Leukemia is the most common type of cancer among children and adolescents worldwide. The aim of this umbrella review was (1) to provide a synthesis of the environmental risk factors for the onset of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) by exposure window, (2) evaluate their strength of evidence and magnitude of risk, and as an example (3) estimate the prevalence in the German population, which determines the relevance at the population level. Relevant systematic reviews and pooled analyses were identified and retrieved through PubMed, Web of Science databases and lists of references. Only two risk factors (low doses of ionizing radiation in early childhood and general pesticide exposure during maternal preconception/pregnancy) were convincingly associated with childhood ALL. Other risk factors including extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF-MF), living in proximity to nuclear facilities, petroleum, benzene, solvent, and domestic paint exposure during early childhood, all showed some level of evidence of association. Maternal consumption of coffee (high consumption/>2 cups/day) and cola (high consumption) during pregnancy, paternal smoking during the pregnancy of the index child, maternal intake of fertility treatment, high birth weight (≥4000 g) and caesarean delivery were also found to have some level of evidence of association. Maternal folic acid and vitamins intake, breastfeeding (≥6 months) and day-care attendance, were inversely associated with childhood ALL with some evidence. The results of this umbrella review should be interpreted with caution; as the evidence stems almost exclusively from case-control studies, where selection and recall bias are potential concerns, and whether the empirically observed association reflect causal relationships remains an open question. Hence, improved exposure assessment methods including accurate and reliable measurement, probing questions and better interview techniques are required to establish causative risk factors of childhood leukemia, which is needed for the ultimate goal of primary prevention.

Antibodies against HPV16 early proteins have been shown to be promising biomarkers for the identification of HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC) among OPC cases in multiple studies. A systematic literature search was performed to identify original research articles comparing HPV early antigen serology with established reference methods to determine molecular HPV tumor status. Random-effects models were used to calculate summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity of HPV16 E2, E6 and E7 serology for HPV-OPC. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity across studies and describe variables associated with test performance. We identified n = 23 studies meeting all eligibility criteria and included these in the meta-analysis. E6 serology showed the best performance with pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates of 83.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72.5–90.2%) and 94.6% (95% CI 89.0–97.4%), respectively, while E2 and E7 serological assays were highly specific (E2: 92.5% (95% CI 79.1–97.6%); E7: 88.5% (95% CI 77.9–94.4%)) but moderately sensitive (E2: 67.8% (95% CI 58.9–75.6%); E7: 67.0% (95% CI 63.2–70.6%)). Subgroup analyses revealed increased pooled sensitivity for bacterially (89.9% (95% CI 84.5–93.6%)) vs. in vitro expressed E6 antigen (55.3% (95% CI 41.0–68.7%)), while both showed high specificity (95.2% (95% CI 93.0–96.7%) and 91.1% (95% CI 46.6–99.2%), respectively). Pooled specificity estimates for HPV16 E2, E6 and E7 serology were significantly lower in studies utilizing HPV DNA PCR as the only molecular reference method compared to those using a combination of any two reference methods (HPV DNA, RNA, in situ hybridization (ISH), p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC)), or histopathological reference methods (ISH or p16 IHC) as stand-alone marker. In conclusion, HPV16 E6 seropositivity is a highly sensitive and specific biomarker for HPV-OPC. However, its performance differs between serological assays and depends on molecular reference methods.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has an ongoing project to assess potential health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in the general and working population. Here we present the protocol for a systematic review of the scientific literature on cancer hazards from exposure to RF-EMF in humans, commissioned by the WHO as part of that project. To assess the quality and strength of the evidence provided by human observational studies for a causal association between exposure to RF-EMF and risk of neoplastic diseases. We will include cohort and case-control studies investigating neoplasia risks in relation to three types of exposure to RF-EMF: near-field, head-localized, exposure from wireless phone use (SR-A); far-field, whole body, environmental exposure from fixed-site transmitters (SR-B); near/far-field occupational exposures from use of handheld transceivers or RF-emitting equipment in the workplace (SR-C). While no restriction on tumour type will be applied, we will focus on selected neoplasms of the central nervous system (brain, meninges, pituitary gland, acoustic nerve) and salivary gland tumours (SR-A); brain tumours and leukaemias (SR-B, SR-C). Eligible studies will be identified through Medline, Embase, and EMF-Portal. We will use a tailored version of the OHAT's tool to evaluate the study's internal validity. We will consider separately studies on different tumours, neoplasm-specific risks from different exposure sources, and a given exposure-outcome pair in adults and children. When a quantitative synthesis of findings can be envisaged, the main aims of the meta-analysis will be to assess the strength of association and the shape of the exposure–response relationship; to quantify the degree of heterogeneity across studies; and explore the sources of inconsistency (if any). When a meta-analysis is judged inappropriate, we will perform a narrative synthesis, complemented by a structured tabulation of results and appropriate visual displays. Confidence in evidence will be assessed in line with the GRADE approach. This project is supported by the World Health Organization. Co-financing was provided by the New Zealand Ministry of Health; the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in its capacity as a WHO Collaborating Centre for Radiation and Health; ARPANSA as a WHO Collaborating Centre for Radiation Protection. PROSPERO CRD42021236798.

The evolution of emerging technologies that use Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) has increased the interest of the scientific community and society regarding the possible adverse effects on human health and the environment. This article provides NextGEM’s vision to assure safety for EU citizens when employing existing and future EMF-based telecommunication technologies. This is accomplished by generating relevant knowledge that ascertains appropriate prevention and control/actuation actions regarding RF-EMF exposure in residential, public, and occupational settings. Fulfilling this vision, NextGEM commits to the need for a healthy living and working environment under safe RF-EMF exposure conditions that can be trusted by people and be in line with the regulations and laws developed by public authorities. NextGEM provides a framework for generating health-relevant scientific knowledge and data on new scenarios of exposure to RF-EMF in multiple frequency bands and developing and validating tools for evidence-based risk assessment. Finally, NextGEM’s Innovation and Knowledge Hub (NIKH) will offer a standardized way for European regulatory authorities and the scientific community to store and assess project outcomes and provide access to findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) data.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) was identified as a risk factor for long-term cardiac effects in breast cancer patients treated until the 1990s. However, modern techniques reduce radiation exposure of the heart, but some exposure remains unavoidable. In a retrospective cohort study, we investigated cardiac mortality and morbidity of breast cancer survivors treated with recent RT in Germany. Methods: A total of 11,982 breast cancer patients treated between 1998 and 2008 were included. A mortality follow-up was conducted until 06/2018. In order to assess cardiac morbidity occurring after breast cancer treatment, a questionnaire was sent out in 2014 and 2019. The effect of breast cancer laterality on cardiac mortality and morbidity was investigated as a proxy for radiation exposure. We used Cox Proportional Hazards regression analysis, taking potential confounders into account. Results: After a median follow-up time of 11.1 years, there was no significant association of tumor laterality with cardiac mortality in irradiated patients (hazard ratio (HR) for left-sided versus right-sided tumor 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85–1.41). Furthermore, tumor laterality was not identified as a significant risk factor for cardiac morbidity (HR = 1.05; 95%CI 0.88–1.25). Conclusions: Even though RT for left-sided breast cancer on average incurs higher radiation dose to the heart than RT for right-sided tumors, we found no evidence that laterality is a strong risk factor for cardiac disease after contemporary RT. However, larger sample sizes, longer follow-up, detailed information on individual risk factors and heart dose are needed to assess clinically manifest late effects of current cancer therapy.