Meta-analysis of silicosis and lung cancer

Dose–response meta-analysis of silica and lung cancer

“…From a recent meta-analysis, we estimated that, overall and after controlling for smoking, silicosis is associated with a 60% increase in risk of lung cancer [1]. Whether the association between silicosis and lung cancer is due to the effect of the fibrotic process or to the effect of respirable silica itself is unclear [2], since lung fibrosis (as it is seen in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and asbestosis) increases the risk of lung cancer [3,4].…”

Occupational Exposure to Silica and Lung Cancer: Pooled Analysis of Two Case-Control Studies in Montreal, Canada

“…In a recent review of global burden of disease due to occupational carcinogens, silica showed the highest proportion of workers exposed and the highest weighted relative risk (relative risk weighted by proportion exposed) for lung cancer among eight lung carcinogens tabulated (2). Several studies, including pooled analyses and meta-analyses, have reported an association between respirable silica and lung cancer (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8). Several cohort studies have reported relative risks of lung cancer of approximately 1.3 to 1.4 among silica-exposed workers, with significant and/or monotonic dose-response relationships (4,8).…”

Is exposure to silica associated with lung cancer in the absence of silicosis? A meta-analytical approach to an important public health question

“…A multi-stage strategy was adopted to tackle this matter, and in this respect and in our focus on lung cancer risks in silica-exposed workers without silicosis our investigation diVers substantially from six other quantitative reviews published since the mid-1990s (Steenland et al 1996;Tsuda et al 1997;Steenland and Stayner 1997;Kurihara and Wada 2004;Lacasse et al 2005;Pelucchi et al 2006). …”

“…It was concluded that this could be interpreted as due either to the presence of silicosis, or to an eVect of the implicit exposure to silica dust per se. Six subsequent quantitative reviews (Steenland et al 1996;Tsuda et al 1997;Steenland and Stayner 1997;Kurihara and Wada 2004;Lacasse et al 2005;Pelucchi et al 2006) have provided no new insights to distinguish between these two alternative explanations of the association, and discussion continues about interpretation of more recent research (Checkoway and Franzblau 2000;Cassidy et al 2007;Stayner 2007;Erren et al 2007). Yet resolution of the ambiguity about the underlying biopathway has important public health implications.…”

“…We use more searching statistical methods than have been reported previously (Smith et al 1995;Steenland et al 1996;Tsuda et al 1997;Steenland and Stayner 1997;Kurihara and Wada 2004;Lacasse et al 2005;Pelucchi et al 2006), and provide detailed analyses of data from studies that include information about lung cancer in silica exposed individuals without silicosis.…”