IARC monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans

Different mutational characteristics of the subsets of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor sensitizing mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma

Background

A subset of lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor sensitizing mutations (mEGFR) is common in non-smokers and women, suggesting that mutational stressors other than smoking are involved.

Methods

Targeted sequencing using a custom panel containing 70 cancer-related genes were performed from 73 cases of lung adenocarcinoma with mEGFR (study cohort). In parallel, publicly available data of 47 TCGA-LUAD cases with mEGFR (LUAD cohort) were extracted from the GDC data portal and analyzed by non-negative matrix factorization using the Maftools package.

Results

In the study cohort, the C > A transversions accounted for 12.9% of all single nucleotide variations (SNVs), comprising the second smallest proportion among SNVs. The E19del-subgroup had a significantly lower mutational burden with significantly higher Ti/Tv ratio than the SNV-subgroup, which includes cases with L858R and other EGFR-TKI sensitizing SNVs. (P = 0.0326 and 0.0002, respectively, Mann-Whitney U test). In the LUAD cohort, the mutational burden was substantially lower than in other TCGA cancer cohorts, and the frequency of C > A transversions was 30.3%, occupying the second frequency. The E19del-subgroup had a lower mutational burden overall and a higher Ti/Tv ratio than the SNV-subgroup (P = 0.0497 and P = 0.0055, respectively, Mann-Whitney U test). Smoking-related signature 4 was observed only in the L858R-subgroup, while ignature 30 and 5 was observed in both groups.

Conclusions

Lung adenocarcinoma with mEGFR(+) has a lower mutational burden and does not show a characteristic mutation pattern influenced by smoking. E19del and L858R, which are representative subtypes of mEGFR(+) lung adenocarcinoma, differ in terms of mutational spectrum, as the E19del-subgroup has a lower mutation burden and a higher Ti/Tv ratio than the SNV-subgroup. These findings could help explain the differences in the responses to EGFR-TKIs and in the clinical courses between the two lung adenocarcinoma subgroups.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-5116-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cancers related to lifestyle and environmental factors in France in 2015

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a major cause of premature illness and death in France. To quantify how cancer prevention could reduce the burden, we present estimates of the contribution of lifestyle and environmental risk factors to cancer incidence in France in 2015, comparing these with other high-income countries.

METHOD

Prevalences of, and relative risks for tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, inadequate diet, overweight and obesity, physical inactivity, exogenous hormones, suboptimal breastfeeding, infectious agents, ionising radiation, air pollution, ultraviolet exposure, occupational exposures, arsenic in drinking water and indoor benzene were obtained to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) and the number of attributable cancers by the cancer site and sex.

RESULTS

In 2015, 41% (or 142,000 of 346,000) of all new cancers diagnosed in France could be attributed to the aforementioned risk factors. The numbers and PAF were slightly higher in men than in women (84,000 versus 58,000 cases and 44% versus 37%, respectively). Smoking (PAF: 20%), alcohol consumption (PAF: 8%), dietary factors (PAF: 5%) and excess weight (PAF: 5%) were the most important factors. Infections and occupational exposures each contributed to an additional 4% of the cancer cases in 2015.

CONCLUSION

Today, two-fifths of cancers in France are attributable to preventable risk factors. The variations in the key amenable factors responsible in France relative to other economically similar countries highlight the need for tailored approaches to cancer education and prevention. Reducing smoking and alcohol consumption and the adoption of healthier diet and body weight remain important targets to reduce the increasing number of new cancer patients in France in the decades to follow.

