Approaches for the setting of occupational exposure limits (OELs) for carcinogens.

Non-threshold carcinogen hallmarks of cancer hazard identification low-dose extrapolation mode of action (MoA) occupational exposure limit risk assessment text mining-assisted literature search

Journal

Critical reviews in toxicology
ISSN: 1547-6898
Titre abrégé: Crit Rev Toxicol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8914275

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2023
Historique:
medline: 12 7 2023
pubmed: 27 6 2023
entrez: 27 6 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

This article addresses issues of importance for occupational exposure limits (OELs) and chemical carcinogens with a focus on non-threshold carcinogens. It comprises scientific as well as regulatory issues. It is an overview, not a comprehensive review. A central topic is mechanistic research and insights, and its implications for cancer risk assessment. Alongside scientific advancements, the approaches of hazard identification and qualitative and quantitative risk assessment have developed over the years. The key steps in a quantitative risk assessment are outlined, with special attention given to the dose-response assessment and the derivation of an OEL using risk calculations or default assessment factors. The work procedures of several bodies performing cancer hazard identifications and quantitative risk assessments, as well as regulatory procedures to derive OELs for non-threshold carcinogens, are presented. Non-threshold carcinogens for which the European Union (EU) introduced binding OELs in 2017-2019 serve as illustrations together with some currently used strategies in the EU and elsewhere. Available knowledge supports the derivation of health-based OELs (Hb-OELs) for non-threshold carcinogens, and the use of a risk-based approach with low-dose linear extrapolation (linear non-threshold, LNT) as the default for non-threshold carcinogens. However, there is a need to develop methods that allow recent years' advances in cancer research to be used for improving risk estimates. It is recommended that defined risk levels (terminology and numerical values) are harmonised, and that both collective and individual risks are considered and clearly communicated. Socioeconomic aspects should be dealt with transparently and separated from the scientific health risk assessment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37366107
doi: 10.1080/10408444.2023.2218887
doi:

Substances chimiques

Carcinogens 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

131-167

Auteurs

Johan Högberg (J)

Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Jill Järnberg (J)

Swedish Work Environment Authority, Solna, Sweden.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH