Methods to recognize work-related cancer in workplaces, the general population, and by experts in the clinic, a Norwegian experience

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In most countries, the numbers of work-related cancer identified are much lower than are the estimated total burden of cancer caused by exposure at work. Therefore, there is a great need to use all available practical as well as epidemiological methods for identification as well as to develop new methods of recognizing cases of work-related cancers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Primarily based on practical experiences from Norway, methods to identify cases of possible work-related cancers in the general population and at workplaces as well as methods to recognize more specific cases after referral to specialized clinics are reviewed in this publication.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Countries applying a number of the available methods to detect work-related cancer reach a reporting rate of 60 such cases per million, while other countries that do not employ such methods hardly identify any cases. As most subjects previously exposed to cancer causing agents and substances at work are gradually recruited out of work, methods should be versatile for identification of cases in the general population, as well as at work.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Even in countries using a number of the available methods for identification, only a limited fraction of the real number of work-related cancer are notified to the labour inspectorate. Clinicians should be familiar with the methods and do the best to identify work-related cancer to serve prevention.</p

A Case–Control Study of Lung Cancer Nested in a Cohort of European Asphalt Workers

BACKGROUND: We conducted a nested case-control study in a cohort of European asphalt workers in which an increase in lung cancer risk has been reported among workers exposed to airborne bitumen fume, although potential bias and confounding were not fully addressed. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the contribution of exposure to bitumen, other occupational agents, and tobacco smoking to the risk of lung cancer among asphalt workers. METHODS: Cases were cohort members in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Israel who had died of lung cancer between 1980 and the end of follow-up (2002-2005). Controls were individually matched in a 3:1 ratio to cases on year of birth and country. We derived exposure estimates for bitumen fume and condensate, organic vapor, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, as well as for asbestos, crystalline silica, diesel motor exhaust, and coal tar. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for ever-exposure, duration, average exposure, and cumulative exposure after adjusting for tobacco smoking and exposure to coal tar. RESULTS: A total of 433 cases and 1,253 controls were included in the analysis. The OR was 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-1.49] for inhalation exposure to bitumen fume and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.88-1.56) for dermal exposure to bitumen condensate. No significant trend was observed between lung cancer risk and duration, average exposure, or cumulative exposure to bitumen fume or condensate. CONCLUSIONS: We found no consistent evidence of an association between indicators of either inhalation or dermal exposure to bitumen and lung cancer risk. A sizable proportion of the excess mortality from lung cancer relative to the general population observed in the earlier cohort phase is likely attributable to high tobacco consumption and possibly to coal tar exposure, whereas other occupational agents do not appear to play an important role