E Lorentz1, T Despreaux2, A Quignette3, T Chinet4, A Descatha2. 1. Unité hospitalo-universitaire de santé professionnelle, CHU Poincaré, AP-HP UVSQ, 104, boulevard Raymond-Poincaré, 92380 Garches, France; UMS 011, UMR1168 vieillissement et maladies chroniques : approches épidémiologique et de santé publique, unité Cohortes épidémiologiques en population, 94807 Villejuif, France. Electronic address: elstz@protonmail.com. 2. Unité hospitalo-universitaire de santé professionnelle, CHU Poincaré, AP-HP UVSQ, 104, boulevard Raymond-Poincaré, 92380 Garches, France; UMR 1168 UMS011, université de Versailles SQY, 2, avenue de la Source-de-la-Bièvre, 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France; UMS 011, UMR1168 vieillissement et maladies chroniques : approches épidémiologique et de santé publique, unité Cohortes épidémiologiques en population, 94807 Villejuif, France. 3. Unité hospitalo-universitaire de santé professionnelle, CHU Poincaré, AP-HP UVSQ, 104, boulevard Raymond-Poincaré, 92380 Garches, France. 4. Service de pneumologie et oncologie thoracique, hôpital Ambroise-Paré, AP-HP, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the context of underreporting of occupational diseases, the aim was to study the validity of silica and asbestos job-exposure matrices in screening occupational exposure in the field of thoracic oncology. METHODS: Fifty patients hospitalized with primitive lung cancer or mesothelioma in a university hospital center in the Hauts-de-Seine department of France were included between November 2016 and September 2017. For each patient 1/the job history was collected, from which data was entered single-blindly into the job-exposure matrices by a resident in occupational medicine, 2/a questionnaire (Q-SPLF) was completed similarly, and 3/the patients also had a consultation with a chief resident in occupational medicine, considered the gold standard. The main outcome was the diagnostic performance of the matrices. The Q-SPLF diagnostic performance was also studied. RESULTS: The asbestos and silica matrices had sensitivities of 100%, specificities of respectively 76.1% and 87.8%, the positive likelihood ratios were at 4.19 [2.5-6] and 8.17 [3.8-10], and the negative likelihood ratios were at 0. The Q-SPLF diagnostic performance was comparable to that of the matrices. CONCLUSIONS: The matrices and the questionnaire have a great diagnostic performance which seems interesting for a use as a screening tool for occupational exposures. These results have yet to be confirmed by large-scale studies.
INTRODUCTION: In the context of underreporting of occupational diseases, the aim was to study the validity of silica and asbestos job-exposure matrices in screening occupational exposure in the field of thoracic oncology. METHODS: Fifty patients hospitalized with primitive lung cancer or mesothelioma in a university hospital center in the Hauts-de-Seine department of France were included between November 2016 and September 2017. For each patient 1/the job history was collected, from which data was entered single-blindly into the job-exposure matrices by a resident in occupational medicine, 2/a questionnaire (Q-SPLF) was completed similarly, and 3/the patients also had a consultation with a chief resident in occupational medicine, considered the gold standard. The main outcome was the diagnostic performance of the matrices. The Q-SPLF diagnostic performance was also studied. RESULTS: The asbestos and silica matrices had sensitivities of 100%, specificities of respectively 76.1% and 87.8%, the positive likelihood ratios were at 4.19 [2.5-6] and 8.17 [3.8-10], and the negative likelihood ratios were at 0. The Q-SPLF diagnostic performance was comparable to that of the matrices. CONCLUSIONS: The matrices and the questionnaire have a great diagnostic performance which seems interesting for a use as a screening tool for occupational exposures. These results have yet to be confirmed by large-scale studies.
Authors: Marc Fadel; Bradley A Evanoff; Johan H Andersen; Angelo d'Errico; Ann Marie Dale; Annette Leclerc; Alexis Descatha Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 5.024