Dataset Information

Application of two job indices for general occupational demands in a pooled analysis of case-control studies on lung cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We investigated general job demands as a risk factor for lung cancer as well as their role in the association between occupational prestige and lung cancer.

Methods

In 13 case-control studies on lung cancer, as part of the international SYNERGY project, we applied indices for physical (PHI) and psychosocial (PSI) job demands - each with four categories (high to low). We estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for lung cancer by unconditional logistic regression, separately for men and women and adjusted for study centre, age, smoking behavior, and former employment in occupations with potential exposure to carcinogens. Further, we investigated, whether higher risks among men with low occupational prestige (Treiman's Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale) were affected by adjustment for the job indices.

Results

In 30 355 men and 7371 women, we found increased risks (OR) for lung cancer with high relative to low job demands in both men [PHI 1.74 (95% CI 1.56-1.93), PSI 1.33 (95% CI 1.17-1.51)] and women [PHI 1.62 (95% CI 1.24-2.11), PSI 1.31 (95% CI 1.09-1.56)]. OR for lung cancer among men with low occupational prestige were slightly reduced when adjusting for PHI [low versus high prestige OR from 1.44 (95% CI 1.32-1.58) to 1.30 (95% CI 1.17-1.45)], but not PSI.

Conclusions

Higher physical job demands were associated with increased risks of lung cancer, while associations for higher psychosocial demands were less strong. In contrast to physical demands, psychosocial demands did not contribute to clarify the association of occupational prestige and lung cancer.

SUBMITTER: Hovanec J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8504542 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRetrospective occupational exposure assessment has been challenging in case-control studies in the general population. We aimed to review (i) trends of different assessment methods used in the last 40 years and (ii) evidence of reliability for various assessment methods.MethodsTwo separate literature reviews were conducted. We first reviewed all general population cancer case-control studies published from 1975 to 2016 to summarize the exposure assessment approach used. For the second review, we systematically reviewed evidence of reliability for all methods observed in the first review.ResultsAmong the 299 studies included in the first review, the most frequently used assessment methods were self-report/assessment (n = 143 studies), case-by-case expert assessment (n = 139), and job-exposure matrices (JEMs; n = 82). Usage trends for these methods remained relatively stable throughout the last four decades. Other approaches, such as the application of algorithms linking questionnaire responses to expert-assigned exposure estimates and modelling of exposure with historical measurement data, appeared in 21 studies that were published after 2000. The second review retrieved 34 comparison studies examining methodological reliability. Overall, we observed slightly higher median kappa agreement between exposure estimates from different expert assessors (~0.6) than between expert estimates and exposure estimates from self-reports (~0.5) or JEMs (~0.4). However, reported reliability measures were highly variable for different methods and agents. Limited evidence also indicates newer methods, such as assessment using algorithms and measurement-calibrated quantitative JEMs, may be as reliable as traditional methods.ConclusionThe majority of current research assesses exposures in the population with similar methods as studies did decades ago. Though there is evidence for the development of newer approaches, more concerted effort is needed to better adopt exposure assessment methods with more transparency, reliability, and efficiency.

Project description:BackgroundWhile much research has been done to identify individual workplace lung carcinogens, little is known about joint effects on risk when workers are exposed to multiple agents.ObjectivesWe investigated the pairwise joint effects of occupational exposures to asbestos, respirable crystalline silica, metals (i.e., nickel, chromium-VI), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) on lung cancer risk, overall and by major histologic subtype, while accounting for cigarette smoking.MethodsIn the international 14-center SYNERGY project, occupational exposures were assigned to 16,901 lung cancer cases and 20,965 control subjects using a quantitative job-exposure matrix (SYN-JEM). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for ever vs. never exposure using logistic regression models stratified by sex and adjusted for study center, age, and smoking habits. Joint effects among pairs of agents were assessed on multiplicative and additive scales, the latter by calculating the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI).ResultsAll pairwise joint effects of lung carcinogens in men were associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. However, asbestos/metals and metals/PAH resulted in less than additive effects; while the chromium-VI/silica pair showed marginally synergistic effect in relation to adenocarcinoma (RERI: 0.24; CI: 0.02, 0.46; p = 0.05). In women, several pairwise joint effects were observed for small cell lung cancer including exposure to PAH/silica (OR = 5.12; CI: 1.77, 8.48), and to asbestos/silica (OR = 4.32; CI: 1.35, 7.29), where exposure to PAH/silica resulted in a synergistic effect (RERI: 3.45; CI: 0.10, 6.8).DiscussionSmall or no deviation from additive or multiplicative effects was observed, but co-exposure to the selected lung carcinogens resulted generally in higher risk than exposure to individual agents, highlighting the importance to reduce and control exposure to carcinogens in workplaces and the general environment. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13380.

Project description:Pooling biomarker data across multiple studies allows for examination of a wider exposure range than generally possible in individual studies, evaluation of population subgroups and disease subtypes with more statistical power, and more precise estimation of biomarker-disease associations. However, circulating biomarker measurements often require calibration to a single reference assay prior to pooling due to assay and laboratory variability across studies. We propose several methods for calibrating and combining biomarker data from nested case-control studies when reference assay data are obtained from a subset of controls in each contributing study. Specifically, we describe a two-stage calibration method and two aggregated calibration methods, named the internalized and full calibration methods, to evaluate the main effect of the biomarker exposure on disease risk and whether that association is modified by a potential covariate. The internalized method uses the reference laboratory measurement in the analysis when available and otherwise uses the estimated value derived from calibration models. The full calibration method uses calibrated biomarker measurements for all subjects, including those with reference laboratory measurements. Under the two-stage method, investigators complete study-specific analyses in the first stage followed by meta-analysis in the second stage. Our results demonstrate that the full calibration method is the preferred aggregated approach to minimize bias in point estimates. We also observe that the two-stage and full calibration methods provide similar effect and variance estimates but that their variance estimates are slightly larger than those from the internalized approach. As an illustrative example, we apply the three methods in a pooling project of nested case-control studies to evaluate (i) the association between circulating vitamin D levels and risk of stroke and (ii) how body mass index modifies the association between circulating vitamin D levels and risk of cardiovascular disease.