| Literature DB >> 28938579 |
Xiaochen Huang1, Shanghui Guan1, Jiangfeng Wang1, Linli Zhao1, Yibin Jia1, Zilong Lu2, Cuiping Yin3, Shengsi Yang1, Qingxu Song1, Lihui Han1, Cong Wang1, Jingyi Li1, Wei Zhou1, Xiaolei Guo2, Yufeng Cheng1.
Abstract
This study aimed to estimate the associations between air pollution and esophageal cancer. In the ecologic cross-sectional study, correlation analyses were made between city-level mean concentrations of particulate matter less than 10μm in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), SO2, NO2 and city-level age-standardized mortality rates of esophageal cancer in Shandong Province, China. PM10 (p=0.046) and NO2 (p=0.03) both had significant linear correlations with esophageal cancer mortality rates. After introducing smoking as a risk factor in models of multiple linear regression analyses, PM10 was still an independent risk factor that increased esophageal cancer mortality rates. This study further compared clinicopathological features of 1,255 eligible esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients by dividing them into different pollution level groups. There was statistically significant difference in gender distributions (p=0.02) between groups after subgroup analysis. Female patients accounted for a higher proportion in the high PM10 level group than in the low PM10 level group. It suggested that females were more sensitive to higher PM10 level pollution. The features that manifested the degree of malignancy of esophageal cancer, including primary tumor invasion, regional lymph nodes metastasis, histological grade, stage, lymph-vascular invasion and tumor size demonstrated no statistically significant difference between groups.Entities:
Keywords: PM10; air pollution; clinicopathological features; esophageal cancer; mortality
Year: 2017 PMID: 28938579 PMCID: PMC5601675 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.17266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Annual mean concentrations of PM10, SO2 and NO2 during 2009-2014 of all 17 cities in Shandong Province
Each color represented a certain city. (A) showed annual mean concentrations of PM10 (μg/m3); (B) showed annual mean concentrations of SO2 (μg/m3); (C) showed annual mean concentrations of NO2 (μg/m3). JINAN: Jinan; QD: Qingdao; ZB: Zibo; ZZ: Zaozhuang; DY: Dongying; YT: Yantai; WF: Weifang; JINING: Jining; TA: Tai’an; WH: Weihai; RZ: Rizhao; LW: Laiwu; LY: Linyi; DZ: Dezhou; LC: Liaocheng; BZ: Binzhou; HZ: Heze.
Figure 2Scatter plots of air pollution concentrations against esophageal cancer mortality rates in Shandong Province
The mean concentrations of PM10, SO2, NO2 were plotted against the age-standardized esophageal cancer mortality rates of the year 2015, respectively. (A1), (B1) and (C1) showed scatter plots including Tai’an City; (A2), (B2) and (C2) showed scatter plots excluding Tai’an City.
Correlation analyses between air pollution and esophageal cancer mortality rates
| Correlation analysis | ||
|---|---|---|
| Including Tai’an City | ||
| PM10 & esophageal cancer mortality rates | 0.38 a | 0.14 a |
| SO2 & esophageal cancer mortality rates | 0.26 a | 0.32 a |
| NO2 & esophageal cancer mortality rates | 0.36 a | 0.16 a |
| Excluding Tai’an City | ||
| PM10 & esophageal cancer mortality rates | 0.51 a | |
| SO2 & esophageal cancer mortality rates | 0.33 | 0.21 |
| NO2 & esophageal cancer mortality rates | 0.53 |
Correlation analyses were processed between city-level mean concentrations of PM10, SO2, NO2 and city-level age-standardized mortality rates of esophageal cancer in 2015, respectively. The results of r/r values and p values were listed. Normality test was made for each variable. Pearson correlation analysis was used when both variables followed normal distributions. Spearman rank correlation analysis was used when either variable was non-normally distributed. p values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
a Results gained using Spearman rank correlation analysis
Multiple linear regression modeling of factors associated with esophageal cancer mortality
| Model | Std. error | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Constant | 4.56 (-2.69, 11.81) | 3.29 | 1.39 | 0.62 | 9.14 | |
| Smoking | -0.25 (-0.53, 0.04) | 0.13 | -1.89 | ||||
| PM10 | 0.01 | 4.18 | |||||
| 2 | Constant | 5.44 (-1.90, 12.78) | 3.29 | 1.65 | 0.67 | 6.90 | |
| Smoking | -0.29 (-0.58, 0.01) | 0.13 | -2.18 | ||||
| PM10 | 0.02 | 4.02 | |||||
| SO2 | -0.03 (-0.07, 0.02) | 0.02 | -1.24 |
Multiple linear regression analyses were run with the combination of mean concentrations of PM10, SO2, NO2 and city-level smoking rates. Esophageal cancer mortality rates were considered as dependent variable. Mean concentrations of PM10, SO2, NO2 and city-level smoking rates were considered as independent variables. Collinearity diagnostics was made on each model and there was no collinearity between the independent variables. Statistically significant multiple linear regression analyses models were listed. Bonferroni correction was applied. p values less than 0.05/n were considered statistically significant, where n was the number of independent variables.
