David H Garabrant1, Dominik D Alexander2, Paula E Miller2, Jon P Fryzek2, Paolo Boffetta3, M J Teta4, Patrick A Hessel5, Valerie A Craven6, Michael A Kelsh7, Michael Goodman8. 1. EpidStat Institute, 2100 Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 203, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA; University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA; david@epidstat.com. 2. EpidStat Institute, 2100 Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 203, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA; 3. The Tisch Cancer Institute and Institute for Translational Epidemiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1133, New York, NY 10029, USA; 4. Department of Health Sciences, Exponent, Inc., 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10170, USA; 5. EpiLung Consulting, #25, 26204 Township Road 512, Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada T7Y 1C5; 6. Exponent, Inc., 500 12th Street, Suite 220, Oakland, CA 94607, USA; 7. Amgen, Inc One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, USA; 8. Emory University School of Public Health, 1518 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We published a meta-analysis of the association between work as a motor vehicle mechanic and mesothelioma in 2004. Since then, several relevant studies on this topic have been published. Thus, to update the state-of-the-science on this issue, we conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive PubMed literature search through May 2014 was conducted to identify studies that reported relative risk estimates for mesothelioma among motor vehicle mechanics (in general), and those who were engaged in brake repair (specifically). Studies were scored and classified based on study characteristics. Random-effects meta-analyses generated summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity of results was examined by calculating Q-test P-values (P-H) and I (2) estimates. Sub-group and sensitivity analyses were conducted for relevant study characteristics and quality measures. RESULTS: Ten case-control studies, one cohort study, and five proportionate mortality ratio (PMR)/standardized mortality odds ratio (SMOR) studies were identified and included in the quantitative assessment. Most meta-analysis models produced SRREs below 1.0, and no statistically significant increases in mesothelioma were observed. The SRRE for all studies was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.61-1.05) with significant heterogeneity (P-H <0.001, I (2) = 62.90). A similar SRRE was observed among the five Tier 1 studies with the highest quality ratings (SRRE = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.46-1.25), with no heterogeneity among studies (P-H = 0.912, I (2) = 0.00). Meta-analysis of the Tier 2 (n = 5) and Tier 3 (n = 6) studies resulted in SRREs of 1.09 (95% CI: 0.76-1.58) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.49-1.08), respectively. Restricting the analysis to Tiers 1 and 2 combined resulted in an SRRE of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.72-1.29). The SRRE specific to brake work (n = 4) was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.38-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of the epidemiologic studies provides evidence that motor vehicle mechanics, including workers who were engaged in brake repair, are not at an increased risk of mesothelioma.
BACKGROUND: We published a meta-analysis of the association between work as a motor vehicle mechanic and mesothelioma in 2004. Since then, several relevant studies on this topic have been published. Thus, to update the state-of-the-science on this issue, we conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive PubMed literature search through May 2014 was conducted to identify studies that reported relative risk estimates for mesothelioma among motor vehicle mechanics (in general), and those who were engaged in brake repair (specifically). Studies were scored and classified based on study characteristics. Random-effects meta-analyses generated summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity of results was examined by calculating Q-test P-values (P-H) and I (2) estimates. Sub-group and sensitivity analyses were conducted for relevant study characteristics and quality measures. RESULTS: Ten case-control studies, one cohort study, and five proportionate mortality ratio (PMR)/standardized mortality odds ratio (SMOR) studies were identified and included in the quantitative assessment. Most meta-analysis models produced SRREs below 1.0, and no statistically significant increases in mesothelioma were observed. The SRRE for all studies was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.61-1.05) with significant heterogeneity (P-H <0.001, I (2) = 62.90). A similar SRRE was observed among the five Tier 1 studies with the highest quality ratings (SRRE = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.46-1.25), with no heterogeneity among studies (P-H = 0.912, I (2) = 0.00). Meta-analysis of the Tier 2 (n = 5) and Tier 3 (n = 6) studies resulted in SRREs of 1.09 (95% CI: 0.76-1.58) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.49-1.08), respectively. Restricting the analysis to Tiers 1 and 2 combined resulted in an SRRE of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.72-1.29). The SRRE specific to brake work (n = 4) was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.38-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of the epidemiologic studies provides evidence that motor vehicle mechanics, including workers who were engaged in brake repair, are not at an increased risk of mesothelioma.
Authors: Dana Hashim; Paolo Boffetta; Matthew Galsky; William Oh; Roberto Lucchini; Michael Crane; Benjamin Luft; Jaqueline Moline; Iris Udasin; Denise Harrison; Emanuela Taioli Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.497