Investigation of occupational and environmental causes of respiratory cancers (ICARE): a multicenter, population-based case-control study in France

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Occupational causes of respiratory cancers need to be further investigated: the role of occupational exposures in the aetiology of head and neck cancers remains largely unknown, and there are still substantial uncertainties for a number of suspected lung carcinogens. The main objective of the study is to examine occupational risk factors for lung and head and neck cancers.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>ICARE is a multi-center, population-based case-control study, which included a group of 2926 lung cancer cases, a group of 2415 head and neck cancer cases, and a common control group of 3555 subjects. Incident cases were identified in collaboration with cancer registries, in 10 geographical areas. The control group was a random sample of the population of these areas, with a distribution by sex and age comparable to that of the cases, and a distribution by socioeconomic status comparable to that of the population. Subjects were interviewed face to face, using a standardized questionnaire collecting particularly information on tobacco and alcohol consumption, residential history and a detailed description of occupational history. Biological samples were also collected from study subjects. The main occupational exposures of interest are asbestos, man-made mineral fibers, formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chromium and nickel compounds, arsenic, wood dust, textile dust, solvents, strong acids, cutting fluids, silica, diesel fumes, welding fumes. The complete list of exposures of interest includes more than 60 substances. Occupational exposure assessment will use several complementary methods: case-by-case evaluation of exposure by experts; development and use of algorithms to assess exposure from the questionnaires; application of job-exposure matrices.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The large number of subjects should allow to uncover exposures associated with moderate increase in risks, and to evaluate risks associated with infrequent or widely dispersed exposures. It will be possible to study joint effects of exposure to different occupational risk factors, to examine the interactions between occupational exposures, tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking, and genetic risk factors, and to estimate the proportion of respiratory cancers attributable to occupational exposures in France. In addition, information on many non-occupational risk factors is available, and the study will provide an excellent framework for numerous studies in various fields.</p

Extrapolation and the Russo–Williamson thesis

A particular tradition in medicine claims that a variety of evidence is helpful in determining whether an observed correlation is causal. In line with this tradition, it has been claimed that establishing a causal claim in medicine requires both probabilistic and mechanistic evidence. This claim has been put forward by Federica Russo and Jon Williamson. As a result, it is sometimes called the Russo–Williamson thesis. In support of this thesis, Russo and Williamson appeal to the practice of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). However, this practice presents some problematic cases for the Russo–Williamson thesis. One response to such cases is to argue in favour of reforming these practices. In this paper, we propose an alternative response according to which such cases are in fact consistent with the Russo–Williamson thesis. This response requires maintaining that there is a role for mechanism-based extrapolation in the practice of the IARC. However, the response works only if this mechanism-based extrapolation is reliable, and some have argued against the reliability of mechanism-based extrapolation. Against this, we provide some reasons for believing that reliable mechanism-based extrapolation is going on in the practice of the IARC. The reasons are provided by appealing to the role of robustness analysis

Beliefs and perceptions about the causes of breast cancer: a case-control study

Background: Attributions of causality are common for many diseases, including breast cancer. The risk of developing breast cancer can be reduced by modifications to lifestyle and behaviours to minimise exposure to specific risk factors, such as obesity. However, these modifications will only occur if women believe that certain behaviours/lifestyle factors have an impact on the development of breast cancer. Method: The Breast Cancer, Environment and Employment Study is a case-control study of breast cancer conducted in Western Australia between 2009 and 2011. As part of the study 1109 women with breast cancer and 1633 women without the disease completed a Risk Perception questionnaire in which they were asked in an open-ended question for specific cause/s to the development of breast cancer in themselves or in others. The study identified specific causal beliefs, and assessed differences in the beliefs between women with and without breast cancer. Results: The most common attributions in women without breast cancer were to familial or inherited factors (77.6%), followed by lifestyle factors, such as poor diet and smoking (47.1%), and environmental factors, such as food additives (45.4%). The most common attributions in women with breast cancer were to mental or emotional factors (46.3%), especially stress, followed by lifestyle factors (38.6%) and physiological factors (37.5%), particularly relating to hormonal history.Conclusions: While the majority of participants in this study provided one or more causal attributions for breast cancer, many of the reported risk factors do not correspond to those generally accepted by the scientific community. These misperceptions could be having a significant impact on the success of prevention and early detection programs that seek to minimise the pain and suffering caused by this disease. In particular, women who have no family history of the disease may not work to minimise their exposure to the modifiable risk factors

The association between adult attained height and sitting height with mortality in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC)

Adult height and sitting height may reflect genetic and environmental factors, including early life nutrition, physical and social environments. Previous studies have reported divergent associations for height and chronic disease mortality, with positive associations observed for cancer mortality but inverse associations for circulatory disease mortality. Sitting height might be more strongly associated with insulin resistance; however, data on sitting height and mortality is sparse. Using the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study, a prospective cohort of 409,748 individuals, we examined adult height and sitting height in relation to all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Height was measured in the majority of participants; sitting height was measured in ~253,000 participants. During an average of 12.5 years of follow-up, 29,810 deaths (11,931 from cancer and 7,346 from circulatory disease) were identified. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for death were calculated using multivariable Cox regression within quintiles of height. Height was positively associated with cancer mortality (men: HRQ5 vs. Q1=1.11, 95%CI=1.00-1.24; women: HRQ5 vs. Q1=1.17, 95%CI=1.07-1.28). In contrast, height was inversely associated with circulatory disease mortality (men: HRQ5 vs. Q1=0.63, 95%CI=0.56-0.71; women: HRQ5 vs. Q1=0.81, 95%CI=0.70-0.93). Although sitting height was not associated with cancer mortality, it was inversely associated with circulatory disease (men: HRQ5 vs. Q1=0.64, 95%CI=0.55-0.75; women: HRQ5 vs. Q1=0.60, 95%CI=0.49-0.74) and respiratory disease mortality (men: HRQ5 vs. Q1=0.45, 95%CI=0.28-0.71; women: HRQ5 vs. Q1=0.60, 95%CI=0.40-0.89). We observed opposing effects of height on cancer and circulatory disease mortality. Sitting height was inversely associated with circulatory disease and respiratory disease mortality