Mirabelli Dario
Epidemiologia dei tumori, Università di Torino e CPO Piemonte, Torino, Italia.
Epidemiol Prev. 2009 Jul-Oct;33(4-5 Suppl 2):74-8.
The persistence of exposure to carcinogens at work in member States of the European union and in other industrialised countries has been repeatedly reported, and prompts for the epidemiologic assessment of trends in cancer risk according to changes in exposure distribution. Epidemiological evidence of risk reduction could be produced for all agents classified by the International agency for cancer research as Group 1 agents (human carcinogens). However, such evidence is available only for a much more limited number of agents. Benzene and asbestos are used as case-studies, given the very large number of epidemiological studies conducted on populations exposed to them. Only five studies assessed cancer risk after exposure cessation, and in four of them cessation was due to dismission of the industrial activities rather than to the introduction of industrial hygiene measures. The bases for assessment of effectiveness in the field of occupational (and environmental) prevention differ from those of evidence-based medicine. The burden of proof should be on the employer to demonstrate that a given industry can be operated safely; once evidences of adverse effects have been found, that should be per se sufficient to enforce strict control of exposures. From a methodological point of view, it would be either impossible or unethical to conduct controlled trials to assess effectiveness, and in general the highest level of evidence that can be reasonably achieved is that provided by observational studies.
欧盟成员国及其他工业化国家中,工作人员持续暴露于职业致癌物的情况屡有报道,这促使人们根据暴露分布的变化对癌症风险趋势进行流行病学评估。对于国际癌症研究机构归类为第1组致癌物(人类致癌物)的所有致癌物而言,都有可能获得风险降低的流行病学证据。然而,此类证据仅适用于数量有限得多的致癌物。鉴于针对接触苯和石棉人群开展了大量流行病学研究,故将苯和石棉用作案例研究。仅有五项研究评估了接触停止后的癌症风险,其中四项研究中接触停止是由于工业活动停止,而非采取了工业卫生措施。职业(及环境)预防领域的有效性评估依据与循证医学不同。举证责任应由雇主承担,以证明特定行业能够安全运营;一旦发现有不良影响的证据,本身就应足以强制严格控制暴露。从方法学角度来看,进行对照试验来评估有效性要么不可能,要么不道德,一般来说,能够合理获得的最高证据水平是观察性研究提供的证据水平。