Background: Brain tumours are often disabling and rapidly lethal; their aetiology is largely unknown. Among potential risk factors, pesticides are suspected. Objective: To examine the relationship between exposure to pesticides and brain tumours in adults in a population-based case-control study in southwestern France. Methods: Between May 1999 and April 2001, 221 incident cases of brain tumours and 442 individually matched controls selected from the general population were enrolled. Histories of occupational and environmental exposures, medical and lifestyle information were collected. A cumulative index of occupational exposure to pesticides was created, based on expert review of lifelong jobs and tasks. Separate analyses were performed for gliomas and meningiomas. Results: A non-statistically significant increase in risk was found for brain tumours when all types of occupational exposure to pesticides were considered (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.91) and slightly higher but still non-statistically significant when gliomas were considered separately (OR = 1.47, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.66). In the highest quartile of the cumulative index, a significant association was found for brain tumours (OR = 2.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.23) and for gliomas (OR = 3.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 9.11), but not for meningiomas. A significant increase in risk was also seen for the treatment of home plants (OR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.30) owing to environmental exposure to pesticides. Conclusions: These data suggest that a high level of occupational exposure to pesticides might be associated with an excess risk of brain tumours, and especially of gliomas.

The etiology of brain tumors remains largely unknown. Among potential risk factors, exposure to electromagnetic fields is suspected. We analyzed the relationship between residential and occupational exposure to electromagnetic field and brain tumors in adults. A case-control study was carried out in southwestern France between May 1999 and April 2001. A total of 221 central nervous system tumors (105 gliomas, 67 meningiomas, 33 neurinomas and 16 others) and 442 individually ageand sex-matched controls selected from general population were included. Electromagnetic field exposure [extremely low frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency separately was assessed in occupational settings through expert judgement based on complete job calendar, and at home by assessing the distance to power lines with the help of a geographical information system. Confounders such as education, use of home pesticide, residency in a rural area and occupational exposure to chemicals were taken into account. Separate analyses were performed for gliomas, meningiomas and acoustic neurinomas. A nonsignificant increase in risk was found for occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields [odds ratio (OR 5 1.52, 0.92-2.51)]. This increase became significant for meningiomas, especially when considering ELF separately [OR 5 3.02; 95 percent confidence interval (95% CI) 51. 10-8.25]. The risk of meningioma was also higher in subjects living in the vicinity of power lines (<100 m), even if not significant (OR 5 2.99, 95% CI 0.86-10.40). These data suggest that occupational or residential exposure to ELF may play a role in the occurrence of meningioma.

The incidence of CNS tumors is subject to geographical and temporal variations which are poorly understood. The incidence of these tumors was studied in Gironde, a department of southwestern France with 1,058,911 inhabitants older than 16 years. We recorded any malignant or benign central nervous system (CNS) tumor diagnosed between May 1999 and April 2001 in adults living in Gironde. Three hundred and twenty-nine CNS tumors were diagnosed during the study period. The incidence of CNS tumors in adults was therefore 15.5 per 100,000. Overall, the incidence according to sex was 14.7 for males and 16.2 per 100,000 for females. The incidence rate increased according to age up to 80 years (3.7 per 100,000 for 20–29 years of age to 33.4 per 100,000 for 70–79 years of age) and reduced thereafter for gliomas. Our estimation of the incidence of CNS tumors ranks high among the earlier reports. Further analytic studies are ongoing.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundCurrently, little data is available about the management of asthma in the working population. The aim of this study was to describe asthma control and severity among workers according to current or previous allergic rhinitis comorbidity.MethodsA network of occupational physicians participated in this pilot study on a voluntary basis. They included a random sample of salaried workers during their systematic occupational medical check-up. All subjects completed a self-administered questionnaire based on the European Community Respiratory Health Survey screening questionnaire, and if they reported any respiratory symptoms including allergic rhinitis, the physician filled in a medical questionnaire. Current asthma control and severity were evaluated according to 2006 Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines.ResultsA total of 110 occupational physicians from two French regions participated. Out of the 6906 employees screened, 3102 identified respiratory symptoms and completed the medical questionnaire and performed spirometry. Overall, 374 were identified as current asthmatics, including 271 (72.5 %) with allergic rhinitis. Among current asthmatics with current allergic rhinitis (n = 95), 68.8 % had partially controlled asthma or uncontrolled asthma, including 51.6 % who received insufficient anti-asthmatic treatment. Partly or no control asthma was not associated with current rhinitis (OR = 1.4; 95 % CI: 0.8-2.7). Current asthmatics with current or previous allergic rhinitis had a significantly lower risk of emergency department visits than current asthmatics without allergic rhinitis (respectively 11.6, 17.1 and 29.1 %; P = 0.002).ConclusionsMost current asthmatics both with and without allergic rhinitis had uncontrolled asthma, with inappropriate treatment. Future intervention strategies need to be developed for effective control and prevention of asthma in the workplace.

No abstract