Molecular mechanisms of the preventable causes of cancer in the United States

Annually, there are 1.6 million new cases of cancer and nearly 600,000 cancer deaths in the United States alone. The public health burden associated with these numbers has motivated enormous research efforts into understanding the root causes of cancer. These efforts have led to the recognition that between 40% and 45% of cancers are associated with preventable risk factors and, importantly, have identified specific molecular mechanisms by which these exposures modify human physiology to induce or promote cancer. The increasingly refined knowledge of these mechanisms, which we summarize here, emphasizes the need for greater efforts toward primary cancer prevention through mitigation of modifiable risk factors. It also suggests exploitable avenues for improved secondary prevention (which includes the development of therapeutics designed for cancer interception and enhanced techniques for noninvasive screening and early detection) based on detailed knowledge of early neoplastic pathobiology. Such efforts would complement the current emphasis on the development of therapeutic approaches to treat established cancers and are likely to result in far greater gains in reducing morbidity and mortality.

The effects of acetaldehyde exposure on histone modifications and chromatin structure in human lung bronchial epithelial cells

As the primary metabolite of alcohol and the most abundant carcinogen in tobacco smoke, acetaldehyde is linked to a number of human diseases associated with chronic alcohol consumption and smoking including cancers. In addition to direct DNA damage as a result of the formation of acetaldehyde-DNA adducts, acetaldehyde may also indirectly impact proper genome function through the formation of protein adducts. Histone proteins are the major component of the chromatin. Post-translational histone modifications (PTMs) are critically important for the maintenance of genetic and epigenetic stability. However, little is known about how acetaldehyde-histone adducts affect histone modifications and chromatin structure. The results of protein carbonyl assays suggest that acetaldehyde forms adducts with histone proteins in human bronchial epithelial BEAS-2B cells. The level of acetylation for N-terminal tails of cytosolic histones H3 and H4, an important modification for histone nuclear import and chromatin assembly, is significantly downregulated following acetaldehyde exposure in BEAS-2B cells, possibly due to the formation of histone adducts and/or the decrease in the expression of histone acetyltransferases. Notably, the level of nucleosomal histones in the chromatin fraction and at most of the genomic loci we tested are low in acetaldehyde-treated cells as compared with the control cells, which is suggestive of inhibition of chromatin assembly. Moreover, acetaldehyde exposure perturbs chromatin structure as evidenced by the increase in general chromatin accessibility and the decrease in nucleosome occupancy at genomic loci following acetaldehyde treatment. Our results indicate that regulation of histone modifications and chromatin accessibility may play important roles in acetaldehyde-induced pathogenesis. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 59:375-385, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Application of the key characteristics of carcinogens in cancer hazard identification

Smith et al. (Env. Health Perspect. 124: 713, 2016) identified 10 key characteristics (KCs), one or more of which are commonly exhibited by established human carcinogens. The KCs reflect the properties of a cancer-causing agent, such as 'is genotoxic,' 'is immunosuppressive' or 'modulates receptor-mediated effects,' and are distinct from the hallmarks of cancer, which are the properties of tumors. To assess feasibility and limitations of applying the KCs to diverse agents, methods and results of mechanistic data evaluations were compiled from eight recent IARC Monograph meetings. A systematic search, screening and evaluation procedure identified a broad literature encompassing multiple KCs for most (12/16) IARC Group 1 or 2A carcinogens identified in these meetings. Five carcinogens are genotoxic and induce oxidative stress, of which pentachlorophenol, hydrazine and malathion also showed additional KCs. Four others, including welding fumes, are immunosuppressive. The overall evaluation was upgraded to Group 2A based on mechanistic data for only two agents, tetrabromobisphenol A and tetrachloroazobenzene. Both carcinogens modulate receptor-mediated effects in combination with other KCs. Fewer studies were identified for Group 2B or 3 agents, with the vast majority (17/18) showing only one or no KCs. Thus, an objective approach to identify and evaluate mechanistic studies pertinent to cancer revealed strong evidence for multiple KCs for most Group 1 or 2A carcinogens but also identified opportunities for improvement. Further development and mapping of toxicological and biomarker endpoints and pathways relevant to the KCs can advance the systematic search and evaluation of mechanistic data in carcinogen hazard identification.

