4.6 Review

Do airline pilots and cabin crew have raised risks of melanoma and other skin cancers? Systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 181, 期 1, 页码 55-64

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.17586

关键词

-

资金

  1. Melanoma Focus, U.K.
  2. NHMRC [552429, 1073898]
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1073898] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Airline pilots and cabin crew are potentially exposed to hazardous ultraviolet and cosmic radiation, which may increase their risk of melanoma and other skin cancers. Objectives To establish precise risks of melanoma and keratinocyte cancer (KC) for airline pilots and for cabin crew based on all studies published to date. Methods We searched MEDLINE, ISI Science Citation Index, Embase, SCOPUS and CINAHL to June 2018. All studies of melanoma and KC risk and mortality in airline pilots and cabin crew compared with the general population were eligible. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were pooled using random effects models. Results From 5866 papers retrieved, we reviewed 44 full-text articles, of which 12 studies with data collected mostly between the 1970s and 1990s were eligible for inclusion. The pooled SIR (pSIR) for melanoma in pilots was 2.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.71-2.40] and in cabin crew it was 2.12 (95% CI 1.71-2.62). For pilots, the pooled SMR for melanoma was 1.99 (95% CI 1.17-3.40) and for cabin crew it was 1.18 (95% CI 0.73-1.89). For KC, the pSIR was 1.86 (95% CI 1.54-2.25) in pilots and 1.97 (95% CI 1.25-2.96) in cabin crew. There was no evidence of study heterogeneity. Conclusions The available evidence shows that airline pilots and cabin crew have about twice the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers than the general population, with pilots more likely to die from melanoma. However, most of the evidence was collected several decades ago and their relevance to contemporary levels of risk is uncertain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据