Premium
Ovarian cancer and occupational exposures in Finland
Author(s) -
VasamaNeuvonen Kaisa,
Pukkala Eero,
Paakkulainen Harri,
Mutanen Pertti,
Weiderpass Elisabete,
Boffetta Paolo,
Shen Ningyan,
Kauppinen Timo,
Vainio Harri,
Partanen Timo
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
american journal of industrial medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.7
H-Index - 104
eISSN - 1097-0274
pISSN - 0271-3586
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-0274(199907)36:1<83::aid-ajim12>3.0.co;2-q
Subject(s) - medicine , job exposure matrix , poisson regression , demography , occupational medicine , environmental health , confounding , occupational cancer , cohort study , cohort , incidence (geometry) , occupational exposure , population , physics , sociology , optics
Background: No single occupational or environmental agent has been established as causing ovarian cancer, existing studies often being based on ecologic or proportional mortality data in which potential confounders related to reproductive history have not been taken into account. Methods: This study linked 324 job titles of occupationally active Finnish women (n = 892,591) at 1970 census with incidence of ovarian cancer (Finnish Cancer Registry, 5,072 cases) during 1971–1995 (over 15 million person‐years). The job titles were converted into indicators of exposure to 33 agents, using a national job‐exposure matrix based on measurements and surveys (FINJEM). Poisson regression analyses were performed with stratification by birth cohort, follow‐up period, and socioeconomic status, and adjusted for mean number of children, mean age at first delivery, and turnover rate for each job title. Results: We found indications of elevated risks for aromatic hydrocarbon solvents (standardized incidence ratio 1.3 (95% CI 1.0–1.7), leather dust (1.4; 0.7–2.7), man‐made vitreous fibers (1.3; 0.9–1.8), and high levels of asbestos (1.3; 0.9–1.8), and diesel (1.7; 0.7–4.1), and gasoline (1.5; 1.0–2.0) engine exhausts). Previously reported findings for hairdressers and women in the printing industry were supported in our data, but not for women in dry cleaning jobs. Conclusions: Given the various drawbacks in linkage studies and job‐exposure matrices, the excesses found in this study need confirmation in individual‐level studies. Am. J. Ind. Med. 36:83–89, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.