4.6 Article

An examination of the association between lifetime history of prostate and pancreatic cancer diagnosis and occupation in a population sample of Canadians

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227622

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. SSHRC [840-2016-0001]
  2. CIHR [RDC 144721]
  3. CFI [35500]
  4. Dalhousie University
  5. DMRF Soillse Fund
  6. Research Nova Scotia Establishment Grant Project [2215-2019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Occupation was assessed as possible risk factors for prostate (PCa) and pancreatic cancer in a large Canadian worker cohort. Methods The Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC) was derived from linking the 1991 Canadian Census Cohort to the Canadian Cancer Database (1969-2010), Canadian Mortality Database (1991-2011), and Tax Summary Files (1981-2011). From the total sample of 1,931,110 persons, we identified and derived two samples of 28,610 men and 3,220 men and women with a past history of PCa and pancreatic cancer diagnoses, respectively. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazards ratios and 95% confidence intervals for occupation. Results In Canadian men aged 24-64 years, the highest elevated risks of PCa were observed for library clerks (HR = 2.36, 95% CI:1.12-4.97), medical radiation technologists (HR = 1.66, 95% CI:1.04-2.65), telecommunications and line cable workers (HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.22-3.16) and commissioned police officers (HR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.10-2.16. The highest elevated risk for pancreatic cancer were observed for commissioned police officers (HR = 4.34, 95% CI: 1.85-10.21), photographic and film processors (HR = 3.97, 95% CI:1.69-9.34), railway and motor transport labourers (HR = 3.94, 95% CI: 1.67-9.29), and computer engineers (HR = 3.82, 95%CI: 1.52-9.61). Conclusion These findings emphasize the need for further study of job-related exposures and the potential influence of non-occupational factors such as screening practices.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available