-
Environment International Aug 2023The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal): A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers.
DATA SOURCES
We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA
We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
RESULTS
Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis. Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies. The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41-43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23-25, 27, 31-32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level). For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23-24, 29-30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels). For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m (95% CI -6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers' population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084131.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Occupational Diseases; Dust; Prevalence; Silicon Dioxide; Cross-Sectional Studies; Coal; Steam; Asbestos; Occupational Exposure; World Health Organization; Cost of Illness
PubMed: 37487377
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.107980 -
Occupational and Environmental Medicine Mar 2022Asbestos is a carcinogen associated with lung cancer, but few studies have examined the increased risk of lung cancer due to environmental asbestos exposure. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Asbestos is a carcinogen associated with lung cancer, but few studies have examined the increased risk of lung cancer due to environmental asbestos exposure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between environmental asbestos exposure and lung cancer. We searched for articles on non-occupational or environmental asbestos exposure and lung cancer in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science databases. Our review included 15 studies, and except studies on ingestion exposure we performed a meta-analysis for 13 studies with respect to the type of exposure (neighbourhood and domestic/household exposure). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were also performed. A significant increase in the risk of lung cancer was found for neighbourhood exposure (1.48, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.86), while the risk was not significantly increased for domestic/household exposure (1.04, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.27). With regard to neighbourhood exposure, naturally occurring asbestos and women were both associated with a higher risk of lung cancer; however, such an increase was not significantly greater compared with that associated with other sources of asbestos exposure and men. Although cautious interpretation is needed due to the large degree of heterogeneity and the small number of included studies, our findings imply that living near the source of asbestos increases the risk of lung cancer.
Topics: Asbestos; Cohort Studies; Environmental Exposure; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Occupational Exposure
PubMed: 33972375
DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2020-107222 -
Epidemiologia E Prevenzione 2021to perform a meta-analysis of cohort studies on lung cancer mortality in occupational sectors exposed to asbestos, particularly in the construction sector, and to use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
to perform a meta-analysis of cohort studies on lung cancer mortality in occupational sectors exposed to asbestos, particularly in the construction sector, and to use data from Italian cohorts exposed to asbestos to estimate the number of lung cancer cases attributable to asbestos in Italy.
METHODS
systematic literature review and estimation of lung cancer deaths and cases attributable to asbestos in Italian cohorts and from the Italian National Register of Malignant Mesothelioma (ReNaM).
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
the literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase (Ovid), including papers published from 1999 to May 2019. The following sectors were considered most exposed to asbestos: asbestos-cement, rolling-stock, shipyards, dockyards, glass workers, insulators, asphalt roll production workers, industrial ovens, miners. Moreover, the construction sector was included.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was estimated from the meta-analysis of the literature review. The ratio lung cancer to mesothelioma attributable cases was estimated by occupational sector from the Italian cohorts. For the construction sector, the ratio lung cancer to mesothelioma cases was estimated within the exposed workers estimated by CAREX (1990-1993). The ratios were applied to the mesothelioma cases registered at the ReNaM for the 2010-2015 period, to obtain a national estimate of lung cancer cases attributable to occupational exposure to asbestos.
RESULTS
the meta-analytical SMR for lung cancer in men varied between 1.05 (asphalt roll) and 2.36 (insulation). The mean risk for all sectors was 1.37 in men and 1.60 in women. It increased in cohorts with latency higher than 20 years. Significant risks were observed in asbestos-cement (both genders), construction, and mining sectors. There was a mean of 1.1, 2.7, and 2.8 lung cancer deaths per mesothelioma death in the cement-asbestos, harbour, and construction sectors, respectively. The impact in terms of lung cancer cases estimated at the national level was equal to 3,814 cases between 2010 and 2015.
CONCLUSIONS
to provide an overall assessment of the impact of the occupational asbestos exposure, it is important to consider lung cancer cases, in addition to malignant mesotheliomas. This study was able to estimate the impact of asbestos on lung cancer in Italy 25 years after the ban of this occupational carcinogen, with the largest contribution in terms of attributable cases coming from the construction sector. It is urgent to implement adequate information and prevention strategies, health surveillance of workers, and the appropriate legal framework for insurance purposes.