Commentary: IARC Monographs Program and public health under siege by corporate interests

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluates causes of cancer with help from independent international experts in an open and transparent manner. Countries, research and regulatory agencies, and other organizations adopt IARC evaluations for communication of human cancer hazards, and for strategies to prevent cancer. Scientists worldwide endorse IARC cancer evaluations and process. Those with economic interests, however, challenge IARC's cancer evaluations, most recently for glyphosate and red and processed meats, and are conducting a campaign including intervention from US Congressional Representatives to discredit IARC's review process and to undermine financial support-a campaign intimidating to IARC and Working Group members. Challenges to scientific interpretations serve to advance science and should be resolved by scientific experts who do not have conflicts of interest. Such interference does not bode well for the free flow of scientific information that informs and protects the public from risks of cancer.

Causality and causal inference in epidemiology: the need for a pluralistic approach

Causal inference based on a restricted version of the potential outcomes approach reasoning is assuming an increasingly prominent place in the teaching and practice of epidemiology. The proposed concepts and methods are useful for particular problems, but it would be of concern if the theory and practice of the complete field of epidemiology were to become restricted to this single approach to causal inference. Our concerns are that this theory restricts the questions that epidemiologists may ask and the study designs that they may consider. It also restricts the evidence that may be considered acceptable to assess causality, and thereby the evidence that may be considered acceptable for scientific and public health decision making. These restrictions are based on a particular conceptual framework for thinking about causality. In Section 1, we describe the characteristics of the restricted potential outcomes approach (RPOA) and show that there is a methodological movement which advocates these principles, not just for solving particular problems, but as ideals for which epidemiology as a whole should strive. In Section 2, we seek to show that the limitation of epidemiology to one particular view of the nature of causality is problematic. In Section 3, we argue that the RPOA is also problematic with regard to the assessment of causality. We argue that it threatens to restrict study design choice, to wrongly discredit the results of types of observational studies that have been very useful in the past and to damage the teaching of epidemiological reasoning. Finally, in Section 4 we set out what we regard as a more reasonable ‘working hypothesis’ as to the nature of causality and its assessment: pragmatic pluralism.

On the International Agency for Research on Cancer classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen

The recent classification by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the herbicide glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen has generated considerable discussion. The classification is at variance with evaluations of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by several national and international regulatory bodies. The basis for the IARC classification is examined under the assumptions that the IARC criteria are reasonable and that the body of scientific studies determined by IARC staff to be relevant to the evaluation of glyphosate by the Monograph Working Group is sufficiently complete. It is shown that the classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen was the result of a flawed and incomplete summary of the experimental evidence evaluated by the Working Group. Rational and effective cancer prevention activities depend on scientifically sound and unbiased assessments of the carcinogenic potential of suspected agents. Implications of the erroneous classification of glyphosate with respect to the IARC Monograph Working Group deliberative process are discussed.

Scientific Opinion of the PPR Panel on the follow-up of the findings of the External Scientific Report 'Literature review of epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects'

In 2013, EFSA published a comprehensive systematic review of epidemiological studies published from 2006 to 2012 investigating the association between pesticide exposure and many health outcomes. Despite the considerable amount of epidemiological information available, the quality of much of this evidence was rather low and many limitations likely affect the results so firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Studies that do not meet the 'recognised standards' mentioned in the Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 are thus not suited for risk assessment. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues (PPR Panel) was requested to assess the methodological limitations of pesticide epidemiology studies and found that poor exposure characterisation primarily defined the major limitation. Frequent use of case-control studies as opposed to prospective studies was considered another limitation. Inadequate definition or deficiencies in health outcomes need to be avoided and reporting of findings could be improved in some cases. The PPR Panel proposed recommendations on how to improve the quality and reliability of pesticide epidemiology studies to overcome these limitations and to facilitate an appropriate use for risk assessment. The Panel recommended the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, where appropriate, of pesticide observational studies as useful methodology to understand the potential hazards of pesticides, exposure scenarios and methods for assessing exposure, exposure-response characterisation and risk characterisation. Finally, the PPR Panel proposed a methodological approach to integrate and weight multiple lines of evidence, including epidemiological data, for pesticide risk assessment. Biological plausibility can contribute to establishing causation.

