4.5 Article

The proportion of cancer attributable to occupational exposures

期刊

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 188-192

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.11.009

关键词

Population attributable fraction; Cancer; Occupational exposures

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [ZIA CP010123-15] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To review the literature on the estimation of the population attributable fraction (PAF) of cancer due to occupational exposures and to describe challenges in the estimation of this metric. To help illustrate the inherent challenges, we also estimate PAFs for selected cancers diagnosed in the United States in 2010 attributable to work as a painter (causally associated with bladder and lung cancer) and shift work (possibly associated with breast cancer). Methods: We reviewed and summarized previous reports providing quantitative estimates of PAF for total cancer due to occupational exposures. We calculated PAF estimates for painters and shift work using methodology from a detailed investigation of the occupational cancer burden in Great Britain, with adaptations made for the US population. Results: The estimated occupation-attributable fraction for total cancer generally ranged between 2% and 8% (men, 3%-14%; women, 1%-2%) based on previous reports. We calculated that employment as a painter accounted for a very small proportion of cancers of the bladder and lung diagnosed in the United States in 2010, with PAFs of 0.5% for each site. In contrast, our calculations suggest that the potential impact of shift work on breast cancer (if causal) could be substantial, with a PAF of 5.7%, translating to 11,777 attributable breast cancers. Conclusions: Continued efforts to estimate the occupational cancer burden will be important as scientific evidence and economic trends evolve. Such projects should consider the challenges involved in PAF estimation, which we summarize in this report. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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