No abstract

No abstract

Good oral hygiene, as characterized by few missing teeth, annual dentist visits, and daily tooth brushing, may modestly reduce the risk of HNC.

Survival from head and neck cancers (HNCs) of the lip, oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx has increased by 10% over the past few decades. Little over half of patients who develop HNCs will survive beyond 5 years. Survival is lower for individuals in many countries where traditional risk factors such as tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking, and betel quid chewing are highly prevalent but tertiary health care center access is limited or unavailable. Early diagnosis of HNC is the most important prognostic factor for each tumor site. Molecular-based research on HNC tumors holds promise for early stage detection, screening, vaccination, disease follow-up, and progression. Future investments for HNC control must consider both effectiveness and sustainability for both high-and low-resource countries alike, with priority toward risk factor prevention and earlier diagnosis.

A precise quantification of the burden of human cancer attributable to environmental and occupational exposures in LMICs is uncertain. Although the prevalence of carcinogenic exposures has been reported to be high in many such countries, the effects of the exposures have not been studied due to varying country-specific limitations, some of which include lack of resources and government support.

BACKGROUND: HPV16/18 detection may improve cervical cancer risk stratification and better guide which HPV-positive women warrant immediate colposcopy/biopsy. We estimated risks of cervical precancer and cancer by HPV genotype and cytology during the implementation phase of primary HPV testing in Norway. METHODS: A total of 3111 women, aged 34-69 years, testing HPV-positive at baseline and undergoing cytology testing from February 2015 to April 2018 had data available for analysis. Risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more severe (CIN3+) were estimated for cytology results and HPV genotypes (HPV16, HPV18, and other high-risk HPV). RESULTS: CIN3+ risks were higher for HPV16/18 than other high-risk HPV genotypes. Among women with any cytologic abnormality [atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse], immediate risks were 57.8% (95%CI = 53.0-62.6%) for HPV16, 40.2% (95%CI = 32.3-49.2%) for HPV18, and 31.4% (95%CI = 28.7-34.3%) for other high-risk HPV. Among those with normal cytology, CIN3+ risks were 19.9% (95%CI = 15.0-26.1%) for HPV16 positives, 10.8% (95%CI = 5.6-20.5%) for HPV18 positives, and 5.5% (95%CI = 4.2-7.1%) for other high-risk HPV. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits and harms of managing women based on HPV positivity and cytology results can be better balanced by inclusion of HPV genotyping in screening and choosing more conservative management for other high-risk HPV compared to HPV16/18.

Rationale:The association between idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and lung cancer has been previously reported. However, there is the potential for significant confounding by age and smoking, and an accurate summary risk estimate has not been previously ascertained.Objectives: To determine the risk and burden of lung cancer in patients with IPF, accounting for known confounders.Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases and used the Newcastle Ottawa criteria to assess study quality. We then assessed the quality of ascertainment of IPF cases based on modern consensus criteria. Data that relied on administrative claims or autopsies were excluded. We calculated summary risk estimates using a random effects model.Results: Twenty-five cohort studies were included in the final analysis. The estimated adjusted incidence rate ratio from two studies was 6.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.21-9.62) and accounted for age, sex, and smoking. The summary incidence rate from 11 studies was 2.07 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.46-2.67), and the summary mortality rate was 1.06 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 0.62-1.51) obtained from three studies. The summary prevalence from 11 studies was 13.74% (95% CI, 10.17-17.30), and the proportion of deaths attributable to lung cancer was 10.20 (95% CI, 8.52-11.87) and was obtained from nine studies.Conclusions: IPF is an increased independent risk factor for lung cancer, even after accounting for smoking. Further well-designed studies using modern consensus criteria are needed to explore mechanisms of this association.

BackgroundThe disasters at Seveso, Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Chernobyl, the World Trade Center (WTC) and Fukushima had historic health and economic sequelae for large populations of workers, responders and community members.MethodsComparative data from these events were collected to derive indications for future preparedness. Information from the primary sources and a literature review addressed: i) exposure assessment; ii) exposed populations; iii) health surveillance; iv) follow-up and research outputs; v) observed physical and mental health effects; vi) treatment and benefits; and vii) outreach activities.ResultsExposure assessment was conducted in Seveso, Chernobyl and Fukushima, although none benefited from a timely or systematic strategy, yielding immediate and sequential measurements after the disaster. Identification of exposed subjects was overall underestimated. Health surveillance, treatment and follow-up research were implemented in Seveso, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and at the WTC, mostly focusing on the workers and responders, and to a lesser extent on residents. Exposure-related physical and mental health consequences were identified, indicating the need for a long-term health care of the affected populations. Fukushima has generated the largest scientific output so far, followed by the WTCHP and Chernobyl. Benefits programs and active outreach figured prominently in only the WTC Health Program. The analysis of these programs yielded the following lessons: 1) Know who was there; 2) Have public health input to the disaster response; 3) Collect health and needs data rapidly; 4) Take care of the affected; 5) Emergency preparedness; 6) Data driven, needs assessment, advocacy.ConclusionsGiven the long-lasting health consequences of natural and man-made disasters, health surveillance and treatment programs are critical for management of health conditions, and emergency preparedness plans are needed to prevent or minimize the impact of future threats.