Meta-analyses of published epidemiological studies, 1979-2006, point to open causal questions in silica-silicosis-lung cancer research / La metanalisi degli studi epidemiologici pubblicati nel 1979-2006 pone in rilievo domande di natura causale ancora aperte sul rapporto silice-silicosi-cancro del polmone
Main Article Content
Keywords
Abstract
Summary
Background and Objectives: Following up on a previous meta-analysis of lung cancer risk in individuals without silicosis, we provide more detailed results of silica associated lung cancer risk in both silicotics and non-silicotics. The objective was to examine in depth whether current data allows to answer the pressing question “does silica cause lung cancer in the absence of silicosis”? Methods: We updated earlier meta-analyses of silicosis and lung cancer and compared the results with our 2009 meta-analysis of risks in individuals without silicosis. We performed fixed (FE) and random (RE) effects meta-analyses, calculated heterogeneity statistics, stratified the study material, performed sensitivity analyses with modified study results and meta-regressions to detect effect modification. Results: In silicotics, lung cancer risks were found to be doubled in 38 studies (FE: RR=2.1; 95%CI=2.0-2.3). In non-silicotics, eight studies without smoking adjustment suggested marginally elevated risks (FE: RR=1.2; 95%CI=1.1-1.3; RE: RR=1.2; 95%CI=1.0-1.4) but three studies which were controlled for smoking showed null results (FE and RE: RR=1.0; 95%CI=0.8-1.3). Heterogeneity was substantial but could be linked to study characteristics, like sector of industry, and other second-level data in meta-regression. As no excess was observed for other smoking-related effects in studies of lung cancer among non-silicotics, smoking was not considered to be an important confounder or modifier. Conclusion: Our meta-analyses further substantiate evidence of a strong association between silicosis and lung cancer. However, questions remain regarding lung cancer caused by silica in non-silicotics. Ideally, future investigations should consider the entire exposure-response range between silica exposure, silicosis development and lung cancer occurrence, and analyze data in terms of processes taking intermediate confounding into account.
Background and Objectives: Following up on a previous meta-analysis of lung cancer risk in individuals without silicosis, we provide more detailed results of silica associated lung cancer risk in both silicotics and non-silicotics. The objective was to examine in depth whether current data allows to answer the pressing question “does silica cause lung cancer in the absence of silicosis”? Methods: We updated earlier meta-analyses of silicosis and lung cancer and compared the results with our 2009 meta-analysis of risks in individuals without silicosis. We performed fixed (FE) and random (RE) effects meta-analyses, calculated heterogeneity statistics, stratified the study material, performed sensitivity analyses with modified study results and meta-regressions to detect effect modification. Results: In silicotics, lung cancer risks were found to be doubled in 38 studies (FE: RR=2.1; 95%CI=2.0-2.3). In non-silicotics, eight studies without smoking adjustment suggested marginally elevated risks (FE: RR=1.2; 95%CI=1.1-1.3; RE: RR=1.2; 95%CI=1.0-1.4) but three studies which were controlled for smoking showed null results (FE and RE: RR=1.0; 95%CI=0.8-1.3). Heterogeneity was substantial but could be linked to study characteristics, like sector of industry, and other second-level data in meta-regression. As no excess was observed for other smoking-related effects in studies of lung cancer among non-silicotics, smoking was not considered to be an important confounder or modifier. Conclusion: Our meta-analyses further substantiate evidence of a strong association between silicosis and lung cancer. However, questions remain regarding lung cancer caused by silica in non-silicotics. Ideally, future investigations should consider the entire exposure-response range between silica exposure, silicosis development and lung cancer occurrence, and analyze data in terms of processes taking intermediate confounding into account.
Article Sidebar
Published
Jun 2, 2011
Article Details
How to Cite
1.
Erren T, Morfeld P, Glende et al. C. Meta-analyses of published epidemiological studies, 1979-2006, point to open causal questions in silica-silicosis-lung cancer research / La metanalisi degli studi epidemiologici pubblicati nel 1979-2006 pone in rilievo domande di natura causale ancora aperte sul rapporto silice-silicosi-cancro del polmone. Med Lav [Internet]. 2011 Jun. 2 [cited 2024 Jul. 18];102(4):321-35. Available from: https://mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/lamedicinadellavoro/article/view/1291
Issue
Section
Special articles
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Erren T, Morfeld P, Glende et al. C. Meta-analyses of published epidemiological studies, 1979-2006, point to open causal questions in silica-silicosis-lung cancer research / La metanalisi degli studi epidemiologici pubblicati nel 1979-2006 pone in rilievo domande di natura causale ancora aperte sul rapporto silice-silicosi-cancro del polmone. Med Lav [Internet]. 2011 Jun. 2 [cited 2024 Jul. 18];102(4):321-35. Available from: https://mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/lamedicinadellavoro/article/view/1291