Baseline characteristics of study participants
| Variables | PM10 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | |||
| Gender | 5.31 | |||
| Male | 236 (18.80%) | 789 (62.87%) | ||
| Female | 37 (2.95%) | 193 (15.38%) | ||
| Marital status at diagnosis | 2.02 | 0.37 | ||
| Married | 267 (21.27%) | 951 (75.78%) | ||
| Unmarried | 0 | 7 (0.56%) | ||
| Widowed | 6 (0.48%) | 24 (1.91%) | ||
| Age at diagnosis | 60.67 ± 8.43 | 60.55 ± 7.88 | 0.22 | 0.83 |
| Employment status | 0.36 | 0.95 | ||
| Employed | 40 (3.19%) | 145 (11.55%) | ||
| Self-employed | 171 (13.63%) | 628 (50.04%) | ||
| Unemployed | 16 (1.27%) | 50 (3.98%) | ||
| Retired | 46 (3.67%) | 159 (12.67%) | ||
| Alcohol intake status | 6.93 | 0.07 | ||
| Never | 99 (7.89%) | 436 (34.74%) | ||
| Current | 157 (12.51%) | 503 (40.08%) | ||
| Former | 17 (1.35%) | 42 (3.35%) | ||
| Cigarette -smoking status | 0.68 | 0.71 | ||
| Never | 108 (8.61%) | 415 (33.07%) | ||
| Current | 131 (10.44%) | 446 (35.54%) | ||
| Former | 34 (2.71%) | 121 (9.64%) | ||
| Comorbidities | <0.01 | 0.97 | ||
| None | 203 (16.18%) | 729 (58.09%) | ||
| One or more | 70 (5.58%) | 253 (20.16%) | ||
| Multiple primary malignancies | 1.19 | 0.28 | ||
| No | 260 (20.72%) | 949 (75.62%) | ||
| Yes | 13 (1.04%) | 33 (2.63%) | ||
| Family history of all kinds of cancers | 0.11 | 0.74 | ||
| No | 263 (20.96%) | 950 (75.70%) | ||
| Yes | 10 (0.80%) | 32 (2.55%) | ||
| Year of surgery | 8.38 | 0.14 | ||
| 2010 | 49 (3.90%) | 165 (13.15%) | ||
| 2011 | 53 (4.22%) | 171 (13.63%) | ||
| 2012 | 66 (5.26%) | 209 (16.65%) | ||
| 2013 | 43 (3.43%) | 209 (16.65%) | ||
| 2014 | 61 (4.86%) | 228 (18.17%) | ||
| Tumor location | 4.05 | 0.26 | ||
| Cervical | 6 (0.48%) | 25 (1.99%) | ||
| Upper thoracic | 21 (1.67%) | 52 (4.14%) | ||
| Middle thoracic | 157 (12.51%) | 620 (49.40%) | ||
| Lower thoracic | 88 (7.01%) | 285 (22.71%) | ||
| Primary tumor invasion | 2.16 | 0.71 | ||
| Tis | 9 (0.72%) | 21 (1.67%) | ||
| T1 | 21 (1.67%) | 95 (7.57%) | ||
| T2 | 75 (5.98%) | 273 (21.75%) | ||
| T3 | 127 (10.12%) | 447 (35.62%) | ||
| T4 | 40 (3.19%) | 143 (11.39%) | ||
| Regional lymph nodes metastasis | 6.78 | 0.08 | ||
| N0 | 165 (13.15%) | 530 (42.23%) | ||
