Garabrant D H, Peters R K, Homa D M
Department of Environmental and Industrial Health, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor.
Am J Epidemiol. 1992 Apr 15;135(8):843-53. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116380.
Previous studies linking exposure to asbestos with human colon cancer have used mortality rather than incidence as their endpoint and have neither assessed nor controlled for confounding by diet, genetic factors, or other risk factors for colon cancer. A case-control study of 746 histologically confirmed cases of colon cancer and 746 matched neighborhood controls was conducted in Los Angeles County, California. In univariate analyses of the 419 male pairs, a weak association was found between asbestos exposure and colon cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.69). When confounding by family history of large bowel cancer, diet, body weight, and physical activity was controlled, there was no association between colon cancer and exposure to asbestos among males (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.66-1.50). When asbestos exposure was restricted to occurrences preceding diagnosis by more than 15 years, there was no clear association between such exposure and colon cancer, either before (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.76-1.70) or after confounding was controlled (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.60-1.44). Further analyses by frequency and duration of exposure failed to show any association between asbestos and risk of colon cancer, but did show a consistent pattern of confounding by nonoccupational factors that, when controlled, invariably produced a weak protective effect of asbestos exposure. Among the 327 female pairs, only 6 cases and 11 controls reported asbestos exposure (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.20-1.48), and there was no evidence of risk increasing as the frequency or duration of exposure increased. This study suggests not only that occupational exposure to asbestos is not a risk factor for colon cancer in the general population of Los Angeles, but also that observed associations between asbestos and colon cancer should not be interpreted as causal unless confounding by nonoccupational factors has been evaluated and controlled.
以往将接触石棉与人类结肠癌联系起来的研究,都将死亡率而非发病率作为其研究终点,且既未评估也未控制饮食、遗传因素或其他结肠癌风险因素所造成的混杂影响。在加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县开展了一项病例对照研究,涉及746例经组织学确诊的结肠癌病例和746名相匹配的社区对照。在对419对男性配对进行的单因素分析中,发现石棉接触与结肠癌之间存在微弱关联(优势比(OR)= 1.16,95%置信区间(CI)0.80 - 1.69)。当对大肠癌家族史、饮食、体重和身体活动造成的混杂影响进行控制后,男性结肠癌与石棉接触之间不存在关联(OR = 0.99,95% CI 0.66 - 1.50)。当将石棉接触限制在诊断前15年以上发生的情况时,无论在控制混杂影响之前(OR = 1.14,95% CI 0.76 - 1.70)还是之后(OR = 0.93,95% CI 0.60 - 1.44),这种接触与结肠癌之间均无明显关联。按接触频率和持续时间进行的进一步分析未能显示石棉与结肠癌风险之间存在任何关联,但确实显示出非职业因素造成混杂影响的一致模式,在对这些因素进行控制后,石棉接触总是产生微弱的保护作用。在327对女性配对中,只有6例病例和11名对照报告有石棉接触(OR = 0.55,95% CI 0.20 - 1.48),且没有证据表明随着接触频率或持续时间的增加风险会升高。这项研究不仅表明,在洛杉矶的普通人群中,职业性接触石棉并非结肠癌的风险因素,还表明,除非对非职业因素造成的混杂影响进行了评估和控制,否则观察到的石棉与结肠癌之间的关联不应被解释为因果关系。