Abstract
This study investigated arsenic and lung cancer incidence in a community setting in the Montreal area. Job histories and sociodemographic factors were collected by interview from 857 lung cancer cases, 533 general population controls, and 1360 controls with other cancers. Chemist-hygienists assessed each subject's life-time occupational exposure to 294 substances. Logistic regressions yielded arsenic/lung cancer odds ratios of 1.1 (95% confidence interval = 0.60, 1.7) based on cancer controls, and 0.82 (95% confidence interval = 0.41, 1.6) based on population controls. Risk did not rise with increasing level or probability of exposure. Worksite studies consistently show lung carcinogenicity from arsenic. Since confounding from other chemicals was well controlled, the most likely explanation is substantially lower exposures than in previous studies. The lack of association in this study demonstrates the need for caution in interpreting negative findings from population-based case-control studies, particularly when exposures are low or rare, as well as the difficulty in generating hypotheses from such studies.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 138-142 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Canadian Journal of Public Health |
| Volume | 90 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| State | Published - Mar 1999 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Cite this
When to be skeptical of negative studies : Pitfalls in evaluating occupational risks using population-based case-control studies. / Hu, Suh Woan; Hertz-Picciotto, Irva; Siemiatycki, Jack.
In: Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 90, No. 2, 03.1999, p. 138-142.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - When to be skeptical of negative studies
T2 - Pitfalls in evaluating occupational risks using population-based case-control studies
AU - Hu, Suh Woan
AU - Hertz-Picciotto, Irva
AU - Siemiatycki, Jack
PY - 1999/3
Y1 - 1999/3
N2 - This study investigated arsenic and lung cancer incidence in a community setting in the Montreal area. Job histories and sociodemographic factors were collected by interview from 857 lung cancer cases, 533 general population controls, and 1360 controls with other cancers. Chemist-hygienists assessed each subject's life-time occupational exposure to 294 substances. Logistic regressions yielded arsenic/lung cancer odds ratios of 1.1 (95% confidence interval = 0.60, 1.7) based on cancer controls, and 0.82 (95% confidence interval = 0.41, 1.6) based on population controls. Risk did not rise with increasing level or probability of exposure. Worksite studies consistently show lung carcinogenicity from arsenic. Since confounding from other chemicals was well controlled, the most likely explanation is substantially lower exposures than in previous studies. The lack of association in this study demonstrates the need for caution in interpreting negative findings from population-based case-control studies, particularly when exposures are low or rare, as well as the difficulty in generating hypotheses from such studies.
AB - This study investigated arsenic and lung cancer incidence in a community setting in the Montreal area. Job histories and sociodemographic factors were collected by interview from 857 lung cancer cases, 533 general population controls, and 1360 controls with other cancers. Chemist-hygienists assessed each subject's life-time occupational exposure to 294 substances. Logistic regressions yielded arsenic/lung cancer odds ratios of 1.1 (95% confidence interval = 0.60, 1.7) based on cancer controls, and 0.82 (95% confidence interval = 0.41, 1.6) based on population controls. Risk did not rise with increasing level or probability of exposure. Worksite studies consistently show lung carcinogenicity from arsenic. Since confounding from other chemicals was well controlled, the most likely explanation is substantially lower exposures than in previous studies. The lack of association in this study demonstrates the need for caution in interpreting negative findings from population-based case-control studies, particularly when exposures are low or rare, as well as the difficulty in generating hypotheses from such studies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033067621&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033067621&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 10349223
AN - SCOPUS:0033067621
VL - 90
SP - 138
EP - 142
JO - Canadian Journal of Public Health
JF - Canadian Journal of Public Health
SN - 0008-4263
IS - 2
ER -