-
JAMA Oncology Mar 2022The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and...
Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.
IMPORTANCE
The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).
FINDINGS
In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.
Topics: Disability-Adjusted Life Years; Global Burden of Disease; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Neoplasms; Prevalence; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34967848
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6987 -
BMJ Open Respiratory Research Jun 2023Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a collective term representing a diverse group of pulmonary fibrotic and inflammatory conditions. Due to the diversity of ILD... (Review)
Review
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a collective term representing a diverse group of pulmonary fibrotic and inflammatory conditions. Due to the diversity of ILD conditions, paucity of guidance and updates to diagnostic criteria over time, it has been challenging to precisely determine ILD incidence and prevalence. This systematic review provides a synthesis of published data at a global level and highlights gaps in the current knowledge base. Medline and Embase databases were searched systematically for studies reporting incidence and prevalence of various ILDs. Randomised controlled trials, case reports and conference abstracts were excluded. 80 studies were included, the most described subgroup was autoimmune-related ILD, and the most studied conditions were rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated ILD, systemic sclerosis associated (SSc) ILD and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The prevalence of IPF was mostly established using healthcare datasets, whereas the prevalence of autoimmune ILD tended to be reported in smaller autoimmune cohorts. The prevalence of IPF ranged from 7 to 1650 per 100 000 persons. Prevalence of SSc ILD and RA ILD ranged from 26.1% to 88.1% and 0.6% to 63.7%, respectively. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the reported incidence of various ILD subtypes. This review demonstrates the challenges in establishing trends over time across regions and highlights a need to standardise ILD diagnostic criteria.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020203035.
Topics: Humans; Prevalence; Incidence; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Arthritis, Rheumatoid
PubMed: 37308252
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2022-001291 -
Nutrients Mar 2022Lung cancer is one of the most common neoplasms globally, with about 2.2 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths annually. Although the most important factor in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Lung cancer is one of the most common neoplasms globally, with about 2.2 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths annually. Although the most important factor in reducing lung cancer risk is lifestyle change, most patients favour the use of supplements, for example, rather than quitting smoking or following a healthy diet. To better understand the efficacy of such interventions, a systematic review was performed of data from randomized controlled trials concerning the influence of beta-carotene supplementation on lung cancer risk in subjects with no lung cancer before the intervention. The search corpus comprised a number of databases and eight studies involving 167,141 participants, published by November 2021. The findings indicate that beta-carotene supplementation was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.06-1.26). This effect was even more noticeable among smokers and asbestos workers (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.08-1.35) and non-medics (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.07-1.29). A meta-regression found no relationship between the beta-carotene supplementation dose and the size of the negative effect associated with lung cancer risk. Our findings indicate that beta-carotene supplementation has no effect on lung cancer risk. Moreover, when used as the primary chemoprevention, beta-carotene may, in fact, increase the risk of lung cancer.
Topics: Antioxidants; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Smoking; beta Carotene
PubMed: 35405977
DOI: 10.3390/nu14071361 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2020To compare the benefits and harms of naltrexone-bupropion using evidence from clinical study reports. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To compare the benefits and harms of naltrexone-bupropion using evidence from clinical study reports.
METHODS
We searched Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, PubMed, and Clinicaltrials.gov (May 2016) to identify pivotal trials; we then sent a freedom of information request to the European Medicines Agency (July 2016). We included pivotal, phase III placebo-controlled trials. We assessed the risks of bias using the Cochrane criteria, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE. We used a random-effects model for meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Over a 27-month period (July 2016 to August 2018), we received 31 batches of clinical study report documents containing over 65 000 pages of data from 4 pivotal trials (n = 4536). Significantly more participants who took naltrexone-bupropion achieved ≥5% reduction in body weight: risk ratio (RR) = 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.35-3.28), P = .001, GRADE = low, number needed to treat (NNT) to benefit = 5 (3-17); this represents a 2.53 kg (1.85-3.21) reduction in baseline body weight compared with placebo. Naltrexone-bupropion had significantly beneficial effects on other cardiovascular risk factors; however, the true effect sizes for these are uncertain because of incomplete outcome data. Naltrexone-bupropion significantly increased the risk of adverse events: RR = 1.11 (1.05-1.18, P = .0004, GRADE = low, NNT to harm = 12 7-27); serious adverse events: RR = 1.70 (1.38-2.1, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to harm = 21 13-38); and discontinuation because of adverse events: RR = 1.92 (1.65-2.24, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to discontinue treatment = 9 8-13).
CONCLUSIONS
Naltrexone-bupropion significantly reduces body weight by a small amount but significantly increases the risk of adverse events. A rigorous process of postmarketing surveillance is required.
Topics: Bupropion; Drug Combinations; Humans; Naltrexone; Obesity
PubMed: 31918448
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14210 -
World Journal of Urology Apr 2023There is conflicting evidence on the association between asbestos exposure and bladder cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide evidence on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
There is conflicting evidence on the association between asbestos exposure and bladder cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide evidence on occupational asbestos exposure and the risk of mortality and incidence of bladder cancer.
METHODS
We searched three relevant electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase) from inception to October 2021. 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 bladder cancer, 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, sex, asbestos type, and geographic region were performed.
RESULTS
Fifty-nine publications comprising 60 cohorts were included. Bladder cancer incidence and mortality were not significantly associated with occupational asbestos exposure (pooled SIR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95-1.13, P = 0.000; pooled SMR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.96-1.17, P = 0.031). Bladder cancer incidence was higher among workers employed between 1908 and 1940 (SIR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.31). Mortality was elevated in asbestos workers cohorts (SMR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06-1.30) and in the subgroup analysis for women (SMR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.22-2.75). No association was found between asbestos types and bladder cancer incidence or mortality. We observed no difference in the subgroup analysis for countries and no direct publication bias evidence.
