This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lee, P.N. Articles by Thornton, A.J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Review : A Critical Commentary on Views Expressed by IARC in Relation to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer

P.N. Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd., Sutton

A.J. Thornton

Independent Consultant in Epidemiology, Portstewart, Northern Ireland, UK

When assessing epidemiological evidence for the purposes of classifying carci nogenicity, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, World Health Organisation, Lyon, France) adopt high scientific standards. The clas sification of carcinogenicity is perhaps open to question for a few agents evalu ated in monographs 39-63, but clearly aligns with the evidence summarised for the great majority. Since monograph 38 in 1986, when the evidence on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer was considered equivo cal, IARC staff and associated scientists have published numerous papers which led them to their current view that the carcinogenicity of ETS is 'well established.' The content of these papers is critically examined and is found to contain numerous limitations, including failure to report results using stan dardised indices of ETS exposure, failure to show weakening of the association over time, failure to make it clear the association with lung cancer is only for spousal smoking and does not apply for workplace exposure, failure to investi gate sources of between-study heterogeneity, failure to consider study quality adequately, failure to consider histological type, seriously inadequate consid eration of sources of bias, overstatement of biologic plausibility, and inade-. quate consideration of proof of causation. The strength of the epidemiological evidence relating ETS to lung cancer appears to be less than that for all other agents classified by IARC as having 'sufficient' evidence of carcinogenicity, and is no stronger than that for various agents with a 'limited' classification. 'Limited' evidence of carcinogenicity would appear a more appropriate classi fication for ETS.

Key Words: Environmental tobacco smoke • Lung cancer • Carcinogenicity assessment

Indoor and Built Environment, Vol. 7, No. 3, 129-145 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X9800700302


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?