Humans are frequently exposed to acrylamide, a probable human carcinogen found in commonplace sources such as most heated starchy foods or tobacco smoke. Prior evidence has shown that acrylamide causes cancer in rodents, yet epidemiological studies conducted to date are limited and, thus far, have yielded inconclusive data on association of human cancers with acrylamide exposure. In this study, we experimentally identify a novel and unique mutational signature imprinted by acrylamide through the effects of its reactive metabolite glycidamide. We next show that the glycidamide mutational signature is found in a full one-third of approximately 1600 tumor genomes corresponding to 19 human tumor types from 14 organs. The highest enrichment of the glycidamide signature was observed in the cancers of the lung (88% of the interrogated tumors), liver (73%), kidney (>70%), bile duct (57%), cervix (50%), and, to a lesser extent, additional cancer types. Overall, our study reveals an unexpectedly extensive contribution of acrylamide-associated mutagenesis to human cancers.

Background

Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.

Objectives

The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.

Discussion

We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.

Conclusions

The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.