1999
DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.455
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Occupational risk factors for lung cancer among young men

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The phenomenon may be due to the divergent smoking prevalence rates reported in different studies [4, 5, 16, 17]. Moreover, other hypotheses such as genes involved in xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes [18], DNA repair [19], and occupational risk factors have also been reported [20]. Tobacco smoking may result in various types of DNA damage in lung parenchyma and may lead to chronic inflammation, ultimately leading to carcinogenesis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The phenomenon may be due to the divergent smoking prevalence rates reported in different studies [4, 5, 16, 17]. Moreover, other hypotheses such as genes involved in xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes [18], DNA repair [19], and occupational risk factors have also been reported [20]. Tobacco smoking may result in various types of DNA damage in lung parenchyma and may lead to chronic inflammation, ultimately leading to carcinogenesis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We therefore used data from a large case-control study on lung cancer and indoor radon, conducted from 1990-1996 in Germany, to focus on nonsmoking men. Some of the findings have been published previously Kreuzer et al, 1998Kreuzer et al, , 1999Kreuzer et al, , 2000Brüske-Hohlfeld et al, 2000;Kreienbrock et al, 2000). The present paper describes our major findings on the relation between residential radon, occupational exposure, environmental tobacco smoke, family history of cancer and previous lung disease and risk of lung cancer in nonsmoking men.…”
mentioning
confidence: 81%
“…An additional 34 papers were excluded from the full critical review for at least one of the following reasons: multiple publications involving the same study population [11,12,13,21,49,72,73,78]; results of a single study were included as part of a larger multicenter study already included in the critical review [61,66,80]; no risk estimate was presented [6,7,34,39,40,68,74,96]; the probability of any substantial PCE exposure was low or undefined and could not be determined in the study population [15,29,32,35,36,50,77]; PCE was one of many possible exposures without further differentiation [38,42,44,51,58,71,82,97].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%