[Notice of expert for modality and prescriptions limits of local estrogenotherapy for urinairy inconfinence in women]

OBJECTIVE

To develop a consensus of experts on the use of local estrogens in female urinary incontinence.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Following a formalized consensus method (DELPHI), a questionnaire was produced and sent to a first round and then to a second round of experts. The questionnaire consisted of proposals for recommendations for the use of local estrogens in the context of female urinary incontinence. The Survey Monkey^® survey software allowed the questionnaire to be distributed and the answers obtained to be analyzed.

RESULTS

Eight experts responded to the first round questionnaire. Seven formulations were deleted, 3 amended and 4 added to the first round questionnaire following expert advice. Twenty-six experts replied to the second round questionnaire, 24 of which were complete. Ten of the 21 proposals were approved at more than 80%, including five with strong agreement regarding the recognized benefit of local estrogens in urinary incontinence due to overactive bladder, the absence of data from the literature to demonstrate over-risk of hormone-dependent cancer under local estrogens and the need for follow-up of patients under this treatment. Six proposals were not the subject of a consensus and concerned the prescription modalities (maximum duration, effective minimum dose, prescription before surgery for incontinence).

CONCLUSION

Although local estrogens did not have regulatory approval in urinary incontinence, more than 80% of these experts recognized their benefit in the management of urinary incontinence in women with vulvo-vaginal atrophy, particularly in the case of urinary urge incontinence.

LEVEL OF PROOF

4.

Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide worldwide. It is a broad spectrum herbicide and its agricultural uses increased considerably after the development of glyphosate-resistant genetically modified (GM) varieties. Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potential to mammals, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is probably carcinogenic. The IARC conclusion was not confirmed by the EU assessment or the recent joint WHO/FAO evaluation, both using additional evidence. Glyphosate is not the first topic of disagreement between IARC and regulatory evaluations, but has received greater attention. This review presents the scientific basis of the glyphosate health assessment conducted within the European Union (EU) renewal process, and explains the differences in the carcinogenicity assessment with IARC. Use of different data sets, particularly on long-term toxicity/carcinogenicity in rodents, could partially explain the divergent views; but methodological differences in the evaluation of the available evidence have been identified. The EU assessment did not identify a carcinogenicity hazard, revised the toxicological profile proposing new toxicological reference values, and conducted a risk assessment for some representatives uses. Two complementary exposure assessments, human-biomonitoring and food-residues-monitoring, suggests that actual exposure levels are below these reference values and do not represent a public concern.

Use of high-throughput in vitro toxicity screening data in cancer hazard evaluations by IARC Monograph Working Groups

Evidence regarding carcinogenic mechanisms serves a critical role in International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph evaluations. Three recent IARC Working Groups pioneered inclusion of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ToxCast program high-throughput screening (HTS) data to supplement other mechanistic evidence. In Monograph V110, HTS profiles were compared between perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and prototypical activators across multiple nuclear receptors. For Monograph V112-113, HTS assays were mapped to 10 key characteristics of carcinogens identified by an IARC expert group, and systematically considered as an additional mechanistic data stream. Both individual assay results and ToxPi-based rankings informed mechanistic evaluations. Activation of multiple nuclear receptors in HTS assays showed that PFOA targets not only peroxisome proliferator activated receptors, but also other receptors. ToxCast assays substantially covered 5 of 10 key characteristics, corroborating literature evidence of "induces oxidative stress" and "alters cell proliferation, cell death or nutrient supply" and filling gaps for "modulates receptor-mediated effects." Thus, ToxCast HTS data were useful both in evaluating specific mechanistic hypotheses and in contributing to the overall evaluation of mechanistic evidence. However, additional HTS assays are needed to provide more comprehensive coverage of the 10 key characteristics of carcinogens that form the basis of current IARC mechanistic evaluations.