Topics: Asbestos; Female; Humans; Italy; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Mesothelioma; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure; Pleural Neoplasms
PubMed: 34841838
DOI: 10.19191/EP21.5.P353.102 -
Particle and Fibre Toxicology Jan 2022Autoimmunity can result from the interplay between genetic background and effects of environmental and/or occupational exposure to hazardous materials. Several... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Autoimmunity can result from the interplay between genetic background and effects of environmental and/or occupational exposure to hazardous materials. Several compounds, including silica dust, have been linked with systemic autoimmunity and systemic autoimmune diseases, based on epidemiological evidence. For asbestos, a strong link with systemic autoimmune diseases does not yet exist, however, several studies have documented features of autoimmunity following asbestos exposure. Even so, human studies are limited in their ability to identify and examine isolated exposures, making it difficult to demonstrate causation or to assess pathogenic mechanisms. Therefore, this systematic review examines the existing animal evidence regarding autoimmunity and exposure to silicates (silica and asbestos).
METHODS
PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched for peer-reviewed studies examining systemic autoimmune disease-related outcomes after silicate exposure in rodents. Literature databases were searched up to September 2021 for studies written in English and where the full text was available. Search strings were established based on a PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) format. After title, abstract, and full-text screening, thirty-four studies were identified for further analysis. Quality assessment through ToxR tool and qualitative analysis of the results was performed.
RESULTS
Although there was significant heterogeneity in the included studies in terms of exposure protocol and genetic background of the rodent models used, it was noted that both genetic background and exposure to silicates [(crystalline) silica and asbestos] are highly relevant to the development of (sub-) clinical systemic autoimmune disease.
CONCLUSION
Parallels were observed between the findings from the animal (this review) and human (epidemiological) studies, arguing that experimental animal models are valuable tools for examining exacerbation or development of autoimmune disease after silicate exposure. However, genetic background and synergism between exposures should be considered in future studies.
Topics: Animals; Autoimmunity; Dust; Occupational Exposure; Rodentia; Silicates
PubMed: 34996462
DOI: 10.1186/s12989-021-00439-6 -
European Journal of Epidemiology Sep 2021Limited information is available on carcinogenicity of asbestos on non-respiratory organs. We aimed at conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Limited information is available on carcinogenicity of asbestos on non-respiratory organs. We aimed at conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies on occupational exposure to asbestos and risk of kidney cancer. We searched through three databases, PubMed, Embase and Scopus for article published after 2000, and after eliminating duplicates and non-relevant studies, we identified 13 studies. We combined their results with those of 31 non-overlapping studies included in a previous review up to 2000. We conducted a meta-analysis based on random-effects models. The pooled relative risk of kidney cancer for asbestos exposure was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.04), with no differences according to type of asbestos fiber, geographic region, period of exposure, or estimated quality of the study. Our results showed a lack of association between occupational asbestos exposure and risk of kidney cancer.
Topics: Asbestos; Carcinogens; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Occupational Exposure; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34195879
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-021-00769-x -
Iranian Journal of Public Health Aug 2023Asbestos is one of the most important environmental and occupational carcinogens. Nevertheless, the mechanisms by which asbestos fiber exposure causes chronic diseases... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Asbestos is one of the most important environmental and occupational carcinogens. Nevertheless, the mechanisms by which asbestos fiber exposure causes chronic diseases are not fully understood. We performed the first systematic review on the epidemiological evidence to examine the association between occupational exposure to asbestos and oxidative stress and DNA damage.
METHODS
In this systematic review study, the PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for English-language publications. Eleven cross-sectional studies were included in the systematic review. A literature search was conducted by the main keywords including "Asbestos", "crocidolite", "chrysotile", "amphibole", "amosite", "Oxidative Stress", "DNA Damage", and "DNA injury". To evaluate the quality of studies, the "Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale" (NOS) was used.
RESULTS
Overall, 1235 articles were achieved by searching in databases. Finally, by considering the inclusion, and exclusion criteria, 11 articles were conducted for this study. These studies were published between 1986 and 2020. Oxidative stress and DNA damage can occur in exposure to asbestos. Among various biomarkers, 8-OHdG is the best. The analysis of 8-oxodG in asbestos workers can help identify subjects with a higher level of genotoxic damage.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review suggests that oxidative stress and DNA damage are two main outputs of asbestos exposure. Therefore, oxidative stress and DNA damage biomarkers can be used for identifying subjects at higher risk of cancer. These findings support policy initiatives aimed at detecting and eliminating asbestos fiber exposure and preventing potential health hazards in occupational settings.
