4.4 Article

Occupation, pesticide exposure and risk of multiple myeloma

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 215-222

Publisher

SCAND J WORK ENV HEALTH
DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.782

Keywords

case-control study; job-exposure matrix; multiple myeloma; occupation; pesticides

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives This population-based case-control study examined the relationship between occupation, living or working on a farm, pesticide exposure, and the risk of multiple myeloma. Methods The study included 573 persons newly diagnosed with myeloma and 2131 controls. Information was obtained on sociodemographic factors, occupational history, and history of living and working on a farm. Occupational and industrial titles were coded by standardized classification systems. A job-exposure matrix was developed for occupational pesticide exposure. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated by unconditional logistic regression. Results Farmers and farm workers had odds ratios of 1.9 (95% CI 0.8-4.6) and 1.4 (95% CI 0.8-2.3), respectively. An odds ratio of 1.7 (95% CI 1.0-2.7) was observed for sheep farm residents or workers, whereas no increased risks were found for cattle, beef, pig, or chicken farm residents or workers. A modestly increased risk was observed for pesticides (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8). Significantly increased risks were found for pharmacists, dieticians and therapists (OR 6.1, 95% CI 1.7-22.5), service occupations (OR 1.3, 95% Cl 1.02-1.7), roofers (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.1-9.8), precision printing occupations (OR 10.1, 95% CI 1.03-99.8), heating equipment operators (OR 4.7, 95% CI 1.4-15.8), and hand molders and casters (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.0-8.4). Conclusions A modest increased risk of multiple myeloma is suggested for occupational pesticide exposure. The increased risk for sheep farm residents or workers indicates that certain animal viruses may be involved in myeloma risk.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available