Research recommendations for selected IARC-classified agents: impact and lessons learned

Turner, Michelle C.; Cogliano, Vincent; Guyton, Kathryn; Madia, Federica; Straif, Kurt; Ward, Elizabeth M.; Schubauer-Berigan, Mary K.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP12547

Research recommendations for selected IARC-classified agents: impact and lessons learned

Citation

Turner MC, Cogliano V, Guyton K, Madia F, Straif K, Ward EM, Schubauer-Berigan MK. Research recommendations for selected IARC-classified agents: impact and lessons learned. Environ Health Perspect. 2023 Oct;131(10):105001. DOI: 10.1289/EHP12547

Abstract

Background: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs program assembles expert working groups who publish a critical review and evaluation of data on agents of interest. These comprehensive reviews provide a unique opportunity to identify research needs to address classification uncertainties. A multidisciplinary expert review and workshop held in 2009 identified research gaps and needs for 20 priority occupational chemicals, metals, dusts, and physical agents, with the goal of stimulating advances in epidemiological studies of cancer and carcinogen mechanisms. Overarching issues were also described. Objectives: In this commentary we review the current status of the evidence for the 20 priority agents identified in 2009. We examine whether identified Research Recommendations for each agent were addressed and their potential impact on resolving classification uncertainties. Methods: We reviewed the IARC classifications of each of the 20 priority agents and identified major new epidemiological and human mechanistic studies published since the last evaluation. Information sources were either the published Monograph for agents that have been reevaluated or, for agents not yet reevaluated, Advisory Group reports and literature searches. Findings are described in view of recent methodological developments in Monographs evidence evaluation processes. Discussion: The majority of the 20 priority agents were reevaluated by IARC since 2009. The overall carcinogen classifications of 9 agents advanced, and new cancer sites with either "sufficient" or "limited" evidence of carcinogenicity were also identified for 9 agents. Examination of published findings revealed whether evidence gaps and Research Recommendations have been addressed and highlighted remaining uncertainties. During the past decade, new research addressed a range of the 2009 recommendations and supported updated classifications for priority agents. This supports future efforts to systematically apply findings of Monograph reviews to identify research gaps and priorities relevant to evaluation criteria established in the updated IARC Monograph Preamble. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12547.