26.12.2012 Views

IARC MONOGRAPHS ON THE EVALUATION OF CARCINOGENIC ...

IARC MONOGRAPHS ON THE EVALUATION OF CARCINOGENIC ...

IARC MONOGRAPHS ON THE EVALUATION OF CARCINOGENIC ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

194<br />

<strong>IARC</strong> <strong>M<strong>ON</strong>OGRAPHS</strong> VOLUME 82<br />

aflatoxins was sometimes assessed via dietary questionnaires and sometimes via biomarker<br />

measurements. As both of these were collected after disease onset, their relevance<br />

to past lifetime intake of aflatoxins was uncertain. Beginning in the mid 1980s, some<br />

prospective cohort studies were undertaken which avoided many of the methodological<br />

limitations of earlier studies. Among the major advantages of this new generation of<br />

studies were the following: new improved biomarkers of aflatoxin exposure, improved<br />

ability to measure hepatitis infection, better comparability of cases and controls within a<br />

well defined cohort, and control of the temporal sequence by measuring exposure before<br />

disease onset.<br />

In 1992, an <strong>IARC</strong> Working Group described all relevant human studies that had been<br />

reported and concluded that there was sufficient evidence in humans for carcinogenicity<br />

of aflatoxin B 1 and of naturally-occurring mixtures of aflatoxins. The present monograph<br />

represents an update of evidence published since that evaluation was made, without<br />

describing the studies covered in the previous monograph, although brief summaries of<br />

the main studies are given in tabular format (Tables 10–12). These tables also provide<br />

summaries of the relevant studies that have been published since 1993 and which are<br />

described in the following sections. The outcome investigated in most studies was liver<br />

cancer. Different studies used different sources (e.g., death certificates, hospital<br />

registries, medical examinations) and different criteria (clinical, cytological) for definition<br />

of liver cancer. Different terms, such as liver cancer, primary liver cancer or<br />

hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were used. In the following descriptions, we have used<br />

the terminology used by the authors.<br />

2.1 Descriptive studies (see Table 10)<br />

Hatch et al. (1993) conducted a hybrid ecological cross-sectional study in eight areas<br />

of Taiwan (China), with a wide range of rates of mortality from primary hepatocellular<br />

carcinoma (HCC). In order to derive estimates of aflatoxin levels in the eight areas, they<br />

selected a representative sample of 250 adult residents in total (unequal numbers per<br />

area). Participants were interviewed and were asked to provide both morning urine and<br />

blood specimens. Serum was used for detecting hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg).<br />

Urine was used for detecting aflatoxins B 1 and G 1 and metabolites, including aflatoxins<br />

M 1 and P 1; the highest sensitivity was for aflatoxin B 1 . Measured values ranged from 0.7<br />

to 511.7 pg equivalents of aflatoxin B 1/mL of urine, with a mean of 41.3 pg/mL. Mean<br />

levels were similar in men and women, and in hepatitis B virus (HBV) carriers and HBV<br />

non-carriers. The primary analyses were carried out with individuals as the unit of<br />

analysis. In these analyses, the individual’s measurements of aflatoxin B 1 equivalents and<br />

of HBsAg were used in conjunction with the HCC rate (sex-specific, age-adjusted) of the<br />

entire area in which the individual resided. There were 246 data points for these analyses<br />

(four individuals had missing blood specimens). Some bivariate correlation coefficients<br />

and some regression analyses in which aflatoxin levels were regressed on area HCC<br />

mortality, HBsAg, age and sex were calculated. In addition, in some analyses the data

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!