Thuy V Lam1, Pamela Agovino, Xiaoling Niu, Lisa Roché. 1. Cancer Epidemiology Services, New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Trenton, New Jersey, United States. thuy.lam@doh.state.nj.us
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Epidemiologic studies have illustrated a possible association between occupational exposure to lead and cancer, specifically cancers of the kidney, lung, stomach, and nervous system. We performed a linkage between two New Jersey databases: the Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance System (ABLES) and the New Jersey State Cancer Registry (NJSCR) for 1985-2001 to ascertain the risk of cancer in lead-exposed workers and to evaluate the usefulness of this type of linkage. METHODS: A cohort of 3192 men from the ABLES database met the selection criteria before the linkage. AUTOMATCH was used to link the two databases. Person-time was stratified for each worker by five-year age group and calendar year. A standardized incidence ratios (SIR) analysis was performed. RESULTS: 83 cases of cancer were found among 3165 men after all exclusions were made. Workers were followed for an average of ten years and contributed 30,401 person-years. The SIR analysis showed a large overall deficit of cancer (SIR=0.51; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.62). Cancers of the stomach, breast, larynx, intrahepatic bile duct, and chronic myeloid leukemia were non-significantly elevated. Prostate cancer showed the only statistically significant result, a deficit with an SIR of 0.35 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.57). Deficits also occurred in cancers of the lung, kidney, and brain. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not indicate that occupational exposure to lead is associated with cancer. However, firm conclusions are not possible because of various study limitations, including small numbers, a large percentage of workers without age information, short follow-up time, and lack of vital status information. Cancer incidence in this cohort was expected to be low due to the Healthy Worker Effect and young age. Further follow-up of this cohort may be warranted since additional cancers may accrue as time from first exposure increases. Increased worker cohort information would also improve this type of study.
OBJECTIVES: Epidemiologic studies have illustrated a possible association between occupational exposure to lead and cancer, specifically cancers of the kidney, lung, stomach, and nervous system. We performed a linkage between two New Jersey databases: the Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance System (ABLES) and the New Jersey State Cancer Registry (NJSCR) for 1985-2001 to ascertain the risk of cancer in lead-exposed workers and to evaluate the usefulness of this type of linkage. METHODS: A cohort of 3192 men from the ABLES database met the selection criteria before the linkage. AUTOMATCH was used to link the two databases. Person-time was stratified for each worker by five-year age group and calendar year. A standardized incidence ratios (SIR) analysis was performed. RESULTS: 83 cases of cancer were found among 3165 men after all exclusions were made. Workers were followed for an average of ten years and contributed 30,401 person-years. The SIR analysis showed a large overall deficit of cancer (SIR=0.51; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.62). Cancers of the stomach, breast, larynx, intrahepatic bile duct, and chronic myeloid leukemia were non-significantly elevated. Prostate cancer showed the only statistically significant result, a deficit with an SIR of 0.35 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.57). Deficits also occurred in cancers of the lung, kidney, and brain. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not indicate that occupational exposure to lead is associated with cancer. However, firm conclusions are not possible because of various study limitations, including small numbers, a large percentage of workers without age information, short follow-up time, and lack of vital status information. Cancer incidence in this cohort was expected to be low due to the Healthy Worker Effect and young age. Further follow-up of this cohort may be warranted since additional cancers may accrue as time from first exposure increases. Increased worker cohort information would also improve this type of study.
Authors: Christine Neslund-Dudas; Albert M Levin; Andrew Rundle; Jennifer Beebe-Dimmer; Cathryn H Bock; Nora L Nock; Michelle Jankowski; Indrani Datta; Richard Krajenta; Q Ping Dou; Bharati Mitra; Deliang Tang; Benjamin A Rybicki Journal: Prostate Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Christine Neslund-Dudas; Albert M Levin; Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Cathryn H Bock; Nora L Nock; Andrew Rundle; Michelle Jankowski; Richard Krajenta; Q Ping Dou; Bharati Mitra; Deliang Tang; Timothy R Rebbeck; Benjamin A Rybicki Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Muibat Omotola Fashola; Veronica Mpode Ngole-Jeme; Olubukola Oluranti Babalola Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marie-Elise Parent; Michelle C Turner; Jérôme Lavoué; Hugues Richard; Jordi Figuerola; Laurel Kincl; Lesley Richardson; Geza Benke; Maria Blettner; Sarah Fleming; Martine Hours; Daniel Krewski; David McLean; Siegal Sadetzki; Klaus Schlaefer; Brigitte Schlehofer; Joachim Schüz; Jack Siemiatycki; Martie van Tongeren; Elisabeth Cardis Journal: Environ Health Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 5.984