4.6 Article

Lung cancer and socioeconomic status in a pooled analysis of case-control studies

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192999

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. German Social Accident Insurance [FP 271]
  2. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  3. Guzzo-SRC Chair in Environment and Cancer
  4. National Cancer Institute of Canada
  5. Canadian Cancer Society
  6. Occupational Cancer Research Centre
  7. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
  8. Cancer Care Ontario
  9. European Commission's INCO Copernicus program [IC15-CT96-0313]
  10. European Union Nuclear Fission Safety Program [F14P-CT96-0055]
  11. French Agency of Health Security (ANSES)
  12. Fondation de France
  13. French National Research Agency (ANR)
  14. National Institute of Cancer (INCA)
  15. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale
  16. French Institute for Public Health Surveillance (InVS)
  17. Health Ministry
  18. Organization for the Research on Cancer (ARC)
  19. FrenchMinistry of work, solidarity, and public function
  20. Federal Ministry of Education, Science, Research, and Technology [01 HK 173/0]
  21. Federal Ministry of Science [01 HK 546/8]
  22. Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs [III b7-27/13]
  23. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [CUHK4460/03M]
  24. Environmental Epidemiology Program of the Lombardy Region
  25. INAIL
  26. Italian Association for Cancer Research
  27. Region Piedmont
  28. Compagnia di San Paolo
  29. Lazio Region
  30. Health Research Council of New Zealand
  31. New Zealand Department of Labour
  32. Cancer Society of New Zealand
  33. Polish State Committee for Scientific Research [SPUB-M-COPERNICUS/P-05/DZ-30/99/2000]
  34. Institute Universitario de Oncologia
  35. Universidad de Oviedo, Asturias
  36. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria (FIS)
  37. Ciber de Epidemiologia y Salud Publica (CIBERESP)
  38. Swedish Council for Work Life Research
  39. Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports
  40. Europe Against Cancer Program
  41. Roy Castle Foundation
  42. Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health
  43. National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Bethesda, Maryland
  44. Lottery Health Research
  45. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
  46. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background An association between low socioeconomic status (SES) and lung cancer has been observed in several studies, but often without adequate control for smoking behavior. We studied the association between lung cancer and occupationally derived SES, using data from the international pooled SYNERGY study. Methods Twelve case-control studies from Europe and Canada were included in the analysis. Based on occupational histories of study participants we measured SES using the International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI) and the European Socio-economic Classification (ESeC). We divided the ISEI range into categories, using various criteria. Stratifying by gender, we calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) by unconditional logistic regression, adjusting for age, study, and smoking behavior. We conducted analyses by histological subtypes of lung cancer and subgroup analyses by study region, birth cohort, education and occupational exposure to known lung carcinogens. Results The analysis dataset included 17,021 cases and 20,885 controls. There was a strong elevated OR between lung cancer and low SES, which was attenuated substantially after adjustment for smoking, however a social gradient persisted. SES differences in lung cancer risk were higher among men (lowest vs. highest SES category: ISEI OR 1.84 (95% CI 1.61-2.09); ESeC OR 1.53 (95% CI 1.44-1.63)), than among women (lowest vs. highest SES category: ISEI OR 1.54 (95% CI 1.20-1.98); ESeC OR 1.34 (95% CI 1.19-1.52)). Conclusion SES remained a risk factor for lung cancer after adjustment for smoking behavior.

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