BACKGROUND: Although, an elevated risk of breast cancer has been suggested for a number of occupations, many earlier studies were limited by selection biases, the incomplete assessment of job histories, and the inability to control for confounding. METHODS: We examined the relationship between occupational history and breast cancer risk using data from a population-based case-control study of 1,458 cases and 1,556 age-matched controls (90% response rate) conducted in Shanghai, China. Unconditional logistic regression models were used to derive odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of breast cancer risk associated with occupations and duration of employment adjusting for non-occupational risk factors. RESULTS: The following occupations were found to be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer: laboratory technicians (OR 9.94, 95% CI 1.20-82.37), telephone and telegraph operators (OR 4.63, 95% CI 1.85-11.59), leather and fur processors (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.11-9.53), and glass-manufacturing workers (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.14-3.82). A dose-response pattern for years of employment was observed for leather and fur processors (P = 0.02) and glass-manufacturing workers (P = 0.01). Stratified analyses also revealed dose-response relationships between the risk of breast cancer and years of employment as inspector and product analysts among pre-menopausal women (P = 0.02), and as farmers among post-menopausal women (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that several occupations are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among women. Studies examining various occupational exposures in these high-risk occupations are warranted to identify carcinogens that may play a role in the increased breast cancer risk. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Although, an elevated risk of breast cancer has been suggested for a number of occupations, many earlier studies were limited by selection biases, the incomplete assessment of job histories, and the inability to control for confounding. METHODS: We examined the relationship between occupational history and breast cancer risk using data from a population-based case-control study of 1,458 cases and 1,556 age-matched controls (90% response rate) conducted in Shanghai, China. Unconditional logistic regression models were used to derive odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of breast cancer risk associated with occupations and duration of employment adjusting for non-occupational risk factors. RESULTS: The following occupations were found to be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer: laboratory technicians (OR 9.94, 95% CI 1.20-82.37), telephone and telegraph operators (OR 4.63, 95% CI 1.85-11.59), leather and fur processors (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.11-9.53), and glass-manufacturing workers (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.14-3.82). A dose-response pattern for years of employment was observed for leather and fur processors (P = 0.02) and glass-manufacturing workers (P = 0.01). Stratified analyses also revealed dose-response relationships between the risk of breast cancer and years of employment as inspector and product analysts among pre-menopausal women (P = 0.02), and as farmers among post-menopausal women (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that several occupations are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among women. Studies examining various occupational exposures in these high-risk occupations are warranted to identify carcinogens that may play a role in the increased breast cancer risk. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Bu-Tian Ji; Aaron Blair; Xiao-Ou Shu; Wong-Ho Chow; Michael Hauptmann; Mustafa Dosemeci; Gong Yang; Jay Lubin; Yu-Tang Gao; Nathaniel Rothman; Wei Zheng Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: David J Veselik; Shailaja Divekar; Sivanesan Dakshanamurthy; Geoffrey B Storchan; Jasmine M A Turner; Kelly L Graham; Li Huang; Adriana Stoica; Mary Beth Martin Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Beata Peplonska; Patricia Stewart; Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska; Jolanta Lissowska; Louise A Brinton; Jan Piotr Gromiec; Slawomir Brzeznicki; Xiaohong R Yang; Mark Sherman; Montserrat García-Closas; Aaron Blair Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2009-10-09 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: James T Brophy; Margaret M Keith; Andrew Watterson; Robert Park; Michael Gilbertson; Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale; Matthias Beck; Hakam Abu-Zahra; Kenneth Schneider; Abraham Reinhartz; Robert Dematteo; Isaac Luginaah Journal: Environ Health Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Tania Carreón; Mary Ann Butler; Avima M Ruder; Martha A Waters; Karen E Davis-King; Geoffrey M Calvert; Paul A Schulte; Barbara Connally; Elizabeth M Ward; Wayne T Sanderson; Ellen F Heineman; Jack S Mandel; Roscoe F Morton; Douglas J Reding; Kenneth D Rosenman; Glenn Talaska Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Peggy Reynolds; Susan E Hurley; Robert B Gunier; Sauda Yerabati; Thu Quach; Andrew Hertz Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Anne Grundy; Shelley A Harris; Paul A Demers; Kenneth C Johnson; David A Agnew; Paul J Villeneuve Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 4.452