Essential Role of Occupational Hazards in Cancer Among Women

Saritha, Vara; Theodora, K. Grace; Rachel, K. Vijaya

doi:10.1007/978-981-15-9411-3_38

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, much of past occupational cancer research focused on industrial workforces in male-dominated occupations; consequently, there has been little empirical evidence on occupational exposures incurred by women and the associated cancer risks, and published studies concerning women workers tended to be small and rather underpowered. 8 In addition, it is potentially misleading to assume that women and men exposed to the same occupational agent would have the same level of risk for cancer, given the biological sex-differences in absorption rate, metabolism, and cellular response. 9,10 In this study, we aim to explore associations between occupational exposures prevalent in women and lung cancer risk using data of female workers from 10 case-control studies of lung cancer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the progress in identifying occupational lung carcinogens over the past decades, epidemiologic evidence of possible carcinogenicity is still sparse or entirely lacking for many occupational exposures. Moreover, much of past occupational cancer research focused on industrial workforces in male‐dominated occupations; consequently, there has been little empirical evidence on occupational exposures incurred by women and the associated cancer risks, and published studies concerning women workers tended to be small and rather underpowered 8 . In addition, it is potentially misleading to assume that women and men exposed to the same occupational agent would have the same level of risk for cancer, given the biological sex‐differences in absorption rate, metabolism, and cellular response 9,10 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevalent occupational exposures and risk of lung cancer among women: Results from the application of the Canadian Job‐Exposure Matrix (CANJEM) to a combined set of ten case–control studies

Xu,

Ho,

Lavoué

et al. 2024

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWorldwide, lung cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women. The present study explored associations between occupational exposures that are prevalent among women, and lung cancer.MethodsData from 10 case–control studies of lung cancer from Europe, Canada, and New Zealand conducted between 1988 and 2008 were combined. Lifetime occupational history and information on nonoccupational factors including smoking were available for 3040 incident lung cancer cases and 4187 controls. We linked each reported job to the Canadian Job‐Exposure Matrix (CANJEM), which provided estimates of probability, intensity, and frequency of exposure to each selected agent in each job. For this analysis, we selected 15 agents (cleaning agents, biocides, cotton dust, synthetic fibers, formaldehyde, cooking fumes, organic solvents, cellulose, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from petroleum, ammonia, metallic dust, alkanes C18+, iron compounds, isopropanol, and calcium carbonate) that had lifetime exposure prevalence of at least 5% in the combined study population. For each agent, we estimated lung cancer risk in each study center for ever‐exposure, by duration of exposure, and by cumulative exposure, using separate logistic regression models adjusted for smoking and other covariates. We then estimated the meta‐odds ratios using random‐effects meta‐analysis.Results and ConclusionsNone of the agents assessed showed consistent and compelling associations with lung cancer among women. The following agents showed elevated odds ratio in some analyses: metallic dust, iron compounds, isopropanol, and organic solvents. Future research into occupational lung cancer risk factors among women should prioritize these agents.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%