BACKGROUND: The study investigated differences in lung cancer mortality risk between social classes. METHODS: Twenty years of mortality follow-up were analysed in 7052 men and 8354 women from the Renfrew/Paisley general population study and 4021 working men from the Collaborative study. RESULTS: More manual than non-manual men and women smoked, reported morning phlegm, had worse lung function and lived in more deprived areas. Lung cancer mortality rates were higher in manual than non-manual men and women. Significantly higher lung cancer mortality risks were seen for manual compared to non-manual workers when adjusting for age only and adjustment for smoking reduced these risks to 1.41 (95% CI : 1.12-1.77) for men in the Renfrew/Paisley study, 1.28 (95% CI : 0.94-1.75) for women in the Renfrew/Paisley study and 1.43 (95% CI : 1.02-2.01) for men in the Collaborative study. Adjustment for lung function, phlegm and deprivation category attenuated the risks which were of borderline significance for men in the Renfrew/Paisley study and non significant for women in the Renfrew/Paisley study and men in the Collaborative study. Adding extra socioeconomic variables, available in the Collaborative study only, reduced the difference between the manual and non-manual social classes completely. CONCLUSIONS: There is a difference in lung cancer risk between social classes, in addition to the effect of smoking. This can be explained by poor lung health, deprivation and poor socioeconomic conditions throughout life. As well as anti-smoking measures, reducing socioeconomic inequalities and targeting individuals with poor lung function for help with smoking cessation could help reduce future lung cancer incidence and mortality.
BACKGROUND: The study investigated differences in lung cancer mortality risk between social classes. METHODS: Twenty years of mortality follow-up were analysed in 7052 men and 8354 women from the Renfrew/Paisley general population study and 4021 working men from the Collaborative study. RESULTS: More manual than non-manual men and women smoked, reported morning phlegm, had worse lung function and lived in more deprived areas. Lung cancer mortality rates were higher in manual than non-manual men and women. Significantly higher lung cancer mortality risks were seen for manual compared to non-manual workers when adjusting for age only and adjustment for smoking reduced these risks to 1.41 (95% CI : 1.12-1.77) for men in the Renfrew/Paisley study, 1.28 (95% CI : 0.94-1.75) for women in the Renfrew/Paisley study and 1.43 (95% CI : 1.02-2.01) for men in the Collaborative study. Adjustment for lung function, phlegm and deprivation category attenuated the risks which were of borderline significance for men in the Renfrew/Paisley study and non significant for women in the Renfrew/Paisley study and men in the Collaborative study. Adding extra socioeconomic variables, available in the Collaborative study only, reduced the difference between the manual and non-manual social classes completely. CONCLUSIONS: There is a difference in lung cancer risk between social classes, in addition to the effect of smoking. This can be explained by poor lung health, deprivation and poor socioeconomic conditions throughout life. As well as anti-smoking measures, reducing socioeconomic inequalities and targeting individuals with poor lung function for help with smoking cessation could help reduce future lung cancer incidence and mortality.
Authors: M Melchior; L F Berkman; I Kawachi; N Krieger; M Zins; S Bonenfant; M Goldberg Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Gwenn Menvielle; Hendriek Boshuizen; Anton E Kunst; Paolo Vineis; Susanne O Dalton; Manuela M Bergmann; Silke Hermann; Fabrizio Veglia; Pietro Ferrari; Kim Overvad; Ole Raaschou-Nielsen; Anne Tjønneland; Rudolf Kaaks; Jakob Linseisen; Domenico Palli; Vittorio Krogh; Rosario Tumino; Laudina Rodriguez; Antonio Agudo; Maria-José Sánchez; Jone Miren Altzibar Arozena; Lluis Cirera; Eva Ardanaz; Sheila Bingham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Paolo Boffetta; Eric Duell; Nadia Slimani; Valentina Gallo; Elio Riboli; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Brian A King; Andrew J Hyland; Ron Borland; Ann McNeill; K Michael Cummings Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gwenn Menvielle; Hendriek Boshuizen; Anton E Kunst; Susanne O Dalton; Paolo Vineis; Manuela M Bergmann; Silke Hermann; Pietro Ferrari; Ole Raaschou-Nielsen; Anne Tjønneland; Rudolf Kaaks; Jakob Linseisen; Maria Kosti; Antonia Trichopoulou; Vardis Dilis; Domenico Palli; Vittorio Krogh; Salvatore Panico; Rosario Tumino; Frederike L Büchner; Carla H van Gils; Petra H M Peeters; Tonje Braaten; Inger T Gram; Eiliv Lund; Laudina Rodriguez; Antonio Agudo; Maria-José Sánchez; Maria-José Tormo; Eva Ardanaz; Jonas Manjer; Elisabet Wirfält; Göran Hallmans; Torgny Rasmuson; Sheila Bingham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Naomi Allen; Tim Key; Paolo Boffetta; Eric J Duell; Nadia Slimani; Valentina Gallo; Elio Riboli; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sheena E Ramsay; Richard W Morris; Peter H Whincup; Anna Olia Papacosta; Lucy T Lennon; Sasiwarang Goya Wannamethee Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Thomas Behrens; Isabelle Groß; Jack Siemiatycki; David I Conway; Ann Olsson; Isabelle Stücker; Florence Guida; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Hermann Pohlabeln; Wolfgang Ahrens; Irene Brüske; Heinz-Erich Wichmann; Per Gustavsson; Dario Consonni; Franco Merletti; Lorenzo Richiardi; Lorenzo Simonato; Cristina Fortes; Marie-Elise Parent; John McLaughlin; Paul Demers; Maria Teresa Landi; Neil Caporaso; David Zaridze; Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska; Peter Rudnai; Jolanta Lissowska; Eleonora Fabianova; Adonina Tardón; John K Field; Rodica Stanescu Dumitru; Vladimir Bencko; Lenka Foretova; Vladimir Janout; Hans Kromhout; Roel Vermeulen; Paolo Boffetta; Kurt Straif; Joachim Schüz; Jan Hovanec; Benjamin Kendzia; Beate Pesch; Thomas Brüning Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 4.430