4.2 Article

Non-malignant respiratory diseases and lung cancer among Chinese workers exposed to silica

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00043764-200006000-00014

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to explore whether a medical history for non-malignant respiratory disease contributes to an increased lung cancer risk among workers exposed to silica. We analyzed data from a nested case-control study in 29 dusty workplaces in China. The study population consisted of 316 lung cancer cases and 1356 controls matched to cases by facility type and decade of birth who were alive at the time of diagnosis of the index case and who were identified in a follow-up study of about 68, 000 workers. Age at first exposure and cigarette smoking were accounted for in the analysis, Smoking was the main risk factor for both lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. Lung cancer risk showed a modest association with silicosis and with cumulative silica exposure, which did not vary by history of previous pulmonary tuberculosis. Among subjects without a medical history for chronic bronchitis or asthma, lung cancer risk was associated with silicosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 2.2), and it was increased in each quartile of cumulative silica exposure However, risk was not elevated in the highest quartile (OR, 1.3 1.6, 1.8, 1.4). Among subjects with a medical history for chronic bronchitis or asthma, lung cancer risk was associated with neither silicosis (subjects with chronic bronchitis: OR, 0.6; subjects with asthma: OR, 0.4) nor with silica exposure. In this Study population, we observed a modest association of both silicosis and cumulative exposure to silica with lung cancer among subjects who were not previously diagnosed with chronic bronchitis or asthm, but not among subjects who had a medical history for either disease. Risk of lung cancer associated with silicosis or cumulative exposure to silica did not vary by previous medical history of pulmonary tuberculosis.

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

4.2
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