BACKGROUND: Hairdressers and allied occupations represent a large and fast growing group of professionals. The fact that these professionals are chronically exposed to a large number of chemicals present in their work environment, including potential carcinogens contained in hair dyes, makes it necessary to carry out a systematic evaluation of the risk of cancer in this group. METHODS: We retrieved studies by systematically searching Medline and other computerized databases, and by manually examining the references of the original articles and monographs retrieved. We also contacted international researchers working on this or similar topics to complete our search. We included 247 studies reporting relative risk (RR) estimates of hairdresser occupation and cancer of different sites. RESULTS: Study-specific RRs were weighted by the inverse of their variance to obtain fixed and random effects pooled estimates. The pooled RR of occupational exposure as a hairdresser was 1.27 (95% CI 1.15-1.41) for lung cancer, 1.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-2.08] for larynx cancer, 1.30 (95% CI 1.20-1.42) for bladder cancer and 1.62 (95% CI 1.22-2.14) for multiple myeloma. Data for other anatomic sites showed increases of smaller magnitude. The results restricted to those studies carried out before the ban of two major carcinogens from hair dyes in the mid-1970s were similar to the general results. CONCLUSIONS: Hairdressers have a higher risk of cancer than the general population. Improvement of the ventilation system in the hairdresser salons and implementation of hygiene measures aimed at mitigating exposure to potential carcinogens at work may reduce the risk.
BACKGROUND: Hairdressers and allied occupations represent a large and fast growing group of professionals. The fact that these professionals are chronically exposed to a large number of chemicals present in their work environment, including potential carcinogens contained in hair dyes, makes it necessary to carry out a systematic evaluation of the risk of cancer in this group. METHODS: We retrieved studies by systematically searching Medline and other computerized databases, and by manually examining the references of the original articles and monographs retrieved. We also contacted international researchers working on this or similar topics to complete our search. We included 247 studies reporting relative risk (RR) estimates of hairdresser occupation and cancer of different sites. RESULTS: Study-specific RRs were weighted by the inverse of their variance to obtain fixed and random effects pooled estimates. The pooled RR of occupational exposure as a hairdresser was 1.27 (95% CI 1.15-1.41) for lung cancer, 1.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-2.08] for larynx cancer, 1.30 (95% CI 1.20-1.42) for bladder cancer and 1.62 (95% CI 1.22-2.14) for multiple myeloma. Data for other anatomic sites showed increases of smaller magnitude. The results restricted to those studies carried out before the ban of two major carcinogens from hair dyes in the mid-1970s were similar to the general results. CONCLUSIONS: Hairdressers have a higher risk of cancer than the general population. Improvement of the ventilation system in the hairdresser salons and implementation of hygiene measures aimed at mitigating exposure to potential carcinogens at work may reduce the risk.
Authors: O Bayer; R Cámara; S R Zeissig; M Ressing; A Dietz; L D Locati; H Ramroth; S Singer Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Ann C Olsson; Yiwen Xu; Joachim Schüz; Jelle Vlaanderen; Hans Kromhout; Roel Vermeulen; Susan Peters; Isabelle Stücker; Florence Guida; Irene Brüske; Heinz-Erich Wichmann; Dario Consonni; Maria Teresa Landi; Neil Caporaso; Lap Ah Tse; Ignatius Tak-sun Yu; Jack Siemiatycki; Lesley Richardson; Dario Mirabelli; Lorenzo Richiardi; Lorenzo Simonato; Per Gustavsson; Nils Plato; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Wolfgang Ahrens; Hermann Pohlabeln; Adonina Tardón; David Zaridze; Michael W Marcus; Andrea 't Mannetje; Neil Pearce; John McLaughlin; Paul Demers; Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska; Jolanta Lissowska; Peter Rudnai; Eleonora Fabianova; Rodica Stanescu Dumitru; Vladimir Bencko; Lenka Foretova; Vladimir Janout; Paolo Boffetta; Cristina Fortes; Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Benjamin Kendzia; Thomas Behrens; Beate Pesch; Thomas Brüning; Kurt Straif Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Lydia M Louis; Lucy K Kavi; Meleah Boyle; Walkiria Pool; Deepak Bhandari; Víctor R De Jesús; Stephen Thomas; Anna Z Pollack; Angela Sun; Seyrona McLean; Ana M Rule; Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá Journal: Environ Int Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 13.352
Authors: Alexandra Tsigonia; Dimitra Tanagra; Athena Linos; Georgios Merekoulias; Evangelos C Alexopoulos Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2009-11-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Martine M Ros; Manuela Gago-Dominguez; Katja K H Aben; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Ellen Kampman; Sita H Vermeulen; Lambertus A Kiemeney Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2012-05-13 Impact factor: 2.506