Occup Environ Med

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Published Online First: 16 April 2008. doi:10.1136/oem.2007.036913
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2008;65:371-378
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
oem.2007.036913v1
65/6/371    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Steinmaus, C
Right arrow Articles by Smith, M T
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Steinmaus, C
Right arrow Articles by Smith, M T

REVIEW

Meta-analysis of benzene exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: biases could mask an important association

C Steinmaus1,2, A H Smith1, R M Jones1, M T Smith1

1 School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
2 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, Oakland, California, USA

Correspondence to:
Craig Steinmaus, 140 Warren Hall University of California Berkeley, California 94720-7360, USA; craigs{at}berkeley.edu

Objectives: Benzene is a widely recognised cause of leukaemia but its association with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) is less well established. The goal of this project is to review the current published literature on this association.

Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies of benzene exposure and NHL and a meta-analysis of NHL and refinery work, a potential source of benzene exposure.

Results: In 22 studies of benzene exposure, the summary relative risk for NHL was 1.22 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.47; one-sided p value = 0.01). When studies that likely included unexposed subjects in the "exposed" group were excluded, the summary relative risk increased to 1.49 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.97, n = 13), and when studies based solely on self-reported work history were excluded, the relative risk rose to 2.12 (95% CI 1.11 to 4.02, n = 6). In refinery workers, the summary relative risk for NHL in all 21 studies was 1.21 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.46; p = 0.02). When adjusted for the healthy worker effect, this relative risk estimate increased to 1.42 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.69).

Conclusions: The finding of elevated relative risks in studies of both benzene exposure and refinery work provides further evidence that benzene exposure causes NHL. In addition, the finding of increased relative risks after removing studies that included unexposed or lesser exposed workers in "exposed" cohorts, and increased relative risk estimates after adjusting for the healthy worker effect, suggest that effects of benzene on NHL might be missed in occupational studies if these biases are not accounted for.








HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.