첨부파일은 영국의 Industrial Injuries Advisory Council Information Note에서 2015년 2월에 작성하였습니다.
1. Following a request from the Asbestos Victims Support Groups’ Forum, the Council has reviewed the possible associations between asbestos exposure and non-lung cancers. The request was prompted by the publication of Monograph 100c by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The monograph addresses the risks of a wide variety of cancers and concludes (p.294) that there is sufficient evidence in humans that asbestos causes mesothelioma and cancer of the lung, larynx, and ovary; while positive associations have been observed for cancers in other sites, IARC did not consider the available evidence strong enough for asbestos to be classified as a probable cause of these health end-points.
2. Since mesothelioma and lung cancer from work with asbestos are already prescribed within the Scheme, the Council has restricted attention to cancers of the larynx and ovary. This report summarises the available evidence and the Council’s views on prescription.
아래 내용은 영국에서는 석면노출과 후두암과의 관련성을 보기에는 충분한 근거가 없다, 라는 내용입니다.
On the basis of this review and the body of evidence previously considered the Council has concluded, as it did in 2009, that the evidence of a doubling of risk of laryngeal cancer associated with asbestos exposure remains inconsistent. While some studies denote higher risks, perhaps in more highly exposed workers, such reports are generally based on small numbers of cases with little or no information on the levels of exposure that would incur such a risk; several studies relate to exposures that would not be incurred in the UK. Thus, the Council continues to believe that the evidence is not sufficiently robust, compelling and detailed to recommend prescription.
아래 내용은 난소암의 경우 복막중피종을 오인해서 진단하는 경우가 많았으며, 석면방직 공장처럼 고농도의 석면노출과 같은 케이스에서만 발생되었음. 석면노출과 관련하여 난소암에 대한 처방은 권고하지 않는다, 입니다.
On the basis of the evidence summarised here, the Council has concluded that exposures to asbestos probably increase the risk of ovarian cancer and may do so by more than two-fold if very high. One uncertainty in the evidence base, however, is the extent to which risks have been overestimated by misdiagnosing cases of peritoneal mesothelioma as ovarian cancer. Furthermore, considering the case for prescription in British populations, only workers in asbestos textiles would now stand to benefit from prescription (given the time elapsed since the studies by Acheson et al.,1982 and Wignall et al., 1982), and the case in textile workers is supported only by one study (Berry et al., 2000) in which the circumstances of ‘severe’ exposure are insufficiently defined to enable an occupational prescription to be defined. The Council does not therefore recommend prescription for cancer of the ovary in relation to asbestos exposure.