4.5 Article

Cancer mortality among Chinese chrysotile asbestos textile workers

Journal

LUNG CANCER
Volume 75, Issue 2, Pages 151-155

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.06.013

Keywords

Chrysotile asbestos; Occupational exposure; Mortality; Lung cancer; Cohort study; Chinese workers; Occupational cancer

Funding

  1. Pneumoconiosis Compensation Funding Board, Hong Kong SAR, China
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22406018] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To determine mortality associated with exposure to chrysotile asbestos, a cohort of asbestos workers from an asbestos textile factory in China was followed prospectively from 1972 to 2008. A total 577 workers were successfully followed, achieving a follow-up rate of 98.5% over 37 years. Employment data and smoking information were obtained from factory and individual workers. Vital status was ascertained from factory personnel records and the municipal death registry. Workers were categorized into high, medium and low exposure groups in terms of their job titles and workshops. Follow-up generated 17,508 person-years, with 259 deaths from all causes, 96 all cancers and 53 lung cancers and 2 mesotheliomas. The highest cancer mortality was observed in the high exposure group, with 1.5-fold age-adjusted mortality from all cancers and 2-fold from lung cancer compared to the low exposure group. Age and smoking adjusted hazard ratio in the high exposure group was 2.99 (95%CI, 1.30, 6.91) for lung cancer and 2.04 (1.12, 3.71) for all cancers. Both smokers and nonsmokers at the high exposure level had a high death risk of lung cancer, with a clearer exposure-response trend seen in smokers. This study confirmed increased mortality from lung cancer and all cancers in asbestos workers, and the cancer mortality was associated with exposure level. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available