4.5 Article

Exposure-response relationship between lung cancer and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Journal

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
Volume 66, Issue 11, Pages 740-746

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oem.2008.043711

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Alcan aluminium smelters

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To estimate the exposure-response function associating polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) exposure and lung cancer, with consideration of smoking. Methods: Mortality, occupational exposure and smoking histories were ascertained for a cohort of 16 431 persons (15 703 men and 728 women) who had worked in one of four aluminium smelters in Quebec from 1950 to 1999. A variety of exposure-response functions were fitted to the cohort data using generalised relative risk models. Results: In 677 lung cancer cases there was a clear trend of increasing risk with increasing cumulative exposure to PAH measured as benzo(a) pyrene (BaP). A linear model predicted a relative risk of 1.35 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.51) at 100 mu g/m(-3) BaP years, but there was a significant departure from linearity in the direction of decreasing slope with increasing exposures. Among the models tried, the best fitting were a two-knot cubic spline and a power curve (RR=(1+bx)(p)), the latter predicting a relative risk of 2.68 at 100 mu g/m(-3) BaP years. Additive models and multiplicative models for combining risks from occupational PAH and smoking fitted almost equally well, with a slight advantage to the additive. Conclusion: Despite the large cohort with long follow-up, the shape of the exposure-response function and the mode of combination of risks due to occupational PAH and smoking remains uncertain. If a linear exposure-response function is assumed, the estimated slope is broadly in line with the estimate from a previous follow-up of the same cohort, and somewhat higher than the average found in a recent meta-analysis of lung cancer studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available