Cancer is now widely recognized as a global problem that unfortunately lacks a global solution. The latest United Nations high-level meeting on noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) exemplified this conundrum.¹ Despite global commitment to reducing the risk of and disability from NCDs, including cancer, implementation of known solutions is inadequate to reach the 2011 Political Declaration on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases^2,3 (25% reduction in premature mortality from NCDs by 2025) and the third Sustainable Development Goal (by 2030 reduce by one-third premature mortality from NCDs through prevention and treatment, and promote mental health and well-being).⁴ To reduce cancer burden, identifying the scope of the problem and mapping out implementation of solutions is best done in National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs). However, a recent review showed that only 29% of low-income countries had a NCCP, and even if NCCPs existed, cost, financing, monitoring, and expansion of information systems was often inadequate. Many highly effective prevention and treatment strategies exist for cancer. However, they are often very specific (eg, vaccination for human papillomavirus and hepatitis B virus for prevention of cervical and liver cancer, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors for cancers with targetable mutations). Effective NCCPs therefore require detailed knowledge about the local burden of cancer and associated risk factors. We herein present results from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study describing cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 195 countries from 1990 through 2017, which can inform cancer control through policy, resource allocation, and health system planning.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from CVD that are attributable to occupational exposure to noise, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85 dBA), compared with no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85 dBA), on the prevalence, incidence and mortality of ischaemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, and hypertension. A protocol was developed and published, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies up to 1 April 2019, including International Trials Register, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science, and CISDOC. The MEDLINE and Pubmed searches were updated on 31 January 2020. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any occupational exposure to noise on CVD prevalence, incidence or mortality, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (<85 dBA). At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We prioritized evidence from cohort studies and combined relative risk estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. To assess the robustness of findings, we conducted sensitivity analyses (leave-one-out meta-analysis and used as alternative fixed effects and inverse-variance heterogeneity estimators). At least two review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide tools and approaches adapted to this project. Seventeen studies (11 cohort studies, six case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 534,688 participants (39,947 or 7.47% females) in 11 countries in three WHO regions (the Americas, Europe, and the Western Pacific). The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter and/or official or company records. The outcome was most commonly assessed using health records. We are very uncertain (low quality of evidence) about the effect of occupational exposure to noise (≥85 dBA), compared with no occupational exposure to noise (<85 dBA), on: having IHD (0 studies); acquiring IHD (relative risk (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15 to 1.43, two studies, 11,758 participants, I² 0%); dying from IHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14, four studies, 198,926 participants, I² 26%); having stroke (0 studies); acquiring stroke (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.82-1.65, two studies, 170,000 participants, I² 0%); dying from stroke (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93-1.12, three studies, 195,539 participants, I² 0%); having hypertension (0 studies); acquiring hypertension (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28, three studies, four estimates, 147,820 participants, I² 52%); and dying from hypertension (0 studies). Data for subgroup analyses were missing. Sensitivity analyses supported the main analyses. For acquiring IHD, we judged the existing body of evidence from human data to provide "limited evidence of harmfulness"; a positive relationship is observed between exposure and outcome where chance, bias, and confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence. For all other included outcomes, the bodies of evidence were judged as "inadequate evidence of harmfulness". Producing estimates for the burden of CVD attributable to occupational exposure to noise appears to not be evidence-based at this time. 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040. CRD42018092272.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust. At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis. Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies. The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41-43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23-25, 27, 31-32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I² 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I² 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I² 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m³ (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I² 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level). For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I² 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23-24, 29-30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels). For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I² 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m³ (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I² 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m³ (95% CI -6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence). Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers' population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084131.

The purpose of the study was to describe the variation of bladder cancer incidence according to occupational categories in the Nordic countries. The study cohort comprised 15 million individuals older than 30 years who participated in one or more population censuses in 1960, 1970, 1980/1981, and/or 1990. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were estimated for 53 occupational categories. Significantly increased SIRs were observed among tobacco workers (1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24 to 1.96), chimney sweeps (1.48; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.80), waiters (1.43; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.53), hairdressers (1.28; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.40), seamen (1.22; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.30), printers (1.21; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.30), and plumbers (1.20; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.30). A significantly decreased risk of bladder cancer was observed among gardeners (0.78, 0.75 to 0.80), forestry workers (0.74; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.78), and farmers (0.70; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.71). The SIR of bladder cancer was overall similar across the Nordic countries. The study suggests that occupation is evidently associated with bladder cancer risk.

Objectives The objective of this study was to compare occupational variation of the risk of bladder cancer in the Nordic countries and Canada. Methods In the Nordic Occupational Cancer study (NOCCA), 73 653 bladder cancer cases were observed during follow-up of 141.6 million person-years. In the Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC), 8170 cases were observed during the follow-up of 36.7 million person-years. Standardised incidence ratios with 95% CI were estimated for 53 occupations in the NOCCA cohort and HR with 95% CIs were estimated for 42 occupations in the CanCHEC. Results Elevated risks of bladder cancer were observed among hairdressers, printers, sales workers, plumbers, painters, miners and laundry workers. Teachers and agricultural workers had reduced risk of bladder cancer in both cohorts. Chimney-sweeps, tobacco workers and waiters had about 1.5-fold risk in the Nordic countries; no risk estimates for these categories were given from the CanCHEC cohort. Conclusion We observed different occupational patterns in risk of bladder cancer in Nordic countries and Canada. The only occupation with similarly increased risk was observed among sales workers. Differences in smoking across occupational groups may explain some, but not all, of this variation.