Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Oral Session 16 – Exposure assessment 2

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

O16.1 RETROSPECTIVE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT IN A COMMUNITY BASED CASE–CONTROL STUDY OF LUNG CANCER

M. Whitrow1, D. Pisaniello1, B. Smith1, L. Pilotto2.1University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia; 2Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

Introduction: A case control study was undertaken to evaluate the contributions of occupational and environmental exposures to carcinogens potentially associated with an excess of lung cancer in the industrial northwest region of Adelaide, Australia. This paper describes the methodology and findings of the retrospective exposure assessment.

Methods: Cases and controls were personally interviewed with a highly structured questionnaire entailing a lifetime calendar history of occupation, cigarette smoking, and residence, with additional questions on hobbies, family history, and other factors. A panel of three experienced occupational hygienists was used to individually and collectively rate exposures to lung carcinogens associated with reported industries and jobs. Residential exposure was assessed by geographical information systems, downwind frequency, and estimated emissions from six major local industries. Environmental exposures occurring outside northwest Adelaide were assessed via information on polluting industries located within the suburb of residence.

Results: Of the 142 cases and 415 controls, 70% were male, and cases were significantly more likely to be smokers. Aside from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure, the proportion of subjects with occupational carcinogen exposure was relatively low, with more than 50% judged as having no appreciable exposure. Agreement between the three panellists was moderate (κ = 0.4 to 0.6) whereas the agreement between individual ratings and the consensus rating was good (κ = 0.6 to 0.8) across the six specified lung carcinogens. Generally, there was …

View Full Text