Park Dong-Uk, Colt Joanne S, Baris Dalsu, Schwenn Molly, Karagas Margaret R, Armenti Karla R, Johnson Alison, Silverman Debra T, Stewart Patricia A
a Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda , Maryland.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11(11):757-70. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2014.918984.
We describe an approach for estimating the probability that study subjects were exposed to metalworking fluids (MWFs) in a population-based case-control study of bladder cancer. Study subject reports on the frequency of machining and use of specific MWFs (straight, soluble, and synthetic/semi-synthetic) were used to estimate exposure probability when available. Those reports also were used to develop estimates for job groups, which were then applied to jobs without MWF reports. Estimates using both cases and controls and controls only were developed. The prevalence of machining varied substantially across job groups (0.1->0.9%), with the greatest percentage of jobs that machined being reported by machinists and tool and die workers. Reports of straight and soluble MWF use were fairly consistent across job groups (generally 50-70%). Synthetic MWF use was lower (13-45%). There was little difference in reports by cases and controls vs. controls only. Approximately, 1% of the entire study population was assessed as definitely exposed to straight or soluble fluids in contrast to 0.2% definitely exposed to synthetic/semi-synthetics. A comparison between the reported use of the MWFs and U.S. production levels found high correlations (r generally >0.7). Overall, the method described here is likely to have provided a systematic and reliable ranking that better reflects the variability of exposure to three types of MWFs than approaches applied in the past. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplemental resources: a list of keywords in the occupational histories that were used to link study subjects to the metalworking fluids (MWFs) modules; recommendations from the literature on selection of MWFs based on type of machining operation, the metal being machined and decade; popular additives to MWFs; the number and proportion of controls who reported various MWF responses by job group; the number and proportion of controls assigned to the MWF types by job group and exposure category; and the distribution of cases and controls assigned various levels of probability by MWF type.].
我们描述了一种在基于人群的膀胱癌病例对照研究中估计研究对象接触金属加工液(MWF)概率的方法。当有相关数据时,研究对象关于加工频率和特定MWF(直馏型、可溶型以及合成/半合成型)使用情况的报告被用于估计接触概率。这些报告还被用于得出不同职业组的估计值,然后将其应用于没有MWF报告的工作岗位。分别使用病例组和对照组以及仅使用对照组得出了估计值。不同职业组的加工流行率差异很大(0.1% -> 0.9%),机械师以及模具工报告的加工工作岗位占比最高。直馏型和可溶型MWF使用情况的报告在不同职业组中相当一致(通常为50% - 70%)。合成型MWF的使用比例较低(13% - 45%)。病例组和对照组与仅对照组的报告差异不大。整个研究人群中约1%被评估为肯定接触了直馏型或可溶型液体,相比之下,肯定接触合成/半合成型液体的比例为0.2%。MWF报告使用情况与美国生产水平之间的比较发现具有高度相关性(r通常>0.7)。总体而言,本文所述方法可能提供了一个系统且可靠的排名,比过去应用的方法能更好地反映三种MWF接触的变异性。[本文提供了补充材料。前往《职业与环境卫生杂志》出版商的在线版本获取以下免费补充资源:用于将研究对象与金属加工液(MWF)模块相关联的职业史中的关键词列表;基于加工操作类型、加工金属和年代的MWF选择文献建议;MWF的常见添加剂;按职业组报告各种MWF反应的对照组数量和比例;按职业组和接触类别分配到MWF类型的对照组数量和比例;以及按MWF类型分配不同概率水平的病例组和对照组分布情况。]