Tumor lysis syndrome is a rare but serious complication that can occur during cancer treatment. Learn more. Neulasta pegfilgrastim is a prescription injection for radiation sickness and infections after chemotherapy. Learn about side effects, dosage, and…. Most cancer cases 'caused by lifestyle, environment - not bad luck' Written by Honor Whiteman on December 17, Fast facts about cancer There will be around 1,, new cancer cases diagnosed in the US this year Around , cancer deaths will occur in the US in Breast cancer remains the most common cancer in women, while prostate cancer is the most common cancer for men.
Written by Honor Whiteman on December 17, Exposure to air pollutants may amplify risk for depression in healthy individuals. Costs associated with obesity may account for 3. Polluted drinking water. Chemicals in food. Poor air quality. These are just a few exposures in the environment that may cause cancer.
Any substance that causes cancer is known to be a carcinogen. If allowed to accumulate in the body for extended period of time, there is a greater likelihood your cells will become damaged, which results in the growth of cancer cells.
Some of these changes in our cells may be caused by genetics, while others may be caused by environmental factors. The relationship between cancer and carcinogens Environmental factors such as X-rays, gamma rays, radiation emitted from radioactive materials, aniline type dyes, cigarette, free radicals, asbestos, silica dust, air pollution, food additives, various drugs, some of the chemicals used in perfumes, oncogenic viruses and bacteria play an important role in the risk of cancer.
Radiation Radiation is classified into two fundamental categories as non-ionizing and ionizing radiation. Heavy metals Exposure to various chemicals and heavy metals depending on exposed dose, genetics, people's immune resistance and overall health status, age, the level of nutrition has been associated with risk of different cancers, including breast cancer, pancreatic, lung cancer, and gallbladder cancer etc.
Cigarette Chemicals in cigarette smoke cause DNA damage and have been increasing the risk of various cancers, particularly primary lung cancer []. Air pollution Emissions from motor vehicles, industrial processes, power generation, the household combustion of solid fuel, and other sources pollute the ambient air across have global effect in the world. Oncogenic viruses Oncoviruses or tumor viruses are a general term used for viruses.
Discussion New areas of cancer research are focusing on the potential for pollutants to interact with one another and with genetic factors. Conclusion People can avoid some cancer-causing exposures, such as tobacco smoke and the sun rays. Nature Toxicology J Assoc Official Anal Chemists Homburger ed. Barrett, ed. Williams GM Definition of a human cancer hazard.
In: Nongenotoxic Mechanisms in Carcinogenesis. Exp Toxicol Pathol Food Addit Contam Pharmacogn Rev 4: Int J Surg Oncol Science Am J Hum Genet Trends Genet 9: Elektromanyetik Kirlilik ve Saglik.
Ann ICRP Radiology Dedic S, Pranjic N Lung cancer risk from exposure to diagnostic x- rays. Health Med 3: Dig Dis J Radiol Protect AA Int J Radiation Biol Eur J Radiol Radiat Prot Dosimetry Br J Cancer Int J Radiat Biol Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Cancer Causes Control J Toxicol 8: Scaling annual estimates for the Canadian environmental burden of disease from Boyd and Genuis [ 41 ], who used an outcome-based approach to estimate burden, to the province of Ontario yields a range of to Their larger upper bound estimate may reflect their use of different input data sources, including previous burden of disease studies, to estimate an overall PAF.
Solar UV radiation, radon, and PM 2. In agreement with this finding, an assessment of cancer burden in the United Kingdom in , for which the only overlapping carcinogens with our study were solar UV radiation, radon, and second-hand smoke, reported that malignant melanoma cases attributable to solar UV radiation were roughly an order of magnitude greater than lung cancer cases attributable to radon and lung cancer cases attributable to second-hand smoke [ 32 , 42 , 43 ].
Similarly, in an updated assessment of cancer burden in the United Kingdom in , reported cancer cases attributable to solar UV radiation were roughly double those attributable to ionizing radiation including radon and roughly four-fold greater than cancer cases attributable to anthropogenic PM 2.
Our identification of solar UV radiation, radon, and PM 2. Although their work was limited by the state of the evidence regarding environmental carcinogens that existed at that time, Doll and Peto nevertheless identified sunlight, background ionizing radiation, and pollution air, water, and food as important cancer risk factors [ 44 ]. However, their approach did not estimate the relative contributions of individual environmental carcinogens to cancer burden, as we have done in our study. Much of the information we used to perform our more detailed assessment was not available when Doll and Peto completed their work.
We applied the PAF method to five carcinogens. While cancer incidence is expected to increase over time, the relative ranking of the carcinogens is not expected to change if the increase is similar for the two cancer types we examined melanoma and lung.
