en muchas ocasiones poder establecer esta relación de causalidad imprescindible para su tipificación legal. No todos los factores de riesgo pueden ser evitados y cuando aparece el daño, en este caso la sospecha de cáncer, la actividad preventiva debe ser precoz, coordinada y protocolizada. Un diagnóstico temprano y certero del cáncer es importante para poder decidir cuáles serán las estrategias de tratamiento más apropiadas, aún si el paciente no muestra todavía síntomas claros de enfermedad. La detección y notificación de sospecha de cáncer laboral corresponde a los sanitarios de los Servicios de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales (SPRL), especialistas en Medicina del Trabajo y Enfermería del Trabajo y, fuera del ámbito laboral están involucrados todos los profesionales del Sistema Público de Salud. Del mismo modo y, ante la creciente tasa de curación en cáncer y mayor supervivencia, adquiere un notable protagonismo la reincorporación laboral del trabajador que ha superado un cáncer a su actividad laboral, todo ello en un marco de coordinación entre todos los agentes involucrados: técnicos de prevención y profesionales sanitarios del ámbito laboral y extralaboral. (AU)

Cancer is a disease that has seen substantial improvements and developments regarding its diagnosis and available treatments. This is causing its prevalence in all countries to experience an increase inversely proportional to the generalised decrease of its mortality rate. In the specific case of work-related cancer, the focus is on preventive actions based on determining its causes and avoiding them as much as possible: eliminating or reducing contact or intake of substances that can cause cancer, minimising exposure times, and increasing collective and individualised protection of workers who are exposed to carcinogens. However, this disease is multi-causal and includes exposure to environmental, personal and occupational factors. This often makes it difficult to establish the causal relationship between the illness and these factors, something essential for its categorisation. Not all risk factors can be avoided, and when damage appears, in this case the suspicion of cancer, preventive actions must be taken quickly and in a coordinated way following designated protocols. An early and accurate diagnosis of cancer is of high importance, even if the patient does not yet show clear symptoms of disease, in order to decide on the most appropriate treatment. The detection and disclosure of suspected work-related cancer is responsibility of the Occupational Health Services (SPRL), as well as Occupational Medicine and Occupational Nursing specialists, and, outside the workplace, all professionals involved within the Public Health System. Likewise, in view of the increasing cancer overcoming rate and even greater survival rate, the return to work of employees who have suffered from cancer keeps gaining weight. This return-to-work process requires coordination between all agents involved: prevention and health professionals, both in and outside workplace. (AU)

COVID-19 among workers of a comprehensive cancer centre between first and second epidemic waves (2020): a seroprevalence study in Catalonia, Spain.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with cancer are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 surveillance of workers in oncological centres is crucial to assess infection burden and prevent transmission. We estimate the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among healthcare workers (HCWs) of a comprehensive cancer centre in Catalonia, Spain, and analyse its association with sociodemographic characteristics, exposure factors and behaviours. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study (21 May 2020-26 June 2020). SETTING: A comprehensive cancer centre (Institut Català d'Oncologia) in Catalonia, Spain. PARTICIPANTS: All HCWs (N=1969) were invited to complete an online self-administered epidemiological survey and provide a blood sample for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Prevalence (%) and 95% CIs of seropositivity together with adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and 95% CI were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 1266 HCWs filled the survey (participation rate: 64.0%) and 1238 underwent serological testing (97.8%). The median age was 43.7 years (p25-p75: 34.8-51.0 years), 76.0% were female, 52.0% were nursing or medical staff and 79.0% worked on-site during the pandemic period. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was 8.9% (95% CI 7.44% to 10.63%), with no differences by age and sex. No significant differences in terms of seroprevalence were observed between onsite workers and teleworkers. Seropositivity was associated with living with a person with COVID-19 (aPR 3.86, 95% CI 2.49 to 5.98). Among on-site workers, seropositive participants were twofold more likely to be nursing or medical staff. Nursing and medical staff working in a COVID-19 area showed a higher seroprevalence than other staff (aPR 2.45, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.52). CONCLUSIONS: At the end of the first wave of the pandemic in Spain, SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among Institut Català d'Oncologia HCW was lower than the reported in other Spanish hospitals. The main risk factors were sharing household with infected people and contact with COVID-19 patients and colleagues. Strengthening preventive measures and health education among HCW is fundamental.

