Advisory Group recommendations on priorities for the IARC Monographs

Marques, Magaly; González, Amy Berrington de; Beland, Frederick A.; Browne, Patience; Demers, Paul A.; Lachenmeier, Dirk W.; Bahadori, Tina; Barupal, Dinesh Kumar; Belpoggi, Fiorella; Comba, Pietro; Dai, Min; Daniels, Robert D.; Ferreccio, Catterina; Grigoriev, O. A.; Hong, Yun-Chul; Hoover, Robert N.; Kanno, Jun; Kogevinas, Manolis; Lasfargues, G.; Malekzadeh, Reza; Masten, Scott V.; Newton, Robert U.; Norat, Teresa; Pappas, Jane J.; Moreira, Carolina Campos Lima; Rodrı́guez, Teresa; Rodríguez-Guzmán, Julietta; Sewram, Vikash; Zeise, Lauren; Benbrahim‐Tallaa, Lamia; Bouvard, Véronique; Cree, Ian A.; Ghissassi, Fatiha El; Girschik, Jennifer; Grosse, Yann; Hall, Amy Laura; Turner, Michelle C.; Straif, Kurt; Korenjak, Michael; McCormack, Valerie; Müller, Karen; Schüz, Joachim; Zavadil, Jiří; Schubauer‐Berigan, Mary K.; Guyton, Kathryn Z.

doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30246-3

Cited by 76 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other infectious pathogens for which evidence on causality is strengthening might be included in future estimates. These include Salmonella typhi as a cause of gallbladder cancer, malaria (Plasmodium species) as a cause of Burkitt lymphoma, Merkel cell virus causing Merkel cell carcinoma, 25 HCV causing cholangiocarcinoma, 26 and Epstein-Barr virus contributing to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and gastric cancer.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global burden of cancer attributable to infections in 2018: a worldwide incidence analysis

Martel

Georges

Bray

et al. 2020

The Lancet Global Health

1,199

792

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Infectious pathogens are strong and modifiable causes of cancer. The aim of this study was to improve estimates of the global and regional burden of infection-attributable cancers to inform research priorities and facilitate prevention efforts. Methods We used the GLOBOCAN 2018 database of cancer incidence and mortality rates and estimated the attributable fractions and global incidence for specific anatomical cancer sites, subsites, or histological subtypes known to be associated with ten infectious pathogens classified as human carcinogens. We calculated absolute numbers and age-standardised incidence rates (ASIR) of infection-attributable cancers at the country level. Estimates were stratified for sex, age group, and country, and were aggregated according to geographical regions and World Bank income groups. Findings We found that, for 2018, an estimated 2•2 million infection-attributable cancer cases were diagnosed worldwide, corresponding to an infection-attributable ASIR of 25•0 cases per 100 000 person-years. Primary causes were Helicobacter pylori (810 000 cases, ASIR 8•7 cases per 100 000 person-years), human papillomavirus (690 000, 8•0), hepatitis B virus (360 000, 4•1) and hepatitis C virus (160 000, 1•7). Infection-attributable ASIR was highest in eastern Asia (37•9 cases per 100 000 person-years) and sub-Saharan Africa (33•1), and lowest in northern Europe (13•6) and western Asia (13•8). China accounted for a third of worldwide cancer cases attributable to infection, driven by high ASIR of H pylori (15•6) and hepatitis B virus (11•7) infection. The cancer burden attributed to human papillomavirus showed the clearest relationship with country income level (from ASIR of 6•9 cases per 100 000 personyears in high-income countries to 16•1 in low-income countries). Interpretation Infection-attributable cancer incidence, in addition to the absolute number of cases, allows for refined geographic analyses and identification of populations with a high infection-associated cancer burden. When cancer prevention is largely considered in a non-communicable disease context, there is a crucial need for resources directed towards cancer prevention programmes that target infection, particularly in high-risk populations. Such interventions can markedly reduce the increasing cancer burden and associated mortality.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global burden of cancer attributable to infections in 2018: a worldwide incidence analysis

Martel

Georges

Bray

et al. 2020

The Lancet Global Health

1,199

792

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies suggest that RF exposure can cause cancer, and thus the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF EMF as a “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) [3]. In a recent recommendation of a periodically working Advisory Group for IARC “to ensure that the Monographs evaluations reflect the current state of scientific evidence relevant to carcinogenicity” the group recommended radiofrequency exposure (among others) for re-evaluation “with high priority” [6]. There is further no scientific support for that effects on other health parameters occur at exposure levels that are below exposure guideline levels, even though some research groups have published non-carcinogen related findings after RF exposure at such levels (see [4,5]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects—A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz

Simkó¹,

Mattsson²

2019

IJERPH

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction of the fifth generation (5G) of wireless communication will increase the number of high-frequency-powered base stations and other devices. The question is if such higher frequencies (in this review, 6–100 GHz, millimeter waves, MMW) can have a health impact. This review analyzed 94 relevant publications performing in vivo or in vitro investigations. Each study was characterized for: study type (in vivo, in vitro), biological material (species, cell type, etc.), biological endpoint, exposure (frequency, exposure duration, power density), results, and certain quality criteria. Eighty percent of the in vivo studies showed responses to exposure, while 58% of the in vitro studies demonstrated effects. The responses affected all biological endpoints studied. There was no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, or frequency, and exposure effects. The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects. There is a need for research regarding local heat developments on small surfaces, e.g., skin or the eye, and on any environmental impact. Our quality analysis shows that for future studies to be useful for safety assessment, design and implementation need to be significantly improved.

show abstract

“…In contrast to the opinion of the 13 ICNIRP commission members, the IARC advisory group of 29 scientists from 18 countries has recently stated that the cancer bioassay in experimental animals and mechanistic evidence warrants high priority re-evaluation of the RF radiation-induced carcinogenesis ( 38 ).…”

Section: Icnirpmentioning

confidence: 99%

[Comment] Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest

Hardell¹,

Carlberg²

2020

Oncol Lett

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fifth generation, 5G, of radiofrequency (RF) radiation is about to be implemented globally without investigating the risks to human health and the environment. This has created debate among concerned individuals in numerous countries. In an appeal to the European Union (EU) in September 2017, currently endorsed by >390 scientists and medical doctors, a moratorium on 5G deployment was requested until proper scientific evaluation of potential negative consequences has been conducted. This request has not been acknowledged by the EU. The evaluation of RF radiation health risks from 5G technology is ignored in a report by a government expert group in Switzerland and a recent publication from The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Conflicts of interest and ties to the industry seem to have contributed to the biased reports. The lack of proper unbiased risk evaluation of the 5G technology places populations at risk. Furthermore, there seems to be a cartel of individuals monopolizing evaluation committees, thus reinforcing the no-risk paradigm. We believe that this activity should qualify as scientific misconduct.

show abstract

Advisory Group recommendations on priorities for the IARC Monographs

Cited by 76 publications

References 2 publications

Global burden of cancer attributable to infections in 2018: a worldwide incidence analysis

Global burden of cancer attributable to infections in 2018: a worldwide incidence analysis

5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects—A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz

[Comment] Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About