A current global view of environmental and occupational cancers

Our plain-English summary of A current global view of environmental and occupational cancers, by M. Yang (Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part C, Environmental Carcinogenesis & Ecotoxicology Reviews, 2011).

The study

• Author: M. Yang
• Journal: Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part C, Environmental Carcinogenesis & Ecotoxicology Reviews
• Published: 2011;29(3):223-49
• Cited by: 62 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

This review is focused on current information of avoidable environmental pollution and occupational exposure as causes of cancer. Approximately 2% to 8% of all cancers are thought to be due to occupation. In addition, occupational and environmental cancers have their own characteristics, e.g., specific chemicals and cancers, multiple factors, multiple causation and interaction, or latency period. Concerning carcinogens, asbestos/silica/wood dust, soot/polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [benzo(a) pyrene], heavy metals (arsenic, chromium, nickel), aromatic amines (4-aminobiphenyl, benzidine), organic solvents (benzene or vinyl chloride), radiation/radon, or indoor pollutants (formaldehyde, tobacco smoking) are mentioned with their specific cancers, e.g., lung, skin, and bladder cancers, mesothelioma or leukemia, and exposure routes, rubber or pigment manufacturing, textile, painting, insulation, mining, and so on. In addition, nanoparticles, electromagnetic waves, and climate changes are suspected as future carcinogenic sources. Moreover, the aspects of environmental and occupational cancers are quite different between developing and developed countries. The recent follow-up of occupational cancers in Nordic countries shows a good example for developed countries. On the other hand, newly industrializing countries face an increased burden of occupational and environmental cancers. Developing countries are particularly suffering from preventable cancers in mining, agriculture, or industries without proper implication of safety regulations. Therefore, industrialized countries are expected to educate and provide support for developing countries. In addition, citizens can encounter new environmental and occupational carcinogen nominators such as nanomaterials, electromagnetic wave, and climate exchanges. As their carcinogenicity or involvement in carcinogenesis is not clearly unknown, proper consideration for them should be taken into account. For these purposes, new technologies with a balance of environment and gene are required. Currently, various approaches with advanced technologies--genomics, exposomics, etc.--have accelerated development of new biomarkers for biological monitoring of occupational and environmental carcinogens. These advanced approaches are promising to improve quality of life and to prevent occupational and environmental cancers.

In plain English

This article was a narrative review by a single author in Seoul, Korea, of published information on cancers caused by avoidable environmental pollution and workplace exposures. It covered many carcinogens, including asbestos, silica, metals, solvents, radon and tobacco smoke, and did not collect new data. On asbestos, it cited other sources reporting that at least 1%–2% of all cancer deaths were ascribed to asbestos, that more than half of the occupational burden of lung cancer was attributed to asbestos, and that mesothelioma is to a large extent caused by work-related asbestos exposure. It cited United States asbestos deaths rising from 77 in 1968 to 1265 in 1999. It also described earlier biomarker studies. One reported that three polypeptide peaks predicted cancer in asbestos exposure with 87% sensitivity and 70% specificity. Others linked certain gene variants to fibrotic changes, pleural plaque thickness and malignant mesothelioma. The author concluded that occupational and environmental cancers are avoidable with proper prevention of exposure, and suggested close cooperation between developed and developing countries.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Narrative review of published literature and agency reports; no new data were collected
• Who was studied: No study population of its own. The review covered published studies and reports on environmental and occupational cancers worldwide, including omics biomarker studies for several highlighted carcinogens.
• Exposure: Many environmental and occupational carcinogens. These included asbestos (fiber types not specified), erionite and talc containing asbestiform fibers, along with silica, wood dust, PAHs, heavy metals, aromatic amines, solvents, radiation and radon, and indoor pollutants. Nanoparticles, electromagnetic waves and climate change were discussed as suspected future sources.
• Main results:
  • Citing other sources, the review stated that approximately 2% to 8% of all cancers are thought to be due to occupation.
  • Citing a published source (reference 14), the review stated that at least 1%–2% of all cancer deaths were ascribed to asbestos.
  • Citing the same source, the review stated that more than half of the occupational burden of lung cancer was attributed to asbestos.
  • Citing other sources, the review stated that mesothelioma is to a large extent caused by work-related exposure to asbestos.
  • Citing the Nordic Occupational Cancer Study, which covered 15 million people in five Nordic countries, the review reported that plumbers showed the highest standardized incidence ratio for mesothelioma. No figure was given.
  • Citing a published source, the review reported that asbestos deaths in the United States increased from 77 in 1968 to 1265 in 1999.
  • The review stated that environmental tobacco smoke exacerbates the carcinogenic effects of asbestos, citing other sources.
  • Citing Tooker and colleagues, the review reported that 3 polypeptide peaks could predict development of cancer in asbestos exposure with 87% sensitivity and 70% specificity. The peaks were identified as kinesin family members 5A and 18A, and the review's table lists the subjects as asbestosis patients.
  • Citing Kukkonen and colleagues, the review reported findings in 1,008 Finnish asbestos-exposed workers. The GSTT1 deletion polymorphism was associated with fibrotic changes, and the GSTM1 deletion polymorphism was associated with the greatest thickness of pleural plaques.
  • Citing Dianzani and colleagues, the review reported that genetic polymorphisms in XRCC1, XRCC3, XPD and OGG1 affected incidence of malignant mesothelioma in Italian subjects geographically highly exposed to asbestos pollution.
  • Citing Wright and associates, the review reported that the gene ADAM28 was consistently 'unregulated' (as printed) in asbestos-related lung cancer patients compared with non-asbestos-related lung cancer.
  • The review noted, citing another source, a big difference in the handling of asbestos between developing and developed countries.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that occupational and environmental cancers are avoidable with proper prevention of exposure to their specific or multiple carcinogens. The author suggested close cooperation between developed and developing countries, and expected that omics-based biomarkers and biological monitoring would help prevent these cancers.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Occupational Exposure, Causation, Latency, Mesothelioma, Carcinogenic, Carcinogenesis, Biomarker, Quality of Life.

Related studies

• Risk-based indicators of Canadians' exposures to environmental carcinogens — E. Setton, P. Hystad, et al. (2013)
• An approach to estimating the environmental burden of cancer from known and probable carcinogens: application to Ontario, Canada — S.L. Greco, E. MacIntyre, et al. (2020)
• The case for a global ban on asbestos — J. LaDou, B. Castleman, et al. (2010)
• After a Century of Research into Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens, Where Do We Stand? — J.D. Vitorino, P.M. Costa (2023)
• Evaluation of environmental carcinogens for cancer in man — A.L. Brown (1976)
• Cancer incidence in a chlorochemical plant in Isère, France: an occupational cohort study, 1979-2002 — V. Bonneterre, G. Mathern, et al. (2012)

Browse return to medical research.