Causality in cancer research: a journey through models in molecular epidemiology and their philosophical interpretation

In the last decades, Systems Biology (including cancer research) has been driven by technology, statistical modelling and bioinformatics. In this paper we try to bring biological and philosophical thinking back. We thus aim at making different traditions of thought compatible: (a) causality in epidemiology and in philosophical theorizing-notably, the "sufficient-component-cause framework" and the "mark transmission" approach; (b) new acquisitions about disease pathogenesis, e.g. the "branched model" in cancer, and the role of biomarkers in this process; (c) the burgeoning of omics research, with a large number of "signals" and of associations that need to be interpreted. In the paper we summarize first the current views on carcinogenesis, and then explore the relevance of current philosophical interpretations of "cancer causes". We try to offer a unifying framework to incorporate biomarkers and omic data into causal models, referring to a position called "evidential pluralism". According to this view, causal reasoning is based on both "evidence of difference-making" (e.g. associations) and on "evidence of underlying biological mechanisms". We conceptualize the way scientists detect and trace signals in terms of information transmission, which is a generalization of the mark transmission theory developed by philosopher Wesley Salmon. Our approach is capable of helping us conceptualize how heterogeneous factors such as micro and macro-biological and psycho-social-are causally linked. This is important not only to understand cancer etiology, but also to design public health policies that target the right causal factors at the macro-level.

Unconventional oil and gas development and risk of childhood leukemia: Assessing the evidence

The widespread distribution of unconventional oil and gas (UO&G) wells and other facilities in the United States potentially exposes millions of people to air and water pollutants, including known or suspected carcinogens. Childhood leukemia is a particular concern because of the disease severity, vulnerable population, and short disease latency. A comprehensive review of carcinogens and leukemogens associated with UO&G development is not available and could inform future exposure monitoring studies and human health assessments. The objective of this analysis was to assess the evidence of carcinogenicity of water contaminants and air pollutants related to UO&G development. We obtained a list of 1177 chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids and wastewater from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and constructed a list of 143 UO&G-related air pollutants through a review of scientific papers published through 2015 using PubMed and ProQuest databases. We assessed carcinogenicity and evidence of increased risk for leukemia/lymphoma of these chemicals using International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monographs. The majority of compounds (>80%) were not evaluated by IARC and therefore could not be reviewed. Of the 111 potential water contaminants and 29 potential air pollutants evaluated by IARC (119 unique compounds), 49 water and 20 air pollutants were known, probable, or possible human carcinogens (55 unique compounds). A total of 17 water and 11 air pollutants (20 unique compounds) had evidence of increased risk for leukemia/lymphoma, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, cadmium, diesel exhaust, and several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Though information on the carcinogenicity of compounds associated with UO&G development was limited, our assessment identified 20 known or suspected carcinogens that could be measured in future studies to advance exposure and risk assessments of cancer-causing agents. Our findings support the need for investigation into the relationship between UO&G development and risk of cancer in general and childhood leukemia in particular.

Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology

Triangulation is the practice of obtaining more reliable answers to research questions through integrating results from several different approaches, where each approach has different key sources of potential bias that are unrelated to each other. With respect to causal questions in aetiological epidemiology, if the results of different approaches all point to the same conclusion, this strengthens confidence in the finding. This is particularly the case when the key sources of bias of some of the approaches would predict that findings would point in opposite directions if they were due to such biases. Where there are inconsistencies, understanding the key sources of bias of each approach can help to identify what further research is required to address the causal question. The aim of this paper is to illustrate how triangulation might be used to improve causal inference in aetiological epidemiology. We propose a minimum set of criteria for use in triangulation in aetiological epidemiology, summarize the key sources of bias of several approaches and describe how these might be integrated within a triangulation framework. We emphasize the importance of being explicit about the expected direction of bias within each approach, whenever this is possible, and seeking to identify approaches that would be expected to bias the true causal effect in different directions. We also note the importance, when comparing results, of taking account of differences in the duration and timing of exposures. We provide three examples to illustrate these points.

