Search

Melanoma is mainly caused by sunlight radiation, but other environmental risk factors are not well known. We investigated the association between cutaneous melanoma and occupational exposure to arsenic, mercury and UV radiation.A hospital-based case-control study was conducted in the inpatient wards of IDI-San Carlo Rome, Italy, including 304 incident cases of cutaneous melanoma and 305 frequency-matched controls. Detailed sociodemographic, clinical and host-related factors were collected, and all participants were physically examined using dermoscopy and following standard protocol for recording pigmented lesions. Four experts assessed exposure to arsenic, mercury and UV radiation based on occupational history. A multidimensional variable was created for each risk factor, by combining intensity and probability of exposure. Multivariable logistic regression models were run to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the association between exposure to these agents and melanoma.A total of 5.4% of the cases vs 2.4% of the controls were exposed to arsenic (OR = 3.12; 95% CI = 1.10-8.86 for high probability and high exposure to arsenic) after controlling for sex, age, smoking status, number of nevi, phototype and history of sunburns in childhood/adolescence. Occupational exposure to mercury and UV radiation was not associated with the risk of melanoma.Subjects exposed to arsenic at the workplace may be at increased risk of developing cutaneous melanoma in comparison to subjects not exposed to this agent. Further studies should be designed to investigate occupational exposure to arsenic and mercury and melanoma and confirm the findings are warranted.

Characterizing immunological response following COVID-19 vaccination is an important public health issue. The objectives of the present analysis were to investigate the proportion, level and the determinants of humoral response from 21 days to three months after the first dose in vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs).We abstracted data on level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies (IgG) and sociodemographic characteristics of 17,257 HCWs from public hospitals and public health authorities from three centers in Northern Italy who underwent COVID-19 vaccination (average 70.6 days after first dose). We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models and combined them using random-effects meta-analyses.A humoral response was elicited in 99.3% of vaccinated HCW. Female sex, young age, and previous COVID-19 infection were predictors of post-vaccination antibody level, and a positive association was also detected with pre-vaccination serology level and with time between pre- and post-vaccination testing, while a decline of antibody level was suggested with time since vaccination.These results stress the importance of analyzing retrospective data collected via occupational health surveillance of HCWs during the COVID-19 epidemic and following vaccination. They need to be confirmed in larger series based on prospectively collected data.

BackgroundSince the beginning of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic, cancer patients affected by COVID-19 have been reported to experience poor prognosis; however, a detailed quantification of the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on outcome of unvaccinated cancer patients has not been performed.MethodsTo carry out a systematic review of the studies on outcome of unvaccinated cancer patients infected by Sars-Cov-2, a search string was devised which was used to identify relevant publications in PubMed up to December 31, 2020. We selected three outcomes: mortality, access to ICU, and COVID-19 severity or hospitalization. We considered results for all cancers combined as well as for specific cancers. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses of the results, overall and after stratification by region. We also performed sensitivity analyses according to quality score and assessed publication bias.ResultsFor all cancer combined, the pooled odds ratio (OR) for mortality was 2.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.94, I2 for heterogeneity 90.1%, 24 studies), that for ICU admission was 2.39 (95% CI 1.90-3.02, I2 0.0%, 5 studies), that for disease severity or hospitalization was 2.08 (95% CI 1.60-2.72, I2 92.1%, 15 studies). The pooled mortality OR for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI 1.87-2.44, I2 20.8%, 8 studies). Data were insufficient to perform a meta-analysis for other cancers. In the mortality meta-analysis for all cancers, the pooled OR was higher for studies conducted in Asia than studies conducted in Europe or North America. There was no evidence of publication bias.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis indicate a two-fold increased risk of adverse outcomes (mortality, ICU admission and severity of COVID-19) in unvaccinated cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared to uninfected patients. These results should be compared with studies conducted in vaccinated patients; nonetheless, they argue for special effort to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer.FundingNo external funding was obtained.

Limited information is available on carcinogenicity of asbestos on non-respiratory organs. We aimed at conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies on occupational exposure to asbestos and risk of kidney cancer. We searched through three databases, PubMed, Embase and Scopus for article published after 2000, and after eliminating duplicates and non-relevant studies, we identified 13 studies. We combined their results with those of 31 non-overlapping studies included in a previous review up to 2000. We conducted a meta-analysis based on random-effects models. The pooled relative risk of kidney cancer for asbestos exposure was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.84–1.04), with no differences according to type of asbestos fiber, geographic region, period of exposure, or estimated quality of the study. Our results showed a lack of association between occupational asbestos exposure and risk of kidney cancer. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10654-021-00769-x.

Background: Limited information is available on prevalence and determinants of serologic response to SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We analyzed the results of serologic testing with chemiluminescence immunoassay analyzer (CLIA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test among 544 HCWs with at least one positive RT-PCR test and 157 HCWs with Covid-19 related symptoms without a positive RT-PCR test from public hospitals in Bologna, Northern Italy. Tests were performed between March and August 2020. We fitted multivariate logistic regression models to identify determinants of positive serology. Results: The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 was 75.2% (LFIA) and 90.6% (CLIA). No differences in seropositivity were observed by sex, while older HCWs had higher positivity than other groups, and nurses had higher positivity compared to physicians, but not other HCWs. An estimated 73.4% of HCWs with Covid-19 symptoms without RT-PCR test were not infected with SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions: Our study provides the best available data on sensitivity of serologic tests and on determinants of serologic response among HCWs positive for SARS-CoV-2, and provide evidence on the low specificity of Covid-19 related symptoms to identify infected HCWs.

