4.4 Article

Occupational exposures and head and neck cancers among Swedish construction workers

期刊

出版社

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL WORK ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.1010

关键词

asbestos; cement dust; cohort study; laryngeal cancer; oral cancer; pharyngeal cancer

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Occupational exposures in the construction industry may increase the risk of head and neck cancers, although the epidemiologic evidence is limited by problems of low study power and inadequate adjustment for tobacco use. In an attempt to address this issue, the relationship between selected occupational exposures and head and neck cancer risk was investigated using data from a large cohort of Swedish construction workers. Methods Altogether 510 squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (171 in the oral cavity, 112 in the pharynx, 227 in the larynx) were identified during 1971-2001 among 307 799 male workers in the Swedish construction industry. Exposure to diesel exhaust, asbestos, organic solvents, metal dust, asphalt, wood dust, stone dust, mineral wool, and cement dust was assessed using a semi-quantitative job-exposure matrix. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for head and neck cancers in relation to occupational exposure, using Poisson regression with adjustment for age and smoking status. Results Asbestos exposure was related to an increased laryngeal cancer incidence (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.1). Excesses of pharyngeal cancer were observed among workers exposed to cement dust (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.1). No occupational exposures were associated with oral cavity cancer. These findings did not materially change upon additional adjustment for cigarette pack-years. Conclusions These findings offer further evidence that asbestos increases the risk of laryngeal cancer. The observation of a positive association between cement dust exposure and pharyngeal cancer warrants further investigation.

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

4.4
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