4.5 Article

Domestic and farm-animal exposures and risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in a population-based study in the San Francisco Bay Area

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 17, Issue 9, Pages 2382-2387

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0373

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute, NIH [CA89745, CA66529, CA87014]
  2. [CA45614]
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA045614, R03CA089745, U01CA066529, R01CA087014] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the association between animal exposures and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Methods: Exposure data were collected from 1,591 cases and 2,515 controls during in-person interviews in a population-based case-control study of NHL in the San Francisco Bay Area. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were adjusted for potential confounders. Results: Pet owners had a reduced risk of NHL (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97) and diffuse large-cell lymphoma large cell (DLCL; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87) compared with those who never had owned a pet. Ever having owned dogs and/or cats was associated with reduced risk of all NHL (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.94) and of DLCL (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.86). Longer duration of cat ownership (P-trend = 0.008), dog ownership (P-trend = 0.04), and dog and/or cat ownership (P-trend = 0.004) was inversely associated with risk of NHL. Ownership of pets other than cats and dogs was associated with a reduced risk of NHL (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.55-0.74) and DLCL (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.71). Exposure to cattle for >= 5 years was associated with an increased risk of NHL (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5) as was exposure to pigs for all NHL (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.6) and for DLCL (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4). Conclusions: The association between animal exposure and NHL warrants further investigation in pooled analyses.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available