Our PAF range of All of these PAFs were based on the use of early twentieth century birth cohorts, African Americans, or the general United Kingdom population to approximate unexposed populations. However, Grundy et al. Their approach implies a threshold for the carcinogenic effects of UV radiation. Our PAF of We estimated a PAF of 5. This estimate was comparable to air pollution-lung cancer PAFs of 1.
We applied a risk assessment model to estimate the burden of 19 carcinogens across several routes of exposure including inhalation indoor and outdoor air and ingestion food, drinking water, and dust.
The top environmental carcinogens identified by this method were arsenic, acrylamide, asbestos, formaldehyde, dioxins, and chromium. Our findings are consistent with previous studies that examined fewer carcinogens and routes of exposure.
Vromman et al. Consistent with any cancer burden analysis, there are several limitations associated with our study. First, our characterization of population exposure was limited by available data.
Furthermore, some carcinogens had much more data to develop the input concentration distributions e. The data sources we used reflected general population exposure, rather than highly exposed individuals. We did not consider potential differences in susceptibility to environmental carcinogens for different population sub-groups. In part, this was due to a lack of available data but also in recognition that much of the policy in this area is made at a provincial or national level.
Second, our results reflect the many assumptions we made to conduct this analysis. The assumptions reflect the application of toxicological evidence, the characterization of mean exposures, and lifetime exposure periods for the risk assessment model. For the PAF model, they reflect the application of epidemiological evidence, the characterization of mean exposures, and latency information.
Third, because of data availability, we were unable to account for in our analysis if one carcinogen impacted more than one cancer type. Similarly, we did not account for when many carcinogens impacted one cancer type. To illustrate this, we used the PAF model to estimate the lung cancers attributable to exposure to radon, PM 2.
One approach to combine carcinogen exposures for the same disease is the product of complements e. Applying this approach would scale each of our results by 0. It would not affect the rank ordering of our overall results. Fourth, while we accounted for the population variability and known uncertainty in the inputs, we were unable to completely separate the two in our analysis.
Similarly, we were unable to quantify uncertainty associated with the concentration estimates, though we know this to exist. Our modeling of population exposure can be interpreted as representing maximal uncertainty. Future analyses should fully separate uncertainty from variability. Our study also has several strengths. We systematically assessed the burden of all relevant environmental carcinogens and routes of exposure.
We started with IARC-identified carcinogens and restricted our assessment based on their relevance to Ontario and the availability of exposure and potency data.
As such, we were able to compare the burden for environmental carcinogens with very different sources and routes of exposure. Had we restricted our analysis only to Group 1 agents, acrylamide would be dropped from our results, since evidence for this carcinogen was deemed to be sufficient in animals but limited in humans. On the other hand, had we expanded our analysis to include agents deemed as possibly carcinogenic to humans Group 2B; e. The variability and uncertainty in the inputs is reflected in the simulation results.
Additional file 5 shows how the mean results would change if the minimum or maximum value of each input were used in tornado plots. The range in the overall cancer estimate was driven largely by the uncertainty in the estimates for our top two carcinogens, UV and radon.
For these carcinogens, this was a function of the uncertainty in the population attributable fraction. For the third ranking carcinogen, PM 2. By adopting a probabilistic approach instead of a deterministic approach, we were able to avoid implausibly precise and potentially upward biased burden estimates resulting from calculations using upper bound point estimates [ 52 ]. We provided a comparison of the burden of 23 environmental carcinogens across Ontario. This work could be conducted on a regular basis or extended to other jurisdictions, to identify top contributors to cancer burden and track progress in burden reduction.
It could also be expanded as new carcinogens are identified and new potency information becomes available e. One potential area for expansion is to re-examine the IARC agent classifications and select the environmental carcinogens, as carcinogens have been added since we conducted this work.
Future work could also explore additional burden metrics. Other burden metrics include deaths, hospitalizations, cost, and disability-adjusted life years which reflect mortality and morbidity. Assuming solar UV radiation is associated with malignant melanoma and that radon and PM 2. However, to the extent that cancer mortality is also a function of the availability and effectiveness of treatment, this could dilute the focus on primary prevention.
We estimated the annual cancer cases from exposure to 23 environmental carcinogens in Ontario, Canada using probabilistic risk assessment and PAF models. The burden between and annual cancer cases fell between previous estimates for the burden of alcohol and tobacco use. Top carcinogens were solar UV radiation, radon, and PM 2. These findings can inform policy making and priority setting in health and environmental protection.
This analysis could be reproduced at a later date to track trends in Ontario and could also be applied to other jurisdictions.
All raw data used in the study were publicly available. References have been provided for all raw data. All modeling inputs have been provided in the tables in the manuscript and Additional Files. World Health Organization. Cancer fact sheet. Accessed 30 Aug Cancer Care Ontario. Ontario cancer statistics Report. Cancer Care Ontario Accessed 02 Aug Cancer incidence in Canada: trends and projections Article Google Scholar.
0コメント