国际癌症研究机构 (IARC) 专着计划组建了专家工作组，他们发布了对感兴趣的药物数据的严格审查和评估。这些全面的审查提供了一个独特的机会来确定解决分类不确定性的研究需求。 2009 年举行的多学科专家审查和研讨会确定了 20 种优先职业化学品、金属、粉尘和物理制剂的研究差距和需求，目的是促进癌症和致癌机制的流行病学研究取得进展。还描述了首要问题。在本评论中，我们回顾了 2009 年确定的 20 种优先药物的证据的当前状态。我们检查了为每种药物确定的研究建议是否得到解决以及它们对解决分类不确定性的潜在影响。我们回顾了 IARC对 20 种优先病原体进行了分类，并确定了自上次评估以来发表的主要新流行病学和人体机制研究。信息来源是已出版的已重新评估的药物专着，或者对于尚未重新评估的药物，咨询小组报告和文献检索。研究结果是根据专着证据评估过程中的最新方法学进展进行描述的。自 2009 年以来，IARC 对 20 种优先药物中的大多数进行了重新评估。9 种药物的总体致癌物分类已达到高级水平，新的癌症部位要么“足够”，要么“有限” “还确定了 9 种物质的致癌性证据。对已发表的研究结果的审查揭示了证据差距和研究建议是否已得到解决，并强调了剩余的不确定性。在过去的十年中，新的研究解决了 2009 年的一系列建议，并支持优先代理的更新分类。这支持未来系统地应用专着审查结果的努力，以确定与更新的 IARC 专着序言中建立的评估标准相关的研究差距和优先事项。 https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12547。

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs program assembles expert working groups who publish a critical review and evaluation of data on agents of interest. These comprehensive reviews provide a unique opportunity to identify research needs to address classification uncertainties. A multidisciplinary expert review and workshop held in 2009 identified research gaps and needs for 20 priority occupational chemicals, metals, dusts, and physical agents, with the goal of stimulating advances in epidemiological studies of cancer and carcinogen mechanisms. Overarching issues were also described.In this commentary we review the current status of the evidence for the 20 priority agents identified in 2009. We examine whether identified Research Recommendations for each agent were addressed and their potential impact on resolving classification uncertainties.We reviewed the IARC classifications of each of the 20 priority agents and identified major new epidemiological and human mechanistic studies published since the last evaluation. Information sources were either the published Monograph for agents that have been reevaluated or, for agents not yet reevaluated, Advisory Group reports and literature searches. Findings are described in view of recent methodological developments in Monographs evidence evaluation processes.The majority of the 20 priority agents were reevaluated by IARC since 2009. The overall carcinogen classifications of 9 agents advanced, and new cancer sites with either "sufficient" or "limited" evidence of carcinogenicity were also identified for 9 agents. Examination of published findings revealed whether evidence gaps and Research Recommendations have been addressed and highlighted remaining uncertainties. During the past decade, new research addressed a range of the 2009 recommendations and supported updated classifications for priority agents. This supports future efforts to systematically apply findings of Monograph reviews to identify research gaps and priorities relevant to evaluation criteria established in the updated IARC Monograph Preamble. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12547.