Nigel Bruce1, Mukesh Dherani1, Rui Liu2, H Dean Hosgood3, Amir Sapkota4, Kirk R Smith2, Kurt Straif5, Qing Lan6, Daniel Pope1. 1. Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 2. Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California Berkeley, California, USA. 3. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA Division of Epidemiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA. 4. Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, University of Maryland, School of Public Health, College Park, Maryland, USA. 5. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France. 6. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Around 2.4 billion people use traditional biomass fuels for household cooking or heating. In 2006, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded emissions from household coal combustion are a Group 1 carcinogen, while those from biomass were categorised as 2A due to epidemiologic limitations. This review updates the epidemiologic evidence and provides risk estimates for the 2010 Global Burden of Disease study. METHODS: Searches were conducted of 10 databases to July 2012 for studies of clinically diagnosed or pathologically confirmed lung cancer associated with household biomass use for cooking and/or heating. FINDINGS: Fourteen eligible studies of biomass cooking or heating were identified: 13 had independent estimates (12 cooking only), all were case-control designs and provided 8221 cases and 11 342 controls. The ORs for lung cancer risk with biomass for cooking and/or heating were OR 1.17 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.37) overall, and 1.15 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.37) for cooking only. Publication bias was not detected, but more than half the studies did not explicitly describe a clean reference category. Sensitivity analyses restricted to studies with adequate adjustment and a clean reference category found ORs of 1.21 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.39) for men (two reports, compiling five studies) and 1.95 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.27) for women (five reports, compiling eight studies). Exposure-response evidence was seen for men, and higher risk for women in developing compared with developed countries, consistent with higher exposures in the former. CONCLUSIONS: There is now stronger evidence for biomass fuel use causing lung cancer, but future studies need better exposure assessment to strengthen exposure-response evidence. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Around 2.4 billion people use traditional biomass fuels for household cooking or heating. In 2006, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded emissions from household coal combustion are a Group 1 carcinogen, while those from biomass were categorised as 2A due to epidemiologic limitations. This review updates the epidemiologic evidence and provides risk estimates for the 2010 Global Burden of Disease study. METHODS: Searches were conducted of 10 databases to July 2012 for studies of clinically diagnosed or pathologically confirmed lung cancer associated with household biomass use for cooking and/or heating. FINDINGS: Fourteen eligible studies of biomass cooking or heating were identified: 13 had independent estimates (12 cooking only), all were case-control designs and provided 8221 cases and 11 342 controls. The ORs for lung cancer risk with biomass for cooking and/or heating were OR 1.17 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.37) overall, and 1.15 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.37) for cooking only. Publication bias was not detected, but more than half the studies did not explicitly describe a clean reference category. Sensitivity analyses restricted to studies with adequate adjustment and a clean reference category found ORs of 1.21 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.39) for men (two reports, compiling five studies) and 1.95 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.27) for women (five reports, compiling eight studies). Exposure-response evidence was seen for men, and higher risk for women in developing compared with developed countries, consistent with higher exposures in the former. CONCLUSIONS: There is now stronger evidence for biomass fuel use causing lung cancer, but future studies need better exposure assessment to strengthen exposure-response evidence. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Zheng Li; Adwoa Commodore; Stella Hartinger; Michael Lewin; Andreas Sjödin; Erin Pittman; Debra Trinidad; Kendra Hubbard; Claudio F Lanata; Ana I Gil; Daniel Mäusezahl; Luke P Naeher Journal: Environ Int Date: 2016-09-24 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Alison Lee; Tiffany R Sanchez; Muhammad Hasan Shahriar; Mahbubul Eunus; Matthew Perzanowski; Joseph Graziano Journal: Environ Res Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Josiah L Kephart; Magdalena Fandiño-Del-Rio; Kendra N Williams; Gary Malpartida; Alexander Lee; Kyle Steenland; Luke P Naeher; Gustavo F Gonzales; Marilu Chiang; William Checkley; Kirsten Koehler Journal: Environ Int Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Jennyfer Wolf; Daniel Mäusezahl; Hector Verastegui; Stella M Hartinger Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Josiah L Kephart; Magdalena Fandiño-Del-Rio; Kendra N Williams; Gary Malpartida; Kyle Steenland; Luke P Naeher; Gustavo F Gonzales; Marilú Chiang; William Checkley; Kirsten Koehler Journal: Indoor Air Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 5.770
Authors: Catherine A Campbell; Suzanne E Bartington; Katherine E Woolley; Francis D Pope; Graham Neil Thomas; Ajit Singh; William R Avis; Patrick R Tumwizere; Clement Uwanyirigira; Pacifique Abimana; Telesphore Kabera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Laura G Hooper; Yakou Dieye; Assane Ndiaye; Aldiouma Diallo; Coralynn S Sack; Vincent S Fan; Kathleen M Neuzil; Justin R Ortiz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 3.240