4.7 Article

Variation in lung cancer risk by smoky coal subtype in Xuanwei, China

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 123, 期 9, 页码 2164-2169

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.23748

关键词

coal; lung cancer; indoor air pollution; Xuanwei; China

类别

资金

  1. Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, Beijing, China
  2. Yunnan Province Antiepidemic Station, Kunming, China
  3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  4. National Institutes of Health (Intramural Research Program)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung cancer rates in Xuanwei County have been among the highest in China for both males and females and have been causally associated with exposure to indoor smoky (bituminous) coal emissions that contain very high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. There are numerous coal mines across the County. Although lung cancer risk is strongly associated with the use of smoky coal as a whole, variation in risk by smoky coal subtype has not been characterized as yet. We conducted a population-based case-control study of 498 lung cancer cases and 498 controls, individually matched to case subjects on age ( 2 years) and sex to examine risk by coal subtype. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for coal subtype were calculated by conditional logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders. Overall, smoky coal use was positively and statistically significantly associated with lung cancer risk, when compared with the use of smokeless coal or wood (OR = 7.7, 95% CI = 4.5-13.3). Furthermore, there was a marked heterogeneity in risk estimates for specific subtypes of smoky coal (test for heterogeneity: p = 5.17 X 10(-10)). Estimates were highest for coal of the Laibin (OR = 24.8, 95 % CI = 12.4-49.6) and Longtan (OR = 11.6, 95 % CI = 5.0-27.2) coal types and lower for coal from other subtypes. These findings strongly suggest that in Xuanwei and elsewhere, the carcinogenic potential of coal combustion products can exhibit substantial local variation by specific coal source. Published 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据