4.6 Article

Mortality from solid cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 159, 期 12, 页码 1117-1130

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh174

关键词

carcinogens; cohort studies; formaldehyde; lung; mortality; nasopharynx; neoplasms; occupational health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In industrial workers, formaldehyde exposure has been associated with cancer of the nasal cavities, nasopharynx, prostate, lung, and pancreas; however, these associations are inconsistent and remain controversial. Animals exposed to formaldehyde show excesses of nasal cancer. In an extended follow-up of a large cohort of formaldehyde-exposed workers, the authors evaluated mortality from solid cancers (1,921 deaths) among 25,619 workers (865,708 person-years) employed in 10 US formaldehyde-producing or -using facilities through 1994. Exposure assessment included quantitative estimates of formaldehyde exposure. Standardized mortality ratios and relative risks were calculated. Compared with that for the US population, mortality from solid cancers was significantly lower than expected among subjects exposed and nonexposed to formaldehyde (standardized mortality ratios = 0.91 and 0.78, respectively). Relative risks for nasopharyngeal cancer (nine deaths) increased with average exposure intensity, cumulative exposure, highest peak exposure, and duration of exposure to formaldehyde (p-trend = 0.066, 0.025, <0.001, and 0.147, respectively). Formaldehyde exposure did not appear to be associated with lung (744 deaths), pancreas (93 deaths), or brain (62 deaths) cancer. Although relative risks for prostate cancer (145 deaths) were elevated for some measures of formaldehyde exposure, the trend was inconsistent. In this cohort of formaldehyde-industry workers, some evidence was found of an exposure-response relation with mortality from nasopharyngeal cancer (based on small numbers) but not for cancers of the pancreas, brain, lung, or prostate.

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

4.6
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