Scientific Issues Relevant to Setting Regulatory Criteria to Identify Endocrine-Disrupting Substances in the European Union

BACKGROUND

Endocrine disruptors (EDs) are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as exogenous compounds or mixtures that alter function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently cause adverse effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations. European regulations on pesticides, biocides, cosmetics, and industrial chemicals require the European Commission to establish scientific criteria to define EDs.

OBJECTIVES

We address the scientific relevance of four options for the identification of EDs proposed by the European Commission.

DISCUSSION

Option 1, which does not define EDs and leads to using interim criteria unrelated to the WHO definition of EDs, is not relevant. Options 2 and 3 rely on the WHO definition of EDs, which is widely accepted by the scientific community, with option 3 introducing additional categories based on the strength of evidence (suspected EDs and endocrine-active substances). Option 4 adds potency to the WHO definition, as a decision criterion. We argue that potency is dependent on the adverse effect considered and is scientifically ambiguous, and note that potency is not used as a criterion to define other particularly hazardous substances such as carcinogens and reproductive toxicants. The use of potency requires a context that goes beyond hazard identification and corresponds to risk characterization, in which potency (or, more relevantly, the dose-response function) is combined with exposure levels.

CONCLUSIONS

There is scientific agreement regarding the adequacy of the WHO definition of EDs. The potency concept is not relevant to the identification of particularly serious hazards such as EDs. As is common practice for carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxicants, a multi-level classification of ED based on the WHO definition, and not considering potency, would be relevant (corresponding to option 3 proposed by the European Commission).

CITATION

Slama R, Bourguignon JP, Demeneix B, Ivell R, Panzica G, Kortenkamp A, Zoeller RT. 2016. Scientific issues relevant to setting regulatory criteria to identify endocrine disrupting substances in the European Union. Environ Health Perspect 124:1497-1503; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP217.

A critical review of frameworks used for evaluating reliability and relevance of (eco)toxicity data: Perspectives for an integrated eco-human decision-making framework

Considerable efforts have been invested so far to evaluate and rank the quality and relevance of (eco)toxicity data for their use in regulatory risk assessment to assess chemical hazards. Many frameworks have been developed to improve robustness and transparency in the evaluation of reliability and relevance of individual tests, but these frameworks typically focus on either environmental risk assessment (ERA) or human health risk assessment (HHRA), and there is little cross talk between them. There is a need to develop a common approach that would support a more consistent, transparent and robust evaluation and weighting of the evidence across ERA and HHRA. This paper explores the applicability of existing Data Quality Assessment (DQA) frameworks for integrating environmental toxicity hazard data into human health assessments and vice versa. We performed a comparative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of eleven frameworks for evaluating reliability and/or relevance of toxicity and ecotoxicity hazard data. We found that a frequent shortcoming is the lack of a clear separation between reliability and relevance criteria. A further gaps and needs analysis revealed that none of the reviewed frameworks satisfy the needs of a common eco-human DQA system. Based on our analysis, some key characteristics, perspectives and recommendations are identified and discussed for building a common DQA system as part of a future integrated eco-human decision-making framework. This work lays the basis for developing a common DQA system to support the further development and promotion of Integrated Risk Assessment.

