Respiration 72(4):431–446CrossRef Torres Costa J, Sá R, Cardoso MJ, Silva R, Ferreira J, Ribeiro C, Miranda M, Plácido JL, Nienhaus (2009) Tuberculosis screening in Portuguese healthcare workers using the tuberculin skin test and the Interferon-γ release assay. Eur Resp J 34:1423–1428CrossRef van Zyl-Smit R, buy MK-8669 Pai M, Peprah K, Meldau R, Meldau R, Kieck J, Juritz J, Badri M, Zumla A, Sechi LA, Bateman ED, Dheda K (2009) Within-subject variability and boosting of T-cell

Interferon-γ responses after tuberculin skin testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 180:49–58CrossRef Yoshiyama T, Harada N, Higuchi K, Nakajima Y, Ogata H (2009) Estimation of incidence of tuberculosis infection in health-care workers using repeated interferon-gamma

buy AZD3965 assays. Epidemiol Infect 1–8 Yoshiyama T, Harada N, Higuchi K, Sekiya Y, Uchimura K (2010) Use of the QuantiFERON-TB gold test for screening tuberculosis contacts and predicting active disease. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 14(7):819–827″
“Introduction An ad hoc working group at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considered dry-cleaning of textiles to entail exposures that are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B; IARC 1995a). Among these exposures, perchloroethylene (PER; also recognised as tetrachloroethylene) has been of special interest, and the substance has been upgraded from unclassifiable with regard to carcinogenic risk to humans (Group 3; IARC 1982) through possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B; IARC 1987) to probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A; IARC 1995b). In their most recent evaluation, the IARC found consistently positive associations in studies of PER-exposed cohorts for cancer of the oesophagus, cervix and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (IARC 1995b). In a similar analysis, the US National NADPH-cytochrome-c2 reductase Toxicology Program (NTP) also found PER “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” (NTP 2005). Other scientific bodies have,

however, adhered to more conservative risk estimates pertaining to PER. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) for instance has labelled PER an animal carcinogen of unknown human relevance (Group A3; ACGIH 2003), and an equally cautious position has been adopted by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (Group 3B; “a cause for concern but lack of data”; DFG 2007). In a recent critical review, Mundt et al. (2003) specifically noted the ubiquitous lack of valid exposure estimates in the epidemiological literature on PER and cancer, and they concluded that there was no epidemiological support for linking PER to cancer of any specific site. A joint Dutch-Swedish literature review found the epidemiology on PER carcinogenicity to humans inconclusive (de Raat 2003).