Fiber burden and asbestos-related diseases: an umbrella review / Niveles de exposición y enfermedades relacionadas con el asbesto

Objective: What are the levels of asbestos exposure that cause each type of health effect? The objective of this study was to review the available scientific evidence on exposure levels for asbestos and their relationship to health effects. Method: An umbrella review of English-language reviews and meta-analyses, from 1980 to March 2021 was conducted. We included reviews involving quantified asbestos exposures and health outcomes. The review has been adapted to the indications of the PRISMA declaration. Methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using the AMSTAR instrument. Results: We retrieved 196 references. After applying the search strategy and quality analysis, 10 reviews were selected for in-depth analysis. For lung cancer, the highest risk was observed with exposure to amphiboles. Longer, thinner fibers had the greatest capacity to cause lung cancer, especially those > 10 μm in length. For mesothelioma, longer and thinner fibers were also more pathogenic; amphiboles ≥ 5 μm are especially associated with increased mesothelioma risk. No studies observed an increased risk for lung cancer or mesothelioma at asbestos exposure levels <0.1 f/ml. No reviews provided information on exposure concentrations for pulmonary fibrosis. Currently, there is limited evidence in humans to establish the causal relationship between gastrointestinal cancer and asbestos exposure. Conclusions: Banning all asbestos exposure remains the best measure to preventing its negative health effects. The highest quality reviews and meta-analyses support that there is little risk of lung cancer or mesothelioma at daily exposure levels below 0.1 f/ml. (AU)

Objetivo: Revisar la evidencia científica disponible sobre los niveles de exposición al asbesto y su relación con los efectos sobre la salud. Método: Se realizó una revisión de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis en inglés, desde 1980 hasta marzo de 2021. Se incluyeron revisiones que involucran exposiciones cuantificadas al asbesto y resultados de salud. La revisión se adaptó a las indicaciones de la Declaración PRISMA. La calidad metodológica de los estudios seleccionados fue evaluada mediante el instrumento AMSTAR. Resultados: Se recuperaron 196 referencias y tras aplicar la estrategia de búsqueda y analizar la calidad se seleccionaron 10 revisiones para un análisis en profundidad. Para el cáncer de pulmón, se observó mayor riesgo con la exposición a anfíboles. Las fibras más largas y delgadas presentaron mayor capacidad de causar cáncer de pulmón, especialmente aquellas de longitud >10μm. Para el mesotelioma, las fibras más largas y delgadas también fueron más patógenas; los anfíboles ≥ 5μm se asociaron con un mayor riesgo de mesotelioma. Ningún estudio observó mayor riesgo de cáncer de pulmón o de mesotelioma con niveles de exposición al asbesto <0,1 f/ml. Ningún estudio proporcionó información sobre concentraciones de exposición para la fibrosis pulmonar. Actualmente existe evidencia limitada en humanos para establecer la relación causal entre la exposición al asbesto y el cáncer gastrointestinal. Conclusiones: Prohibir toda exposición al asbesto es la mejor medida para prevenir sus efectos negativos para la salud. Las revisiones y metaanálisis de más alta calidad respaldan que hay escaso riesgo de cáncer de pulmón y de mesotelioma con niveles de exposición diaria por debajo de 0,1 f/ml. (AU)

Fiber burden and asbestos-related diseases: an umbrella review.

OBJECTIVE: What are the levels of asbestos exposure that cause each type of health effect? The objective of this study was to review the available scientific evidence on exposure levels for asbestos and their relationship to health effects. METHOD: An umbrella review of English-language reviews and meta-analyses, from 1980 to March 2021 was conducted. We included reviews involving quantified asbestos exposures and health outcomes. The review has been adapted to the indications of the PRISMA declaration. Methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using the AMSTAR instrument. RESULTS: We retrieved 196 references. After applying the search strategy and quality analysis, 10 reviews were selected for in-depth analysis. For lung cancer, the highest risk was observed with exposure to amphiboles. Longer, thinner fibers had the greatest capacity to cause lung cancer, especially those > 10 µm in length. For mesothelioma, longer and thinner fibers were also more pathogenic; amphiboles ≥ 5 µm are especially associated with increased mesothelioma risk. No studies observed an increased risk for lung cancer or mesothelioma at asbestos exposure levels <0.1 f/ml. No reviews provided information on exposure concentrations for pulmonary fibrosis. Currently, there is limited evidence in humans to establish the causal relationship between gastrointestinal cancer and asbestos exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Banning all asbestos exposure remains the best measure to preventing its negative health effects. The highest quality reviews and meta-analyses support that there is little risk of lung cancer or mesothelioma at daily exposure levels below 0.1 f/ml.

