Exposure-Response Analyses of Asbestos and Lung Cancer Subtypes in a Pooled Analysis of Case-Control Studies.
Average rating
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Star rating
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Authors
Olsson, Ann CVermeulen, Roel
Schüz, Joachim
Kromhout, Hans
Pesch, Beate
Peters, Susan
Behrens, Thomas
Portengen, Lützen
Mirabelli, Dario
Gustavsson, Per
Kendzia, Benjamin
Almansa, Josue
Luzon, Veronique
Vlaanderen, Jelle
Stücker, Isabelle
Guida, Florence
Consonni, Dario
Caporaso, Neil
Landi, Maria Teresa
Field, John
Brüske, Irene
Wichmann, Heinz-Erich
Siemiatycki, Jack
Parent, Marie-Elise
Richiardi, Lorenzo
Merletti, Franco
Jöckel, Karl-Heinz
Ahrens, Wolfgang
Pohlabeln, Hermann
Plato, Nils
Tardón, Adonina
Zaridze, David
McLaughlin, John
Demers, Paul
Szeszenia-Dabrowska, Neonila
Lissowska, Jolanta
Rudnai, Peter
Fabianova, Eleonora
Stanescu Dumitru, Rodica
Bencko, Vladimir
Foretova, Lenka
Janout, Vladimir
Boffetta, Paolo
Bueno-de-Mesquita, Bas
Forastiere, Francesco
Brüning, Thomas
Straif, Kurt
Issue Date
2017-03
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Evidence is limited regarding risk and the shape of the exposure-response curve at low asbestos exposure levels. We estimated the exposure-response for occupational asbestos exposure and assessed the joint effect of asbestos exposure and smoking by sex and lung cancer subtype in general population studies.We pooled 14 case-control studies conducted in 1985-2010 in Europe and Canada, including 17,705 lung cancer cases and 21,813 controls with detailed information on tobacco habits and lifetime occupations. We developed a quantitative job-exposure-matrix to estimate job-, time period-, and region-specific exposure levels. Fiber-years (ff/ml-years) were calculated for each subject by linking the matrix with individual occupational histories. We fit unconditional logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and trends.
The fully adjusted OR for ever-exposure to asbestos was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.18, 1.31) in men and 1.12 (95% CI, 0.95, 1.31) in women. In men, increasing lung cancer risk was observed with increasing exposure in all smoking categories and for all three major lung cancer subtypes. In women, lung cancer risk for all subtypes was increased in current smokers (ORs ~two-fold). The joint effect of asbestos exposure and smoking did not deviate from multiplicativity among men, and was more than additive among women.
Our results in men showed an excess risk of lung cancer and its subtypes at low cumulative exposure levels, with a steeper exposure-response slope in this exposure range than at higher, previously studied levels. (See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B161.).
Citation
Epidemiology 2017, 28 (2):288-299Journal
Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)PubMed ID
28141674Additional Links
http://journals.lww.com/epidem/fulltext/2017/03000/Exposure_Response_Analyses_of_Asbestos_and_Lung.19.aspxType
ArticleLanguage
enISSN
1531-5487ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1097/EDE.0000000000000604
Scopus Count
Collections
The following license files are associated with this item:
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Archived with thanks to Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)