Evidence Hub

Lung Cancer Risks Associated with Occupational Exposure to Pairs of Five Lung Carcinogens: Results from a Pooled Analysis of Case-Control Studies (SYNERGY)

A. Olsson, L. Bouaoun, J. Schüz, Roel C. H. Vermeulen, T. Behrens, C. Ge, H. Kromhout, J. Siemiatycki et al.

Environmental Health Perspectives, 2024

20,965 participants · 39 citations

Abstract

Background: While much research has been done to identify individual workplace lung carcinogens, little is known about joint effects on risk when workers are exposed to multiple agents. Objectives: We investigated the pairwise joint effects of occupational exposures to asbestos, respirable crystalline silica, metals (i.e., nickel, chromium-VI), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) on lung cancer risk, overall and by major histologic subtype, while accounting for cigarette smoking. Methods: In the international 14-center SYNERGY project, occupational exposures were assigned to 16,901 lung cancer cases and 20,965 control subjects using a quantitative job-exposure matrix (SYN-JEM). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for ever vs. never exposure using logistic regression models stratified by sex and adjusted for study center, age, and smoking habits. Joint effects among pairs of agents were assessed on multiplicative and additive scales, the latter by calculating the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI). Results: All pairwise joint effects of lung carcinogens in men were associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. However, asbestos/metals and metals/PAH resulted in less than additive effects; while the chromium-VI/silica pair showed marginally synergistic effect in relation to adenocarcinoma (RERI: 0.24; CI: 0.02, 0.46; p = 0.05). In women, several pairwise joint effects were observed for small cell lung cancer including…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 20,965 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free