Occupational benzene exposure and risk of head and neck cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Benzene, an aromatic hydrocarbon, is a well-known leukemogen. To date, the link between benzene exposure and solid cancers is under examination. Our objective is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate if the occupational exposure to benzene is associated with the incidence and mortality of head and neck cancers (HNCs).

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature for pertinent cohort studies mentioned in the most recent IARC Monograph on benzene working exposure and other cohorts and case-controls identified via a literature search performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase, from their inception to March 2024. Stratified multilevel meta-analyses according to study design, cancer type, industrial sector, quality score of the articles, geographic region and risk of exposure bias were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 29 independent studies were included in our review and multilevel meta-analysis. The findings revealed a bordeline association between exposure to occupational benzene and incidence of HNCs RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.00-1.64, I level2 = 0%, Ilevel3 = 43.30%, P < 0.05). In addition, we found a significant increased overall risk of HNCs in females (RR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.07-2.61; Ilevel2 = 0%, Ilevel3 = 0%, P = 0.433). Stratification analysis according to cancer sites showed a significant increase in risk of nose & sinuses cancers (RR = 3.72, 95% CI = 2.07-6.68; Ilevel2 = 34.13%, Ilevel3 = 0%, P = 0.17). European cohorts (RR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.08-1.59, p < 0.01) and lower quality studies (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.00-1.91; Ilevel2 = 0%, Ilevel3 = 45.94%, P < 0.001). No evidence of publication bias was found (Egger test P = 0.103).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence that workers with occupational exposure to benzene might be at increased risk of HNCs, in particular for nose & sinuses cancer. However, it is essential to consider the limitations of the studies, particularly residual confounding, and the areas that need further study to improve our understanding of the subject.