4.3 Article

Increased incidence of respiratory tract cancers in people living near Portland cement plants in Korea

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-017-1244-9

Keywords

Cement; Respiratory tract cancer; Standardized incidence ratio; Environmental exposure

Funding

  1. National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [1120330]
  2. Korea Health Promotion Institute [1120330] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Portland cement contains carcinogens such as chromium and free silica, and hence, inhalation of cement dust can cause respiratory tract cancers. The purpose of this study was to determine whether living near a cement plant increases the risk of respiratory tract cancers. The study population consisted of 341,793 people, all of whom lived in administrative districts within 3-km radius of ten cement plants in Korea. The respiratory tract cancer incidence data (International Classification of Diseases, ten revision code C00-C14 and C30-C34) for 2008-2012 were obtained from regional cancer registries. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for each cancer site in the respiratory tract were calculated using an indirect standardization method. Compared with the general Korean population, the incidence of lung and bronchus cancer (C33-C34) was significantly higher in all subjects [SIR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.29] and especially in the men subjects (SIR 1.47, 95% CI 1.29-1.68) in our study population. In addition, the incidence of larynx cancer in men (SIR 1.64, 95% CI 0.97-2.59) and salivary gland cancer in women (SIR 3.03, 95% CI 0.98-7.07) living near cement plants was marginally increased. These results suggest that environmental exposure to Portland cement dust is a risk factor for respiratory tract cancers.

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