4.5 Article

Radon and Lung Cancer in the American Cancer Society Cohort

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 438-448

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1153

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Case-control studies conducted in North America, Europe, and Asia provided evidence of increased lung cancer risk due to radon in homes. Here, the association between residential radon and lung cancer mortality was examined in a large-scale cohort study. Methods: Nearly 1.2 million Cancer Prevention Study-II participants were recruited in 1982. Mean county-level residential radon concentrations were linked to study participants according to ZIP code information at enrollment [mean (SD) = 53.5 Bq/m(3) (38.0)]. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to obtain adjusted HR and 95% CI for lung cancer mortality associated with radon. Potential effect modification by cigarette smoking, ambient sulfate concentrations, and other risk factors was assessed on both the additive and multiplicative scales. Results: Through 1988, 3,493 lung cancer deaths were observed among 811,961 participants included in the analysis. A significant positive linear trend was observed between categories of radon concentrations and lung cancer mortality (P = 0.02). A 15% (95% CI, 1-31) increase in the risk of lung cancer mortality was observed per 100 Bq/m(3) increase in radon. Participants with mean radon concentrations above the EPA guideline value (148 Bq/m(3)) experienced a 34% (95% CI, 7-68) increase in risk for lung cancer mortality relative to those below the guideline value. Conclusions: This large prospective study showed positive associations between ecological indicators of residential radon and lung cancer. Impact: These results further support efforts to reduce radon concentrations in homes to the lowest possible level. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(3); 438-48. (C)2011 AACR.

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