Dear editor, We thank Kawada 1 for comments on our recent paper. 2 We agree that air pollution exposure assessment is one of the main limitations of our analysis, being based on modeled estimates of recent concentrations assigned to the participant residence at enrollment some 10 years prior. Although addressing limitations of previous work based on surrogate indicators of ambient air pollution, further work with more detailed individual-level estimates of historical exposure prior to cancer occurrence may be useful. Kawada 1 also points out that our analysis employed unconditional as opposed to conditional logistic regression models to estimate associations of ambient air pollution and incident bladder cancer risk. Unconditional logistic regression analysis of matched case-control studies adjusting for matching variables results in valid and possibly more precise estimates of association compared to conditional logistic regression when sparse data are not of concern. 3 Our analysis also adjusted for a range of bladder cancer risk factors in both the main analysis and in a range of sensitivity analyses with little change in findings observed. Other analyses of air pollution and bladder cancer based on either minimal or fully adjusted approaches have also noted little change in relative risk estimates observed. 4 Yours sincerely