Alison K Krajewski1,2, Monica P Jimenez3, Kristen M Rappazzo4, Danelle T Lobdell4, Jyotsna S Jagai5. 1. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Postdoctoral Fellow at United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. krajewski.alison@epa.gov. 2. US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. krajewski.alison@epa.gov. 3. Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Student Services Contractor at US EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 4. US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 5. Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public Health, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies neglect to account for variation in population served by community water systems (CWSs) when aggregating CWS-level contaminant concentrations to county level. OBJECTIVE: In an ecological epidemiologic analysis, we explored two methods-unweighted and weighted (proportion of CWS population served by county population)-to account for population served by CWS in association between arsenic and three cancers to determine the impact of population served on aggregated measures of exposure. METHODS: CWS arsenic concentration data for 19 states were obtained from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network for 2000-10, aggregated to county level, and linked to county-level cancer data for 2011-5 from National Cancer Institute and CDC State Cancer Profiles. Negative binomial regression models estimated adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between county-level bladder, colorectal, and kidney cancers and quartiles of aggregated cumulative county-level arsenic concentration (ppb-years). RESULTS: We observed positive associations between the highest quartile of exposure, compared to the lowest, of aggregated cumulative county-level arsenic concentration (ppb-year) for bladder [weighted aRR: 1.89(1.53, 2.35)], colorectal [1.64(1.33, 2.01)], and kidney [1.69(1.37, 2.09)] cancers. We observed stronger associations utilizing the weighted exposure assessment method. However, inferences from this study are limited due to the ecologic nature of the analyses and different analytic study designs are needed to assess the utility that the weighted by CWS population served metric has for exposure assessment. SIGNIFICANCE: Weighting by CWS population served accounts for some potential exposure assignment error in epidemiologic analysis.
BACKGROUND: Many studies neglect to account for variation in population served by community water systems (CWSs) when aggregating CWS-level contaminant concentrations to county level. OBJECTIVE: In an ecological epidemiologic analysis, we explored two methods-unweighted and weighted (proportion of CWS population served by county population)-to account for population served by CWS in association between arsenic and three cancers to determine the impact of population served on aggregated measures of exposure. METHODS: CWS arsenic concentration data for 19 states were obtained from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network for 2000-10, aggregated to county level, and linked to county-level cancer data for 2011-5 from National Cancer Institute and CDC State Cancer Profiles. Negative binomial regression models estimated adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between county-level bladder, colorectal, and kidney cancers and quartiles of aggregated cumulative county-level arsenic concentration (ppb-years). RESULTS: We observed positive associations between the highest quartile of exposure, compared to the lowest, of aggregated cumulative county-level arsenic concentration (ppb-year) for bladder [weighted aRR: 1.89(1.53, 2.35)], colorectal [1.64(1.33, 2.01)], and kidney [1.69(1.37, 2.09)] cancers. We observed stronger associations utilizing the weighted exposure assessment method. However, inferences from this study are limited due to the ecologic nature of the analyses and different analytic study designs are needed to assess the utility that the weighted by CWS population served metric has for exposure assessment. SIGNIFICANCE: Weighting by CWS population served accounts for some potential exposure assignment error in epidemiologic analysis.
Authors: Kirsten S Almberg; Mary E Turyk; Rachael M Jones; Kristin Rankin; Sally Freels; Judith M Graber; Leslie T Stayner Journal: Environ Res Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Stella Koutros; Dalsu Baris; Richard Waddell; Laura E Beane Freeman; Joanne S Colt; Molly Schwenn; Alison Johnson; Mary H Ward; Gm Monawar Hosain; Lee E Moore; Rachael Stolzenberg-Solomon; Nathaniel Rothman; Margaret R Karagas; Debra T Silverman Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: William M Mendez; Sorina Eftim; Jonathan Cohen; Isaac Warren; John Cowden; Janice S Lee; Reeder Sams Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Rachael M Jones; Judith M Graber; Robert Anderson; Karl Rockne; Mary Turyk; Leslie T Stayner Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2014 Mar-Apr
Authors: Dalsu Baris; Richard Waddell; Laura E Beane Freeman; Molly Schwenn; Joanne S Colt; Joseph D Ayotte; Mary H Ward; John Nuckols; Alan Schned; Brian Jackson; Castine Clerkin; Nathaniel Rothman; Lee E Moore; Anne Taylor; Gilpin Robinson; Gm Monawar Hosain; Karla R Armenti; Richard McCoy; Claudine Samanic; Robert N Hoover; Joseph F Fraumeni; Alison Johnson; Margaret R Karagas; Debra T Silverman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 13.506