4.2 Article

Ten-Year Cancer Incidence in Rescue/Recovery Workers and Civilians Exposed to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE
Volume 59, Issue 9, Pages 709-721

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.22638

Keywords

cancer incidence; environmental exposure; World Trade Center; September 11 attacks

Funding

  1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [5U50/OH009739]
  2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), CDC [U50/ATU272750]
  3. National Center for Environmental Health, CDC
  4. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYC DOHMH)
  5. New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Cancer incidence in exposed rescue/recovery workers (RRWs) and civilians (non-RRWs) was previously reported through 2008. Methods We studied occurrence of first primary cancer among World Trade Center Health Registry enrollees through 2011 using adjusted standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), and the WTC-exposure-cancer association, using Cox proportional hazards models. Results All-cancer SIR was 1.11 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.20) in RRWs, and 1.08 (95% CI 1.02-1.15) in non-RRWs. Prostate cancer and skin melanoma were significantly elevated in both populations. Thyroid cancer was significantly elevated only in RRWs while breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were significantly elevated only in non-RRWs. There was a significant exposure dose-response for bladder cancer among RRWs, and for skin melanoma among non-RRWs. Conclusions We observed excesses of total and specific cancers in both populations, although the strength of the evidence for causal relationships to WTC exposures is somewhat limited. Continued monitoring of this population is indicated. (C) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available