4.7 Article

Pesticide Use and Cutaneous Melanoma in Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Heath Study

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 118, 期 6, 页码 812-817

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.0901518

关键词

arsenic; farmers; melanoma; pesticides

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute [Z01-CP010119, K07CA104556]
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [Z01-ESO49030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Melanoma rates continue to increase; however, few risk factors other than sun sensitivity and ultraviolet radiation (including sun exposure) have been identified. Although studies of farmers have shown an excess risk of melanoma and other skin cancers, it is unclear how much of this is related to sun exposure compared with other agricultural exposures. METHODS: We examined dose-response relationships for 50 agricultural pesticides and cutaneous melanoma incidence in the Agricultural Health Study cohort of licensed pesticide applicators, along with ever use of older pesticides that contain arsenic. Logistic regression was used to examine odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) associated with pesticide exposure adjusted for age, sex, and other potential confounders. RESULTS: We found significant associations between cutaneous melanoma and maneb/mancozeb (>= 63 exposure days: OR = 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.9; trend p = 0.006), parathion (>= 56 exposure days: OR = 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3-4.4; trend p = 0.003), and carbaryl (>= 56 exposure days: OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5; trend p = 0.013). Other associations with benomyl and ever use of arsenical pesticides were also suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Most previous melanoma literature has focused on host factors and sun exposure. Our research shows an association between several pesticides and melanoma, providing support for the hypotheses that agricultural chemicals may be another important source of melanoma risk.

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