PubMed: 37744536
DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v52i8.13400 -
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease Apr 2023Treatments for COVID-19, including steroids, might exacerbate disease in patients with coinfection. We aimed to systematically review clinical and laboratory features... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Treatments for COVID-19, including steroids, might exacerbate disease in patients with coinfection. We aimed to systematically review clinical and laboratory features of SARS-CoV-2 and coinfection, investigate possible interventions, assess outcomes, and identify research gaps requiring further attention.
METHODS
We searched two electronic databases, LitCOVID and WHO, up to August 2022, including SARS-CoV-2 and coinfection studies. We adapted the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) system for standardized case causality assessment to evaluate if using corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs in COVID-19 patients determined acute manifestations of strongyloidiasis.
RESULTS
We included 16 studies reporting 25 cases of and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection: 4 with hyperinfection syndrome; 2 with disseminated strongyloidiasis; 3 with cutaneous reactivation of strongyloidiasis; 3 with isolated digestive symptoms; and 2 with solely eosinophilia, without clinical manifestations. Eleven patients were asymptomatic regarding strongyloidiasis. Eosinopenia or normal eosinophil count was reported in 58.3% of patients with reactivation. Steroids were given to 18/21 (85.7%) cases. A total of 4 patients (19.1%) received tocilizumab and/or Anakirna in addition to steroids. Moreover, 2 patients (9.5%) did not receive any COVID-19 treatment. The causal relationship between reactivation and COVID-19 treatments was considered certain (4% of cases), probable (20% of patients), and possible (20% of patients). For 8% of cases, it was considered unlikely that COVID-19 treatment was associated with strongyloidiasis reactivations; the relationship between the infection and administration of COVID-19 treatment was unassessable/unclassifiable in 48% of cases. Of 13 assessable cases, 11 (84.6%) were considered to be causally associated with , ranging from certain to possible.
CONCLUSIONS
Further research is needed to assess the frequency and risk of reactivation in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our limited data using causality assessment supports recommendations that clinicians should screen and treat for infection in patients with coinfection who receive immunosuppressive COVID-19 therapies. In addition, the male gender and older age (over 50 years) may be predisposing factors for reactivation. Standardized guidelines should be developed for reporting future research.
PubMed: 37235296
DOI: 10.3390/tropicalmed8050248 -
Pulmonology Feb 2024Asbestos is still the leading cause of occupational cancer mortality worldwide. Asbestos-related lung cancer (LC) and malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) prognosis is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Asbestos is still the leading cause of occupational cancer mortality worldwide. Asbestos-related lung cancer (LC) and malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) prognosis is still poor especially at advanced stage, so early diagnosis biomarkers are needed. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have been proposed as potential early diagnostic biomarkers of asbestos-related LC and MPM.
AIM
To evaluate the role of miRNAs as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers of asbestos-related LC and MPM by performing a literature systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE via Ovid, PUBMED and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched up to April 2023 to identify relevant articles. A grey literature search was also conducted using the Google Scholar platform. MeSH and free text terms for 'asbestos', 'occupational exposure', 'lung cancer', 'mesothelioma' and 'miRNAs' were used to search the literature. Our systematic review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database. Study quality was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
From the search, 331 articles were retrieved, and, after applying our selection criteria, and exclusion of one study for poor quality, 27 studies were included in the review. Most of the studies were hospital-based case-control, conducted in Europe, and evaluated MPM among men only. MiRNAs expression was measured mainly in plasma or serum. MiR-126, miR-132-3p, and miR-103a-3p were the most promising diagnostic biomarkers for MPM, and we estimated a pooled area under the curve (AUC) of 85 %, 73 %, and 50 %, respectively. In relation to MPM prognosis, miR-197‑3p resulted associated with increased survival time. MiR-126, alone and combined with miR-222, was confirmed associated also to LC diagnosis, together with miR-1254 and miR-574-5p; no miRNA was found associated to LC prognosis.