El cáncer como enfermedad profesional. Notificación y registro / Cancer as an occupational disease. Notification and registration

El cáncer sigue constituyendo una de las principales causas de morbi-mortalidad en el mundo y también en España. El cáncer laboral ocupa un lugar prioritario dentro de las actuaciones de salud pública, destacando la importancia de obtener datos reales sobre su incidencia y prevalencia, partiendo de la situación actual caracterizada por la infranotificación. El Real Decreto 1299/2006 aprueba el cuadro de enfermedades profesionales en el sistema de Seguridad Social y establecen los criterios para su notificación y registro. El actual Cuadro comprende 6 grupos de enfermedades. El cáncer se encuadra en el grupo 6: enfermedades profesionales causadas por agentes carcinogénicos. Además del listado principal, en el anexo I, el Real Decreto incluye una lista complementaria de enfermedades cuyo origen profesional se sospecha y cuya inclusión podría contemplarse en el futuro. Existen distintas vías de declaración de la sospecha del cáncer como enfermedad profesional, siendo destacable la que pueden realizar otras especialidades, en particular Oncología, quien traslada su informe directamente al organismo competente de su CCAA para iniciar el proceso de reconocimiento o bien al médico de familia. El objetivo de la investigación del cáncer como sospecha de enfermedad profesional es detectar los riesgos que no se hubieran identificado y/o aquellos que no están controlados, corregirlos y evitar así otros daños a la salud de los trabajadores. Constituye, por ello, una fuente de información y control sobre las adecuaciones de las medidas preventivas y/o de protección adoptadas en la empresa para el cuidado de la salud de las personas que trabajan en ella (AU)

Cancer continues to be one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality in the world and also in Spain. Occupational cancer occupies a priority place within public health actions, highlighting the importance of obtaining real data on its incidence and prevalence, based on the current situation characterized by under-reporting. Royal Decree 1299/2006 approves the table of occupational diseases in the Social Security system and establishes the criteria for their notification and registration. The current Table includes 6 groups of diseases. Cancer is classified into group 6: occupational diseases caused by carcinogenic agents. In addition to the main list, in Annex I, the Royal Decree includes a complementary list of diseases whose occupational origin is suspected and whose inclusion could be considered in the future. There are different ways of declaring the suspicion of cancer as an occupational disease, among them the one that can be made by the specialist in Oncology, who transfers his report directly to the competent body of his CCAA to start the recognition process or to the family doctor. The objective of the investigation of cancer as a suspicion of occupational disease is to detect risks that have not been identified and / or those that are not controlled, correct them and thus avoid other damage to the health of workers. For this reason, it constitutes a source of information and control over the adjustments of the preventive and / or protection measures adopted in the company for the health care of the people who work in it (AU)

Adoption of preventive measures after returning to work among workers affected by De Quervain's tenosynovitis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether if there was any increase in preventive measures adopted following reincorporation to their jobs among workers affected by De Quervain's tenosynovitis (DQT), who were treated by surgical intervention. METHODS: Study subjects where those workers, members of a mutual health insurance scheme, who were operated on between June 2006 and June 2009 (n=52). For each worker we checked whether preventive measures had been taken in their workplace, both before their episode, and following reincorporation. The difference in proportions (DP) was calculated between the proportion of individuals with preventive measures after reincorporation and the proportion with preventive measures implemented prior to their surgical intervention, both globally and in terms of sociodemographic, occupational, and clinical variables. RESULTS: The proportion of workers with preventive measures adopted following reincorporation to their job was higher than the proportion with preventive measures prior to their surgical intervention (DP = 23.1 %; 95 %CI: 6.4-39.7 %). The risk factors associated with the greatest change in preventive measures were repetitive movements (DP = 25.6 %; 95 %CI: 6.1-45.1 %) and awkward postures (DP = 40 %; 95 %CI: -22.9 to 100 %). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increased proportion of workers with preventive measures implemented in their workplace following reincorporation to the job, there is a lack of information and of adoption of ergonomic preventive measures specific to this pathology. Implementation of ergonomic programs could reduce incidence of musculoskeletal disorders such as DQT, and would thus increase productivity, efficiency and worker satisfaction, while diminishing sick leave episodes, and the associated costs and relapses.