Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Springer Verlag
Résumé : International audience
Purpose The objective of this article was to estimate the social cost of respiratory cancer cases attributable to occupational risk factors in France in 2010. Methods According to the attributable fraction method and based on available epidemiological data from the lit- erature, we estimated the number of respiratory cancer cases due to each identified risk factor. We used the cost- of-illness method with a prevalence-based approach. We took into account the direct and indirect costs. We estimated the cost of production losses due to morbidity (absenteeism and presenteeism) and mortality costs (years of production losses) in the market and nonmarket spheres. Results The social cost of lung, larynx, sinonasal and mesothelioma cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, chromium, diesel engine exhaust, paint, crystalline silica, wood and leather dust in France in 2010 were estimated at between 917 and 2,181 million euros. Between 795 and 2,011 million euros (87-92 %) of total costs were due to lung cancer alone. Asbestos was by far the risk factor representing the greatest cost to French society in 2010 at between 531 and 1,538 million euros (58-71 %), ahead of diesel engine exhaust, representing an estimated social cost of between 233 and 336 million euros, and crystalline silica (119-229 million euros). Indirect costs represented about 66 % of total costs. Conclusion Our assessment shows the magnitude of the economic impact of occupational respiratory cancers. It allows comparisons between countries and provides valu- able information for policy-makers responsible for defining public health priorities.
ISSN: 1618-7598

halshs-00922838
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00922838
DOI : 10.1007/s10198-013-0528-6
PUBMED : 23974964

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD
Résumé : International audience
Objective: To estimate the social cost of respiratory cancers attributable to occupational risk factors in France in 2010. Methods: We estimated the number of cases ofrespiratory cancers attributable to each identified occupational risk factor according to the attributable fractions method. We also estimated direct (costs of hospital stays, drugs, outpatient care) and indirect costs (production losses) related to morbidity (absenteeism and presenteeism) and mortality (years of lost production). Production losses for paid work and unpaid domestic activities were taken into account. Results: The social cost of respiratory cancers (lung, larynx, sinonasal, pleural mesothelioma) attributable to exposure to asbestos, chromium, diesel engine exhaust, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, painting occupations (unidentified carcinogen), crystalline silica, wood and leather dust in France in 2010 was estimated to be between 960 and 1,866 million. The cost of lung cancer represents between 804 and 1,617 million. The three risk factors with the greatest impact are asbestos ((sic)530 to 890 million), diesel engine exhaust ((sic)227 to 394 million), and crystalline silica ( 116 to 268 million). Conclusion: These results provide a conservative estimate of the public health and economic burden of respiratory cancers attributable to occupational risk factors from a societal perspective.
ISSN: 0995-3914

hal-01659246
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01659246
DOI : 10.3917/spub.174.0509
PUBMED : 29034666

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Landes Bioscience
Résumé : International audience
In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
Autophagy

hal-00735751
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00735751
PUBMED : 22966490