OBJECTIVES: Despite the compelling association between wood dust and sinonasal cancer, there has been little systematic and rigorous study of the relationship between wood dust and lung cancer. We investigated whether a history of wood dust exposure through occupational and hobby-related activities was associated with increased lung cancer risk. METHODS: We conducted a population-based case-control study, with 440 cases and 845 age-matched controls. Using detailed work and personal histories, quantitative estimates of cumulative exposure to wood dust (thought to be primarily from softwood) were calculated for each participant. Using unconditional logistic regression adjusted for age and smoking status, risk of lung cancer was examined in relation to employment in wood-related occupations, working with wood as a hobby, as well as cumulative wood dust exposure that took into account both occupational and hobby-related sources. RESULTS: While we observed an increased risk of lung cancer associated with working in a sawmill (OR=1.5; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.1), we found no evidence of increased risks with other occupations, working with wood as a hobby or with estimated cumulative exposure to wood dust. Contrary to our hypothesis, we observed modest decreased risks with exposure to wood dust, although no dose-response relationship was apparent. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided somewhat reassuring evidence that softwood dust does not increase the risk of lung cancer, but future studies should evaluate exposure to hardwood dusts. Suggestive evidence for an inverse association may be attributable to the presence of endotoxin in the wood dust, but the lack of a dose-response relationship suggests a non-causal relationship.
OBJECTIVES: Despite the compelling association between wood dust and sinonasal cancer, there has been little systematic and rigorous study of the relationship between wood dust and lung cancer. We investigated whether a history of wood dust exposure through occupational and hobby-related activities was associated with increased lung cancer risk. METHODS: We conducted a population-based case-control study, with 440 cases and 845 age-matched controls. Using detailed work and personal histories, quantitative estimates of cumulative exposure to wood dust (thought to be primarily from softwood) were calculated for each participant. Using unconditional logistic regression adjusted for age and smoking status, risk of lung cancer was examined in relation to employment in wood-related occupations, working with wood as a hobby, as well as cumulative wood dust exposure that took into account both occupational and hobby-related sources. RESULTS: While we observed an increased risk of lung cancer associated with working in a sawmill (OR=1.5; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.1), we found no evidence of increased risks with other occupations, working with wood as a hobby or with estimated cumulative exposure to wood dust. Contrary to our hypothesis, we observed modest decreased risks with exposure to wood dust, although no dose-response relationship was apparent. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided somewhat reassuring evidence that softwood dust does not increase the risk of lung cancer, but future studies should evaluate exposure to hardwood dusts. Suggestive evidence for an inverse association may be attributable to the presence of endotoxin in the wood dust, but the lack of a dose-response relationship suggests a non-causal relationship.
Authors: Jette Bornholdt; Anne T Saber; Anoop K Sharma; Kai Savolainen; Ulla Vogel; Håkan Wallin Journal: Mutat Res Date: 2007-05-21 Impact factor: 2.433
Authors: Virissa Lenters; Ioannis Basinas; Laura Beane-Freeman; Paolo Boffetta; Harvey Checkoway; David Coggon; Lützen Portengen; Malcolm Sim; Inge M Wouters; Dick Heederik; Roel Vermeulen Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-12-12 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Carol Sweeney; Valle Nazar-Stewart; Patricia L Stapleton; David L Eaton; Thomas L Vaughan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: V Jayaprakash; K K Natarajan; K B Moysich; N R Rigual; N Ramnath; N Natarajan; M E Reid Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2008-01-08 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Calvin B Ge; Melissa C Friesen; Hans Kromhout; Susan Peters; Nathaniel Rothman; Qing Lan; Roel Vermeulen Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 2.179
Authors: J Löhler; A O H Gerstner; F Bootz; H Heinritz; A Fryen; G Fryen; N Holstein; A Lingg; J Kleeberg; W Langhoff; G Rösch; A Hanisch; E Schneeberg; D Heinrich; L E Walther Journal: HNO Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: Catterina Ferreccio; Yan Yuan; Jacqueline Calle; Hugo Benítez; Roxana L Parra; Johanna Acevedo; Allan H Smith; Jane Liaw; Craig Steinmaus Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Montserrat Alonso-Sardón; Antonio-J Chamorro; Ignacio Hernández-García; Helena Iglesias-de-Sena; Helena Martín-Rodero; Cristian Herrera; Miguel Marcos; José Antonio Mirón-Canelo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 3.240