CONCLUSION
There is evidence that workers with occupational asbestos exposure have a bladder cancer incidence and mortality similar to the general population.
Topics: Humans; Female; Occupational Diseases; Asbestos; Occupational Exposure; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Incidence; Lung Neoplasms
PubMed: 36847813
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04327-w -
The Permanente Journal 2020Asbestos-related diseases and cancers represent a major public health concern. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Asbestos-related diseases and cancers represent a major public health concern.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to demonstrate that asbestos exposure increases the risk of prostate cancer.
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ScienceDirect databases were searched using the keywords (prostate cancer OR prostatic neoplasm) AND (asbestos* OR crocidolite* OR chrysotile* OR amphibole* OR amosite*). To be included, articles needed to describe our primary outcome: Risk of prostate cancer after any asbestos exposure.
RESULTS
We included 33 studies with 15,687 cases of prostate cancer among 723,566 individuals. Asbestos exposure increased the risk of prostate cancer (effect size = 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05-1.15). When we considered mode of absorption, respiratory inhalation increased the risk of prostate cancer (1.10, 95% CI = 1.05-1.14). Both environmental and occupational exposure increased the risk of prostate cancer (1.25, 95% CI = 1.01-1.48; and 1.07, 1.04-1.10, respectively). For type of fibers, the amosite group had an increased risk of prostate cancer (1.12, 95% CI = 1.05-1.19), and there were no significant results for the chrysotile/crocidolite group. The risk was higher in Europe (1.12, 95% CI = 1.05-1.19), without significant results in other continents.
DISCUSSION
Asbestos exposure seems to increase prostate cancer risk. The main mechanism of absorption was respiratory. Both environmental and occupational asbestos exposure were linked to increased risk of prostate cancer.
CONCLUSION
Patients who were exposed to asbestos should possibly be encouraged to complete more frequent prostate cancer screening.
Topics: Asbestos; Asbestos, Amphibole; Asbestos, Serpentine; Environmental Exposure; Humans; Incidence; Inhalation Exposure; Male; Occupational Exposure; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Ronidazole
PubMed: 32097115
DOI: 10.7812/TPP/19.086 -
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 -
Annals of Work Exposures and Health Apr 2021An estimated 125 million workers are exposed to asbestos worldwide. Asbestos is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 1 carcinogen.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
An estimated 125 million workers are exposed to asbestos worldwide. Asbestos is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 1 carcinogen. The association between occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer is not well established however. This study aimed to determine the mortality and incidence of kidney cancer in workers who have been exposed to asbestos. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer.
METHODS
Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for articles on occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer. The studies reported the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) or standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of kidney cancer in workers exposed to asbestos. SMRs or SIRs with its 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using a fixed-effect model.
RESULTS
Forty-nine cohort studies involving 335 492 workers were selected for analysis. These studies included 468 kidney cancer deaths and 160 incident cases. The overall pooled-SMR of kidney cancer was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86-1.05), with no significant heterogeneity (PQ = 0.09, I2 = 24.87%). The overall pooled-SIR of kidney cancer was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.79-1.11), with no significant heterogeneity (PQ = 0.68, I2 = 0.00%). Subgroup analysis did not find any increased association with occupational asbestos exposure. There was no evidence of publication bias with Egger's test P values of 0.08 for mortality studies and 0.99 for incidence studies.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis did not show evidence of association between occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer mortality or incidence.
Topics: Asbestos; Cohort Studies; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure
PubMed: 33367604
DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxaa114 -
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 -
PloS One 2015Smoking and asbestos exposure are important risks for lung cancer. Several epidemiological studies have linked asbestos exposure and smoking to lung cancer. To reconcile... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Smoking and asbestos exposure are important risks for lung cancer. Several epidemiological studies have linked asbestos exposure and smoking to lung cancer. To reconcile and unify these results, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a quantitative estimate of the increased risk of lung cancer associated with asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking and to classify their interaction. Five electronic databases were searched from inception to May, 2015 for observational studies on lung cancer. All case-control (N = 10) and cohort (N = 7) studies were included in the analysis. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs), relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model for the association of asbestos exposure and smoking with lung cancer. Lung cancer patients who were not exposed to asbestos and non-smoking (A-S-) were compared with; (i) asbestos-exposed and non-smoking (A+S-), (ii) non-exposure to asbestos and smoking (A-S+), and (iii) asbestos-exposed and smoking (A+S+). Our meta-analysis showed a significant difference in risk of developing lung cancer among asbestos exposed and/or smoking workers compared to controls (A-S-), odds ratios for the disease (95% CI) were (i) 1.70 (A+S-, 1.31-2.21), (ii) 5.65; (A-S+, 3.38-9.42), (iii) 8.70 (A+S+, 5.8-13.10). The additive interaction index of synergy was 1.44 (95% CI = 1.26-1.77) and the multiplicative index = 0.91 (95% CI = 0.63-1.30). Corresponding values for cohort studies were 1.11 (95% CI = 1.00-1.28) and 0.51 (95% CI = 0.31-0.85). Our results point to an additive synergism for lung cancer with co-exposure of asbestos and cigarette smoking. Assessments of industrial health risks should take smoking and other airborne health risks when setting occupational asbestos exposure limits.
Topics: Asbestos; Databases, Factual; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Risk Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 26274395
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135798