Search

ObjectiveTo estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) and number of incident and fatal lung cancers in Canada from occupational exposure to diesel engine exhaust (DEE).MethodsDEE exposure prevalence and level estimates were used with Canadian Census and Labour Force Survey data to model the exposed population across the risk exposure period (REP, 1961–2001). Relative risks of lung cancer were calculated based on a meta-regression selected from the literature. PAFs were calculated using Levin’s equation and applied to the 2011 lung cancer statistics obtained from the Canadian Cancer Registry.ResultsWe estimated that 2.4% (95% CI 1.6% to 6.6%) of lung cancers in Canada are attributable to occupational DEE exposure, corresponding to approximately 560 (95% CI 380 to 1570) incident and 460 (95% CI 310 to 1270) fatal lung cancers in 2011. Overall, 1.6 million individuals alive in 2011 were occupationally exposed to DEE during the REP, 97% of whom were male. Occupations with the highest burden were underground miners, truck drivers and mechanics. Half of the attributable lung cancers occurred among workers with low exposure.ConclusionsThis is the first study to quantify the burden of lung cancer attributable to occupational DEE exposure in Canada. Our results underscore a large potential for prevention, and a large public health impact from occupational exposure to low levels of DEE.

Introduction: Retrospective 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. Methods: Two 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. Results: Among 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. Conclusion: The 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.

Introduction: Retrospective 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. Methods: Two 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. Results: Among 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. Conclusion: The 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.