CONCLUSION
Based on our systematic literature review there is suggestive evidence that the expression of specific miRNAs in the blood serum or plasma are associated with asbestos-related LC and MPM diagnosis and prognosis. Further large longitudinal studies are urgently needed to validate these findings and elucidate the underlying mechanisms given the potential important implications for patients' survival.
PubMed: 38402124
DOI: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2024.02.002 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Apr 2022There is conflicting evidence on the association between asbestos exposure and prostate cancer (PCa). Two recent meta-analyses have claimed that exposure is associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is conflicting evidence on the association between asbestos exposure and prostate cancer (PCa). Two recent meta-analyses have claimed that exposure is associated with increased PCa incidence and mortality, but they suffer from some methodological flaws. Given the potential importance of this research question, we aimed to perform a methodologically sound systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between occupational asbestos exposure and the incidence of and mortality from PCa.
METHODS
We followed PRISMA guidelines to systematically search for pertinent articles in three relevant electronic databases: Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase, from their inception to July 2020. The methodological quality of included articles was evaluated using the US National Institutes of Health tool. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for PCa, as well as respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were extracted or calculated for each included cohort. Main and subgroup meta-analyses according to first year of employment, industry, asbestos type, and geographic region were performed.
RESULTS
Sixty-five articles comprising 68 cohorts were included. PCa incidence and mortality were not significantly associated with occupational asbestos exposure (pooled SIR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.00-1.13, P = 0.062; pooled SMR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.99-1.06, P = 0.115). PCa incidence was higher among workers employed after 1960 (SIR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01-1.20). Pooled SIR was elevated in European (SIR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.18) and UK cohorts (SIR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.09). Mortality was elevated in North American cohorts (SMR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02-1.10). Studies of lower methodological quality appeared to yield elevated SIRs or SMRs.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that men with occupational asbestos exposure have a PCa incidence and mortality similar to that of the general population. Temporal and geographical variables seem to be related to higher SMR or SIR.
Topics: Male; Humans; Incidence; Occupational Diseases; Prostatic Neoplasms; Asbestos; Occupational Exposure
PubMed: 34413482
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00437-x -
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer... Jun 2022The occurrence of a cluster of occupational cholangiocarcinoma(CCA) cases among Japanese workers at a small offset printing plant led to the hypotheses that occupational...
BACKGROUND
The occurrence of a cluster of occupational cholangiocarcinoma(CCA) cases among Japanese workers at a small offset printing plant led to the hypotheses that occupational exposure was the root cause of this cancer. Numerous workplace carcinogens can be found at various jobs sites and are integral to various industrial processes. Therefore, a systematic evaluation of potential occupationally-related CCA and likely exposure types is needed.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review on the cause of CCA in relation to occupation.
METHODS
The systematic review included papers published between 1980 and 2020. Databases included PubMed, Science Direct, CINAHL, ProQuest Medical Library, Springer, Wiley online library, and the Cochrane library. The review focused on CCA, intrahepatic CCA(as distinct from other types of liver cancer), and extrahepatic CCA(not including the gallbladder). While some occupations involve an expected risk of exposure to carcinogens, this study sought both primary reports on specific carcinogens or surrogates by occupation or industry title. Of the 65 English version abstracts, 18 studies were selected for in-depth review according to the eligibility criteria. Two occupational physicians independently assessed the relevance to the study objectives, data extractability, and data quality as per the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
The review revealed that ten observational studies met the eligibility criteria. There was heterogeneity of occupational exposure assessment and the reported results. The possible carcinogens statistical significantly related to the incidence or mortality of CCA risk included 1,2-dichloropropane (the highest RR = 32.40, 95%CI=6.40-163.90), asbestos (the highest OR=4.81, 95 % CI =1.73-13.33), endocrine-disrupting compounds (the highest OR =2.00, 95% CI=1.10-3.70), and rotating shift work (the highest HR =1.97, 95%CI=1.02-3.79). These carcinogens are classified as IARC class 1 and 2A.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the limited number of studies reviewed, the hypothesis of occupational risk for CCA was supported. Occupational health and safety measures may decrease exposure to these carcinogens, and surveillance in high-risk occupations or industries is urgently needed to prevent and control CCA.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Carcinogens; Cholangiocarcinoma; Humans; Occupations
PubMed: 35763622
DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2022.23.6.1837