GRADE: Assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health

There is high demand in environmental health for adoption of a structured process that evaluates and integrates evidence while making decisions and recommendations transparent. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework holds promise to address this demand. For over a decade, GRADE has been applied successfully to areas of clinical medicine, public health, and health policy, but experience with GRADE in environmental and occupational health is just beginning. Environmental and occupational health questions focus on understanding whether an exposure is a potential health hazard or risk, assessing the exposure to understand the extent and magnitude of risk, and exploring interventions to mitigate exposure or risk. Although GRADE offers many advantages, including its flexibility and methodological rigor, there are features of the different sources of evidence used in environmental and occupational health that will require further consideration to assess the need for method refinement. An issue that requires particular attention is the evaluation and integration of evidence from human, animal, in vitro, and in silico (computer modeling) studies when determining whether an environmental factor represents a potential health hazard or risk. Assessment of the hazard of exposures can produce analyses for use in the GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework to inform risk-management decisions about removing harmful exposures or mitigating risks. The EtD framework allows for grading the strength of the recommendations based on judgments of the certainty in the evidence (also known as quality of the evidence), as well as other factors that inform recommendations such as social values and preferences, resource implications, and benefits. GRADE represents an untapped opportunity for environmental and occupational health to make evidence-based recommendations in a systematic and transparent manner. The objectives of this article are to provide an overview of GRADE, discuss GRADE's applicability to environmental health, and identify priority areas for method assessment and development.

Epigenetic alterations induced by genotoxic occupational and environmental human chemical carcinogens: A systematic literature review

Accumulating evidence suggests that epigenetic alterations play an important role in chemically-induced carcinogenesis. Although the epigenome and genome may be equally important in carcinogenicity, the genotoxicity of chemical agents and exposure-related transcriptomic responses have been more thoroughly studied and characterized. To better understand the evidence for epigenetic alterations of human carcinogens, and the potential association with genotoxic endpoints, we conducted a systematic review of published studies of genotoxic carcinogens that reported epigenetic endpoints. Specifically, we searched for publications reporting epigenetic effects for the 28 agents and occupations included in Monograph Volume 100F of the International Agency for the Research on Cancer (IARC) that were classified as "carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1) with strong evidence of genotoxic mechanisms of carcinogenesis. We identified a total of 158 studies that evaluated epigenetic alterations for 12 of these 28 carcinogenic agents and occupations (1,3-butadiene, 4-aminobiphenyl, aflatoxins, benzene, benzidine, benzo[a]pyrene, coke production, formaldehyde, occupational exposure as a painter, sulfur mustard, and vinyl chloride). Aberrant DNA methylation was most commonly studied, followed by altered expression of non-coding RNAs and histone changes (totaling 85, 59 and 25 studies, respectively). For 3 carcinogens (aflatoxins, benzene and benzo[a]pyrene), 10 or more studies reported epigenetic effects. However, epigenetic studies were sparse for the remaining 9 carcinogens; for 4 agents, only 1 or 2 published reports were identified. While further research is needed to better identify carcinogenesis-associated epigenetic perturbations for many potential carcinogens, published reports on specific epigenetic endpoints can be systematically identified and increasingly incorporated in cancer hazard assessments.

Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David Sackett

This is a confession building on a conversation with David Sackett in 2004 when I shared with him some personal adventures in evidence-based medicine (EBM), the movement that he had spearheaded. The narrative is expanded with what ensued in the subsequent 12 years. EBM has become far more recognized and adopted in many places, but not everywhere, for example, it never acquired much influence in the USA. As EBM became more influential, it was also hijacked to serve agendas different from what it originally aimed for. Influential randomized trials are largely done by and for the benefit of the industry. Meta-analyses and guidelines have become a factory, mostly also serving vested interests. National and federal research funds are funneled almost exclusively to research with little relevance to health outcomes. We have supported the growth of principal investigators who excel primarily as managers absorbing more money. Diagnosis and prognosis research and efforts to individualize treatment have fueled recurrent spurious promises. Risk factor epidemiology has excelled in salami-sliced data-dredged articles with gift authorship and has become adept to dictating policy from spurious evidence. Under market pressure, clinical medicine has been transformed to finance-based medicine. In many places, medicine and health care are wasting societal resources and becoming a threat to human well-being. Science denialism and quacks are also flourishing and leading more people astray in their life choices, including health. EBM still remains an unmet goal, worthy to be attained.