| N1 | 52 (4.14%) | 258 (20.56%) | ||
| N2 | 43 (3.43%) | 139 (11.08%) | ||
| N3 | 13 (1.04%) | 55 (4.38%) | ||
| Distant metastasis | 0.24 | 0.63 | ||
| M0 | 272 (21.67%) | 980 (78.09%) | ||
| M1 | 1 (0.08%) | 2 (0.16%) | ||
| Histological grade | 2.79 | 0.25 | ||
| G1 | 46 (3.67%) | 166 (13.23%) | ||
| G2 | 123 (9.80%) | 391 (31.16%) | ||
| G3 | 104 (8.29%) | 425 (33.86%) | ||
| Stage | 3.07 | 0.55 | ||
| 0 | 9 (0.72%) | 20 (1.59%) | ||
| I | 23 (1.83%) | 98 (7.81%) | ||
| II | 129 (10.28%) | 435 (34.66%) | ||
| III | 110 (8.76%) | 424 (33.78%) | ||
| IV | 1 (0.08%) | 2 (0.16%) | ||
| Lymph-vascular invasion | 0.26 | 0.61 | ||
| Yes | 9 (0.72%) | 39 (3.11%) | ||
| No | 264 (21.04%) | 943 (75.14%) | ||
| Tumor size (cm) | 3.87 ± 2.00 | 3.86 ± 1.70 | 0.08 | 0.94 |
Clinicopathological features between different groups
| PM10 | Cigarette -smoking status | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Never | Current | Former | ||||||
| Low (n = 108) | High (n = 415) | Low (n = 131) | High (n = 446) | Low (n = 34) | High (n = 121) | |||
| Tumor location | 0.09 | 0.76 | ||||||
| Cervical | 5 (0.40%) | 16 (1.27%) | 1 (0.08%) | 7 (0.56%) | 0 | 2 (0.16%) | ||
| Upper thoracic | 8 (0.64%) | 29 (2.31%) | 10 (0.80%) | 18 (1.43%) | 3 (0.24%) | 5 (0.40%) | ||
| Middle thoracic | 58 (4.62%) | 256 (20.40%) | 78 (6.22%) | 285 (22.71%) | 21 (1.67%) | 79 (6.29%) | ||
| Lower thoracic | 37 (2.95%) | 114 (9.08%) | 41 (3.27%) | 136 (10.84%) | 10 (0.80%) | 35 (2.79%) | ||
| Primary tumor invasion | <0.01 | 0.96 | ||||||
| Tis | 3 (0.24%) | 13 (1.04%) | 5 (0.40%) | 6 (0.48%) | 1 (0.08%) | 2 (0.16%) | ||
| T1 | 11 (0.88%) | 47 (3.75%) | 8 (0.64%) | 37 (2.95%) | 2 (0.16%) | 11 (0.88%) | ||
| T2 | 32 (2.55%) | 137 (10.92%) | 36 (2.87%) | 103 (8.21%) | 7 (0.56%) | 33 (2.63%) | ||
| T3 | 50 (3.98%) | 167 (13.31%) | 61 (4.86%) | 230 (18.33%) | 16 (1.27%) | 50 (3.98%) | ||
| T4 | 12 (0.96%) | 50 (3.98%) | 20 (1.59%) | 68 (5.42%) | 8 (0.64%) | 25 (1.99%) | ||
| Regional lymph nodes | 1.29 | 0.26 | ||||||
| N0 | 70 (5.58%) | 248 (19.76%) | 77 (6.14%) | 215 (17.13%) | 18 (1.43%) | 67 (5.34%) | ||
| N1 | 21 (1.67%) | 98 (7.81%) | 21 (1.67%) | 128 (10.20%) | 10 (0.80%) | 32 (2.55%) | ||
| N2 | 13 (1.04%) | 46 (3.67%) | 27 (2.15%) | 74 (5.90%) | 3 (0.24%) | 19 (1.51%) | ||
