4.3 Article

Lung Cancer Characteristics in the World Trade Center Environmental Health Center

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18052689

Keywords

WTC Environmental Health Center; World Trade Center; September 11th; lung cancer; cancer characteristics

Funding

  1. CDC/NIOSH [200-2017-93327, 200-2017-93427]
  2. NIH/NCI [5P30CA016087, 1P50CA225450]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study characterized lung cancer patients at the WTC Environmental Health Center and found that a majority of lung cancer patients were female, with a significant portion being never-smokers.
The destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on 11 September 2001 resulted in acute and chronic dust and fume exposures to community members, including local workers and residents, with well-described aerodigestive adverse health effects. This study aimed to characterize lung cancer in the WTC Environmental Health Center (WTC EHC) focusing on gender and smoking history. WTC EHC patients undergo an initial evaluation that includes WTC exposure information, demographics, and tobacco use. Detailed cancer characteristics are recorded from pathology reports. As of 31 December 2019, 248 WTC EHC patients had a diagnosis of lung cancer. More patients with lung cancer were women (57%) compared to men (43%). Many cases (47% women, 51% men) reported acute dust cloud exposure. Thirty-seven percent of lung cancer cases with available smoking history were never-smokers (<= 1 pack-years) and 42% had a <= 5 pack-year history. The median age of cancer diagnosis in never-smoking women was 61 years compared to 66 years in men. Adenocarcinoma was more common in never-smokers compared to ever-smokers (72% vs. 65%) and in women compared to men (70% vs. 65%). We provide an initial description of lung cancers in local community members with documented exposure to the WTC dust and fumes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available