4.3 Article

Occupation and larynx and hypopharynx cancer:: a job-exposure matrix approach in an international case-control study in France, Italy, Spain and Switzerland

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 213-223

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023661206177

关键词

asbestos; hypopharynx cancer; job exposure matrix; larynx cancer; occupation; solvents

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the effect of exposure to occupational agents on the risk of hypopharyngeal/laryngeal cancer. Methods: Case-control study conducted during 1979-1982 in six centres in South Europe. An occupational history and information on exposure to non-occupational factors were collected for 1010 male cases of hypopharyngeal/laryngeal cancer as well as for 2176 population controls. The exposure to 10 occupational agents was assessed through a job-exposure matrix. As occupational histories had been collected since 1945 major analyses were restricted to subjects aged less than 55 years (315 cases and 819 controls). Results: Significant elevated risks adjusted for non-occupational variables (smoking, alcohol consumption and diet) and other occupational exposures were consistently found for organic solvents (odds ratio (OR) for ever-exposure: 1.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.5) and asbestos (OR: 1.6, 1.0-2.5). A significant positive trend for both probability of exposure and duration was found for exposure to solvents. A positive association between exposure to formaldehyde and laryngeal cancer was also suggested. No association was found for exposure to arsenic and compounds, chromium and compounds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Analyses restricted to subjects aged 55 or more did not show elevated risks, with the exception of wood dust (OR: 1.8, 1.3-2.7). Conclusions: In our study occupational exposure to solvents was associated with an increased risk of hypopharyngeal/laryngeal cancer. Results also provide additional evidence of an excess of risk for exposure to asbestos.

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

4.3
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