| N3 | 4 (0.32%) | 23 (1.83%) | 6 (0.48%) | 29 (2.31%) | 3 (0.24%) | 3 (0.24%) | ||
| Histological grade | 1.12 | 0.29 | ||||||
| G1 | 18 (1.43%) | 72 (5.74%) | 22 (1.75%) | 74 (5.90%) | 6 (0.48%) | 20 (1.59%) | ||
| G2 | 56 (4.46%) | 169 (13.47%) | 54 (4.30%) | 174 (13.86%) | 13 (1.04%) | 48 (3.82%) | ||
| G3 | 34 (2.71%) | 174 (13.86%) | 55 (4.38%) | 198 (15.78%) | 15 (1.20%) | 53 (4.22%) | ||
| Stage | 0.62 | 0.43 | ||||||
| 0 | 3 (0.24%) | 12 (0.96%) | 5 (0.40%) | 6 (0.48%) | 1 (0.08%) | 2 (0.16%) | ||
| I | 12 (0.96%) | 47 (3.75%) | 9 (0.72%) | 40 (3.19%) | 2 (0.16%) | 11 (0.88%) | ||
| II | 57 (4.54%) | 205 (16.33%) | 60 (4.78%) | 179 (14.26%) | 12 (0.96%) | 51 (4.06%) | ||
| III | 36 (2.87%) | 148 (11.79%) | 55 (4.38%) | 219 (17.45%) | 19 (1.51%) | 57 (4.54%) | ||
| IV | 0 | 2 (0.16%) | 1 (0.08%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Lymph-vascular invasion | 0.31 | 0.58 | ||||||
| No | 106 (8.45%) | 402 (32.03%) | 125 (9.96%) | 423 (33.71%) | 33 (2.63%) | 118 (9.40%) | ||
| Yes | 2 (0.16%) | 13 (1.04%) | 6 (0.48%) | 23 (1.83%) | 1 (0.08%) | 3 (0.24%) | ||
| Tumor size (cm) | 3.80 ± 1.72 | 3.61 ± 1.68 | 3.75 ± 1.81 | 4.06 ± 1.68 | 4.57 ± 3.13 | 4.00 ± 1.74 | <0.01 | 0.98 |
| Diagnostic age | 61.32 ± 9.49 | 60.92 ± 7.78 | 60.01 ± 7.52 | 59.59 ± 7.93 | 61.12 ± 8.20 | 62.81 ± 7.57 | 0.08 | 0.78 |
| Gender | 5.10 | |||||||
| Male | 73 (5.82%) | 226 (18.01%) | 129 (10.28%) | 443 (35.30%) | 34 (2.71%) | 120 (9.56%) | ||
| Female | 35 (2.79%) | 189 (15.06%) | 2 (0.16%) | 3 (0.24%) | 0 | 1 (0.08%) | ||
| Comorbidities | <0.01 | 0.99 | ||||||
| No | 81 (6.45%) | 304 (24.22%) | 100 (7.97%) | 351 (27.97%) | 22 (1.75%) | 74 (5.90%) | ||
| Yes | 27 (2.15%) | 111 (8.84%) | 31 (2.47%) | 95 (7.57%) | 12 (0.96%) | 47 (3.75%) | ||
The most relevant confounder, cigarette-smoking status, was introduced as an adjustment to minimize the bias. Cochran-Mantel-Haensel chi-square test was used for categorical variables and analysis of covariance was used for numerical variables. Whole percentages were used. p values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Figure 3Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria for patients in the study