4.5 Article

Associations between occupational exposure to benzene, toluene and xylene and risk of lung cancer in Montreal

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 75, 期 10, 页码 696-702

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2017-104987

关键词

lung cancer; occupational exposure; benzene; toluene; xylene

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute of Canada
  2. Fonds de recherche en sante du Quebec
  3. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  4. Canada Research Chairs programme
  5. Guzzo-SRC Chair in Environment and Cancer
  6. National Institutes of Health
  7. Cancer Research Society
  8. Fonds de recherche du Quebec-Sante (FRQS)
  9. Ministere de l'Economie, de la Science et de l'Innovation du Quebec (MESI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Benzene, toluene and xylene (BTX) are aromatic hydrocarbons with inconclusive evidence of lung carcinogenicity. The aim of this research was to assess the associations between occupational exposures to BTX agents and lung cancer. Methods In a population-based case-control study of lung cancer, occupational histories were obtained and exposures were assessed by experts. Unconditional multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% CIs, among men, between various metrics of occupational exposure to BTX and lung cancer, while adjusting for established and possible risk factors. Results Considerable overlap was found between occupational exposure to BTX, where the majority of exposed participants were exposed to all three chemicals. Lung cancer was associated with exposure to benzene (OR=1.35; 95%CI 0.99 to 1.84), toluene (OR=1.31; 95%CI 0.99 to 1.74) and xylene (OR=1.44; 95%CI 1.03 to 2.01). While these results were adjusted for smoking and other recognised and possible lung cancer risk factors, they were not mutually adjusted among the three BTX agents. Conclusions Our study provides suggestive evidence that occupational exposure to one or more of the BTX agents may be associated with lung cancer.

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

4.5
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