Smoking bans in public places and workplaces are significantly associated with a reduction in AMI incidence, particularly if enforced over several years.

No abstract

Because few studies have assessed the accuracy of lung cancer histologic diagnoses reported by state cancer registries, we examined whether the Iowa Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Cancer Registry (i.e., the Iowa Cancer Registry)-reported lung cancer histologic diagnoses were reliable. We investigated agreement between lung cancer histologic types reported for 413 patients with lung cancer by the Iowa Cancer Registry and those obtained through an independent review of diagnostic slides. Among lung cancer histologic types, small-cell carcinoma had the highest sensitivity (94.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 85.6% to 98.4%), positive predictive value (94.1%, 95% CI = 85.6% to 98.4%), negative predictive value (98.8%, 95% CI = 96.9% to 99.7%), and highest percent exact agreement (98.0%, 95% CI = 96.6% to 99.4%). The lowest sensitivity (21.9%, 95% CI = 9.3% to 40.0%) and positive predictive value (23.3%, 95% CI = 9.9% to 42.3%) were noted for large-cell carcinoma, probably because other more specific features of adenocarcinoma or squamous carcinoma were absent. Adenocarcinoma had the lowest specificity (84.4%, 95% CI = 79.0% to 88.9%), negative predictive value (85.2%, 95% CI = 79.9% to 89.6%), and percent exact agreement (82.9%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 86.6%). Samples collected by cytologic examination (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.1 to 5.2) or biopsy examination (OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.1 to 4.2) were more likely to be misclassified than samples obtained via resection. Thus, the histologic type obtained by the Iowa Cancer Registry is reasonably reliable, but independent slide review is needed for precise histologic typing of lung cancer.

Lung cancer remains a significant burden on society, with approximately 157,200 deaths from this disease in 2003 occurring in the United States alone. Smoking causes the vast majority of cases (and deaths) from lung cancer, occupation may account for as many as 16,700 of such deaths. To examine the influence of occupation independent of smoking, we reviewed the literature on occupational lung cancer in nonsmokers. We found that most individual studies and summaries of occupational lung cancer are based on data having a heavy preponderance of male smokers. Relatively little data are available concerning females and nonsmokers. Specific dose-response information is often lacking. Although many studies have been adjusted for smoking, there remains a significant potential for residual confounding because of the overwhelming importance of smoking in the etiology of this disease. Our review has found some evidence that asbestos, environmental tobacco smoke, and radon decay products (progeny) are occupational carcinogens in nonsmokers. Increased risk for lung cancer might also occur in nonsmokers from occupational exposure to arsenic. Nevertheless, for many agents and occupations occupations or industries listed in the database of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), we could not locate any study that found them to be occupational risk factors for lung cancer in nonsmokers. Thus, considerable uncertainty exists about their ability to cause lung cancer in the nonsmoking working population. We discuss problems with the original occupational studies and the IARC list of carcinogens. Besides the absence of information on nonsmokers, these problems include lack of sufficient detail on exposure to the primary agent of concern and to other occupational lung carcinogens. Further research on occupational causes of lung cancer in nonsmokers should be given high priority.

No abstract