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic in Italy has been characterized by three waves of infection during 2020. Vaccination of healthcare workers started in January 2021, earlier than that of other population groups. The main aim of this study is to compare the spread of the pandemic between HCW and the general population focusing on potential effects of the vaccination. Methods: The study consisted of a retrospective analysis of results of RT-PCR tests performed between 6 March 2020 and 4 April 2021 among HCWs from Bologna, Italy, and those of the general population of Emilia Romagna region. We calculated the crude proportion of positive RT-PCR tests over total tests and the crude prevalence of positive test in population; then, we conducted joinpoint analyses using the Joinpoint Regression Program of the National Cancer Institute. Results: The results of the joinpoint analysis show that both φ and ψ ratio indicators have a similar pattern, with a sharp increase during the early phase of the pandemic, and a strong decrease at the end of the first wave around week 15. In both indicators there are no significant changes in the trend after week 25. Pandemic spread among HCWs appeared earlier than in the general population, but it otherwise appeared to have comparable features. A decline in infection was apparent among HCWs after vaccination. Conclusions: Surveillance of HCWs would inform on the epidemic in the general population. The apparent effectiveness of the anti-SarsCoV2 vaccine will likely occur in the general population.

BackgroundLimited information is available on prevalence and determinants of serologic response to SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs).MethodsWe analyzed the results of serologic testing with chemiluminescence immunoassay analyzer (CLIA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test among 544 HCWs with at least one positive RT-PCR test and 157 HCWs with Covid-19 related symptoms without a positive RT-PCR test from public hospitals in Bologna, Northern Italy. Tests were performed between March and August 2020. We fitted multivariate logistic regression models to identify determinants of positive serology.ResultsThe sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 was 75.2% (LFIA) and 90.6% (CLIA). No differences in seropositivity were observed by sex, while older HCWs had higher positivity than other groups, and nurses had higher positivity compared to physicians, but not other HCWs. An estimated 73.4% of HCWs with Covid-19 symptoms without RT-PCR test were not infected with SARS-CoV-2.ConclusionsOur study provides the best available data on sensitivity of serologic tests and on determinants of serologic response among HCWs positive for SARS-CoV-2, and provide evidence on the low specificity of Covid-19 related symptoms to identify infected HCWs.SummaryThe sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow immunoassay serology in healthcare workers (HCWs) was 75.2%. Older HCWs and nurses had higher positivity than other groups. An estimated 73.4% of HCWs with Covid-19 symptoms without RT-PCR test were not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The study examined whether the Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood, Revised Edition (DC: 0-3R; ZERO TO THREE, 2005) Parent-Infant Relationship Global Assessment Scale (PIR-GAS) is applicable to six European countries and contributes to the identification of caregiver-infant/toddler dyads with abusive relationship patterns. The sample consisted of 115 dyads with children's ages ranging from 1 to 47 months. Sixty-four dyads were recruited from community settings without known violence problems, and 51 dyads were recruited from clinical settings and already had been identified with violence problems or as being at risk for violence problems. To classify the dyads on the PIR-GAS categories, caregiver-child interactions were video-recorded and coded with observational scales appropriate for child age. To test whether the PIR-GAS allows for reliable identification of dyads with abusive relationship patterns, PIR-GAS ratings were compared with scores on the the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect's (ISPCAN) Child Abuse Screening Tool-Parental Version (ICAST-P; D.K. Runyan et al., ), a questionnaire measuring abusive parental disciplinary practices. It was found that PIR-GAS ratings differentiated between the general and the clinical sample, and the dyads with abusive patterns of relationship were identified by both the PIR-GAS and the ICAST-P. Interrater reliability for the PIR-GAS ranged from moderate to excellent. The value of a broader use of tools such as the DC: 0-3R to promote early identification of families at risk for infant and toddler abuse and neglect is discussed.

The study examined whether the Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood, Revised Edition (DC: 0-3R; ZERO TO THREE, 2005) Parent-Infant Relationship Global Assessment Scale (PIR-GAS) is applicable to six European countries and contributes to the identification of caregiver-infant/toddler dyads with abusive relationship patterns. The sample consisted of 115 dyads with children's ages ranging from 1 to 47 months. Sixty-four dyads were recruited from community settings without known violence problems, and 51 dyads were recruited from clinical settings and already had been identified with violence problems or as being at risk for violence problems. To classify the dyads on the PIR-GAS categories, caregiver-child interactions were video-recorded and coded with observational scales appropriate for child age. To test whether the PIR-GAS allows for reliable identification of dyads with abusive relationship patterns, PIR-GAS ratings were compared with scores on the the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect's (ISPCAN) Child Abuse Screening Tool-Parental Version (ICAST-P; D.K. Runyan et al., ), a questionnaire measuring abusive parental disciplinary practices. It was found that PIR-GAS ratings differentiated between the general and the clinical sample, and the dyads with abusive patterns of relationship were identified by both the PIR-GAS and the ICAST-P. Interrater reliability for the PIR-GAS ranged from moderate to excellent. The value of a broader use of tools such as the DC: 0-3R to promote early identification of families at risk for infant and toddler abuse and neglect is discussed.