Prostate cancer risk by occupation in the Occupational Disease Surveillance System (ODSS) in Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Introduction Previous Canadian epidemiologic studies have identified associations between occupations and prostate cancer risk, though evidence is limited. However, there are no well-established preventable risk factors for prostate cancer, which warrants the need for further investigation into occupational factors to strengthen existing evidence. This study uses occupation and prostate cancer information from a large surveillance cohort in Ontario that linked workers’ compensation claim data to administrative health databases. Methods Occupations were examined using the Occupational Disease Surveillance System (ODSS). ODSS included 1 231 177 male workers for the 1983 to 2015 period, whose records were linked to the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) in order to identify and follow up on prostate cancer diagnoses. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate age-adjusted hazard ratios and 95% CI to estimate the risk of prostate cancer by occupation group. Results A total of 34 997 prostate cancer cases were diagnosed among workers in ODSS. Overall, elevated prostate cancer risk was observed for men employed in man¬agement/administration (HR 2.17, 95% CI = 1.98–2.38), teaching (HR 1.99, 95% CI = 1.79–2.21), transportation (HR 1.20, 95% CI = 1.16–1.24), construction (HR 1.09, 95% CI = 1.06–1.12), firefighting (HR 1.62, 95% CI = 1.47–1.78), and police work (HR 1.20, 95% CI = 1.10–1.32). Inconsistent findings were observed for clerical and farm¬ing occupations. Conclusion Associations observed in white collar, construction, transportation, and protective services occupations were consistent with previous Canadian studies. Findings emphasize the need to assess job-specific exposures, sedentary behaviour, psy¬chological stress, and shift work. Understanding specific occupational risk factors can lead to better understanding of prostate cancer etiology and improve prevention strategies.

Occupation and prostate Cancer risk: results from the epidemiological study of prostate cancer (EPICAP)

“…We found a positive association with PCa risk for Production Supervisors and General Foremen as observed in two North American case-control studies [16,17]. Some negative associations have also been observed in our study with Service Workers with conflicting results in the literature [5,13,16] and with Food and Beverage Processers, Blacksmiths, Toolmakers and Machine-Tool Operators, Material-Handling and Related Equipment Operators, Dockers and Freight Handlers as observed in other original studies [5][6][7][8]12].…”

Putative Risk Factors of Prostate Cancer in Unscreened Ghanaian Men

“…The nding contradicts the study of the Ghana prostate study, which found a high association of prostate cancer amongst men in formal occupation [48]. The study agrees to studies that have associated informal work such as farming, construction as posing a high risk to prostate cancer [49,50]. Even though we did not isolate speci c occupation and its association with prostate cancer, we can infer that since most of the general population in the study setting are into farming and strenuous activitybased work, physical activity may play a role.…”

Cancer Incidence in World Trade Center Rescue and Recovery Workers: 14 Years of Follow-Up

“…We cannot rule out the role of unmeasured confounding for those risk factors unavailable in this study but known to be associated with the reported cancers (eg, family history of cancer, ultraviolet radiation from the sun, diet) or residual confounding because of imperfectly measured risk factors (eg, pack-years smoking) in the reported estimates. Similarly, a large proportion of our study sample comprises firefighters, police, and construction workers, and increased cancer incidence among these occupation-specific groups has been previously reported ( 8 , 31 , 32 , 55 ). Occupational details (eg, years of service) were unavailable in this study, making it difficult to rule out the role of occupation in reported estimates ( 28 , 56 ).…”