4.7 Article

Occupational factors and risk of adult bone sarcomas:: A multicentric case-control study in Europe

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 118, 期 3, 页码 721-727

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.21388

关键词

adult bone sarcomas; occupational risk factors; pesticides; woodworkers; multicentric case-control study

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the association between occupational factors and risk of bone sarcoma, a rare tumor with a largely unknown aetiology. A multicentric case-control study was conducted in 7 European countries in 1995-97. Ninety-six cases aged 35-69 years with a centrally reviewed diagnosis of bone sarcoma (68 chondrosarcomas and 28 osteosarcomas) were compared to 2,632 population (68%) or colon cancer (32%) controls. Subjects were interviewed to obtain information on occupational, medical and reproductive history, smoking and alcohol consumption and selected exposures including use of pesticides. Response proportions were 90% among cases and 66% among controls. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for selected categories of job titles and branches of industry and for use of pesticides. We found an increased OR for bone sarcoma among blacksmiths, toolmakers, machine-tool operators (OR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.08-4.26), woodworkers (OR = 2.68, 95% CI 1.36-5.29) and construction workers (OR = 1.62, 95% CI 0.92-2.87). Ever users of pesticide had an OR of 2.33 (95% CI 1.31-4.13), with similar risks for exposure to insecticides and exposure to herbicides. Neither duration of employment in any of the analyzed occupational categories nor duration of use of pesticides showed an increasing trend in the risk of bone sarcoma. ORs of bone sarcoma were 1.03 (95% CI 0.23-4.57), 3.13 (95% CI 1.26-7.76) and 1.44 (95% CI 0.43-4.85) for the first, second and third fertile of days of use of pesticides. Our study suggests that novel and previously reported (woodworking) occupational factors play a role in the aetiology of bone sarcomas. (c) 2005 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