Stomach cancer and occupational exposure to asbestos: a meta-analysis of occupational cohort studies

BACKGROUND: A recent Monographs Working Group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that there is limited evidence for a causal association between exposure to asbestos and stomach cancer. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate this association. Random effects models were used to summarise the relative risks across studies. Sources of heterogeneity were explored through subgroup analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: We identified 40 mortality cohort studies from 37 separate papers, and cancer incidence data were extracted for 15 separate cohorts from 14 papers. The overall meta-SMR for stomach cancer for total cohort was 1.15 (95% confidence interval 1.03–1.27), with heterogeneous results across studies. Statistically significant excesses were observed in North America and Australia but not in Europe, and for generic asbestos workers and insulators. Meta-SMRs were larger for cohorts reporting a SMR for lung cancer above 2 and cohort sizes below 1000. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the conclusion by IARC that exposure to asbestos is associated with a moderate increased risk of stomach cancer

Occupational asbestos exposure and risk of esophageal, gastric and colorectal cancer in the prospective Netherlands Cohort Study

The evidence for an association between occupational asbestos exposure and esophageal, gastric and colorectal cancer is limited. We studied this association specifically addressing risk differences between relatively low and high exposure, risk associated with cancer subtypes, the influence of potential confounders and the interaction between asbestos and smoking in relation to cancer risk. Using the Netherlands Cohort Study (n = 58,279 men, aged 55-69 years at baseline), asbestos exposure was estimated by linkage to a job-exposure matrix. After 17.3 years of follow-up, 187 esophageal, 486 gastric and 1,724 colorectal cancer cases were available for analysis. The models adjusted for age and family history of cancer showed that mainly (prolonged) exposure to high levels of asbestos was statistically significantly associated with risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), total and distal colon cancer and rectal cancer. For overall gastric cancer and gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma (GNCA), also exposure to lower levels of asbestos was associated. Additional adjustment for lifestyle confounders, especially smoking status, yielded non-significant associations with overall gastric cancer and GNCA in the multivariable-adjusted model, except for the prolonged highly exposed subjects (tertile 3 vs. never: HR 2.67, 95% Cl: 1.11-6.44 and HR 3.35, 95% Cl: 1.33-8.44, respectively). No statistically significant additive or multiplicative interaction between asbestos and smoking was observed for any of the studied cancers. This prospective population-based study showed that (prolonged) high asbestos exposure was associated with overall gastric cancer, EAC, GNCA, total and distal colon cancer and rectal cancer

Occupational asbestos exposure and risk of oral cavity and pharyngeal cancer in the prospective Netherlands Cohort Study

Objectives The evidence for an association between occupational asbestos exposure and pharyngeal cancer (PhC) is limited, while for oral cavity cancer (OCC) the literature is even sparser. We studied OCC and PhC risk both separately and combined (OCPC) in relation to occupational asbestos exposure, specifically addressing the influence of potential confounders, the existence of an exposure response relation, and the presence of interaction between asbestos and smoking. Methods Using the prospective Netherlands Cohort Study (N=58 279 men, aged 55-69 years), we estimated asbestos exposure by linkage to a general population job-exposure matrix (DOMJEM) and a Finnish job-exposure matrix (FINJEM). After 17.3 years of follow-up, 58 OCC and 53 PhC cases were available for analysis. Results No association between asbestos and risk of OCC was observed for either JEM. Hazard ratios (HR) of PhC and OCPC increased after adjusting for confounders, particularly alcohol consumption and socioeconomic status. For PhC, a multivariable-adjusted increased HR was observed for "ever" versus "never" exposed to asbestos [HR 2.20, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.08-4.49] when using FINJEM, but a trend of increased risks with higher cumulative exposure could not be demonstrated for either JEM. Results for OCPC showed patterns similar to those observed for PhC. None of the cancers showed a significant interaction between asbestos and smoking. Conclusions This prospective population-based study showed no convincing evidence of an association between asbestos and risk of OCC, PhC, and OCPC as an exposure response relation was lacking, and results were not robust against the use of different JEM. However, the potentially increased HR of PhC and OCPC observed in this and previous studies warrant further research

Comparison of expert and job-exposure matrix-based retrospective exposure assessment of occupational carcinogens in the Netherlands Cohort Study

Objectives Reliable retrospective exposure assessment continues to be a challenge in most population-based studies. Several methodologies exist for estimating exposures retrospectively, of which case-by-case expert assessment and job-exposure matrices (JEMs) are commonly used. This study evaluated the reliability of exposure estimates for selected carcinogens obtained through three JEMs by comparing the estimates with case-by-case expert assessment within the Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS). Methods The NLCS includes 58 279 men aged 55-69 years at enrolment in 1986. For a subcohort of these men (n=1630), expert assessment is available for exposure to asbestos, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and welding fumes. Reliability of the different JEMs (DOMJEM (asbestos, PAHs), FINJEM (asbestos, PAHs and welding fumes) and Asbestos JEM (asbestos) was determined by assessing the agreement between these JEMs and the expert assessment. Results Expert assessment revealed the lowest prevalence of exposure for all three exposures (asbestos 9.3%; PAHs 5.3%; welding fumes 11.7%). The DOMJEM showed the highest level of agreement with the expert assessment for asbestos and PAHs (kappa s=0.29 and 0.42, respectively), closely followed by the FINJEM. For welding fumes, concordance between the expert assessment and FINJEM was high (kappa=0.70). The Asbestos JEM showed poor agreement with the expert asbestos assessment (kappa=0.10). Conclusions This study shows case-by-case expert assessment to result in the lowest prevalence of occupational exposure in the NLCS. Furthermore, the DOMJEM and FINJEM proved to be rather similar in agreement when compared with the expert assessment. The Asbestos JEM appeared to be less appropriate for use in the NLCS