The dangers of hazards

Concerns about the quality and reproducibility of scientific papers have emphasised the uncertainty of observations in the biological sciences. Focussing on this problem in the types of science that often underlie regulations affecting population exposures has clear implications for regulatory studies. Recent comments on the IARC process of hazard identification in the field of carcinogenesis have identified problems in dealing with public information content and regulatory value of the Monograph system. What is the value of a system that does not clearly identify its methodology for defining a hazard and which does not provide realistic estimates of risk?

Evidence from Toxicology: The Most Essential Science for Prevention

BACKGROUND

The most essential goal of medicine and public health is to prevent harm (primum non nocere). This goal is only fully achieved with primary prevention, which requires us to identify and prevent harms prior to human exposure through research and testing that does not involve human subjects. For that reason, public health policies place considerable reliance on nonhuman toxicological studies. However, toxicology as a field has often not produced efficient and timely evidence for decision making in public health. In response to this, the U.S. National Research Council called for the adoption of evidence-based methods and systematic reviews in regulatory decision making. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) have recently endorsed these methods in their assessments of safety and risk.

OBJECTIVES

In this commentary we summarize challenges and problems in current practices in toxicology as applied to decision making. We compare these practices with the principles and methods utilized in evidence-based medicine and health care, with emphasis on the record of the Cochrane Collaboration.

DISCUSSION

We propose a stepwise strategy to support the development, validation, and application of evidence-based toxicology (EBT). We discuss current progresses in this field produced by the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) of the National Toxicology Program and the Navigation Guide works. We propose that adherence to the Cochrane principles is a fundamental prerequisite for the development and implementation of EBT.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of evidence-based principles and methods will enhance the validity, transparency, efficiency, and acceptance of toxicological evidence, with benefits in terms of reducing delays and costs for all stakeholders (researchers, consumers, regulators, and industry).

CITATION

Mandrioli D, Silbergeld EK. 2016. Evidence from toxicology: the most essential science for prevention. Environ Health Perspect 124:6-11; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1509880.

The current deconstruction of paradoxes: one sign of the ongoing methodological "revolution"

The current deconstruction of paradoxes is one among several signs that a profound renewal of methods for clinical and epidemiological research is taking place; perhaps for some basic life sciences as well. The new methodological approaches have already deconstructed and explained long puzzling apparent paradoxes, including the (non-existent) benefits of obesity in diabetics, or of smoking in low birth weight. Achievements of the new methods also comprise the elucidation of the causal structure of long-disputed and highly complex questions, as Berkson's bias and Simpson's paradox, and clarifying reasons for deep controversies, as those on estrogens and endometrial cancer, or on adverse effects of hormone replacement therapy. These are signs that the new methods can go deeper and beyond the methods in current use. A major example of a highly relevant idea is: when we condition on a common effect of a pair of variables, then a spurious association between such pair is likely. The implications of these ideas are potentially vast. A substantial number of apparent paradoxes may simply be the result of collider biases, a source of selection bias that is common not just in epidemiologic research, but in many types of research in the health, life, and social sciences. The new approaches develop a new framework of concepts and methods, as collider, instrumental variables, d-separation, backdoor path and, notably, Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs). The current theoretical and methodological renewal-or, perhaps, "revolution"-may be changing deeply how clinical and epidemiological research is conceived and performed, how we assess the validity and relevance of findings, and how causal inferences are made. Clinical and basic researchers, among others, should get acquainted with DAGs and related concepts.

The IARC monographs: critics and controversy

The monograph program of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which relies on the efforts of volunteer Working Groups, uses a transparent approach to evaluate the carcinogenicity of agents for which scoping has determined that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a review. Because of the potentially powerful implications of the conclusions of the monographs and the sometimes challenging nature of the evidence reviewed, the monographs and the IARC process have been criticized from time to time. This commentary describes the IARC monograph process and addresses recent criticisms of the program, drawing on a recent defense of the program authored by 124 researchers. These authors concluded that the IARC processes are robust and transparent and not flawed and biased as suggested by some critics.