Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Meta-analysis Of Case-referent Studies Of Specific Environmental Or Occupational Pollutants On Lung Cancer.

Rate this question


Guest allan

Question

1: Indian J Cancer., 2006 Oct-Dec;43(4):169-73. Links

Meta-analysis of case-referent studies of specific environmental or occupational pollutants on lung cancer.

Mahjub H,

Sadri GH.

Departments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Hamadan University of Medical sciences, Iran. mahjub@umsha.ac.ir.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis is a statistical tool for combining and integrating the results of independent studies of a given scientific issue. The present investigation was initiated to investigate case-referent studies of lung cancer risk from specific environmental and occupational pollutants, using detailed individual exposure data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: To examine the risk of lung cancer associated with environmental and occupational pollutants, a meta-analysis of published case-control studies was undertaken using a random effects model. For this study, the papers were selected for review from electronic search of PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar during 1990-2006. The principal outcome measure was the odds ratio for the risk of lung cancer. Twelve study reports detailing the relationship between the lung cancer and the type of exposure were identified.

RESULTS: The odds ratio of asbestos, cooking fuel, cooking fumes, motor and diesel exhaust related to lung cancer were 1.67, 1.99, 2.52 and 1.42 (P < 0.001), respectively. The odds ratio of metal fumes related to lung cancer was 1.28 (0.001 P < 0.01). The combined odds ratio for the environmental and occupational exposure related to lung cancer was 1.67 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis of the present study shows the magnitude association between asbestos, cooking fumes, cooking fuels, motor and diesel exhaust, with lung cancer risk. Lung cancer risk may be reduced by controlling exposure levels.

PMID: 17192688 [PubMed - in process]

SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17192688&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 1
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

1 answer to this question

Recommended Posts

1: Occup Environ Med, 1997 Nov;54(11):817-24. Links

Occupational exposure to carcinogens and risk of lung cancer: results from The Netherlands cohort study.

University of Limburg, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate risk of lung cancers associated with common established carcinogenic occupational exposures (asbestos, paint dust, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and welding fumes) in a prospective cohort study among the general population, and to estimate the proportion of lung cancer cases attributable to these occupational exposures.

METHODS: A prospective cohort study on diet, other lifestyle factors, job history, and cancer risk that started in 1986 in The Netherlands on 58,279 men, aged 55-69 years. Based on information about job history obtained from a self-administered questionnaire, case by case expert assessment was carried out to assign to each study subject a cumulative probability of occupational exposure for each carcinogenic exposure. For analysis, a case-cohort approach was used, in which the person-years at risk were estimated from a randomly selected subcohort (n = 1688). After 4.3 years of follow up, 524 lung cancer cases with complete job history were available.

RESULTS: After adjustment for age, each of the other occupational exposures, and for smoking habits and intake of vitamin C, beta-carotene, and retinol, significant associations were found between risk of lung cancer and cumulative probability of occupational exposure to asbestos (relative risk (RR) highest/no exposure = 3.49, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.69 to 7.18, trend P < 0.01 or paint dust (RR highest/no exposure = 2.48, 95% CI 0.88 to 6.97, trend P < 0.01). The population attributable risks (PARs) for the four exposures based on the multivariately adjusted RRs for ever exposed versus never exposed workers were calculated. The PAR of lifetime occupational exposure to asbestos was calculated to be 11.6%.

CONCLUSIONS: This prospective cohort study among the general population showed that occupational exposure to asbestos or paint dust is associated with higher RRs for lung cancer. This study shows that after adjustment for smoking and diet about 11.6% of the cases of lung cancer in men is attributable to lifetime occupational exposure to asbestos.

PMID: 9538355 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Troy Spurlock went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • KMac1181 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • jERRYMCK earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • KMac1181 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Lebro earned a badge
      First Post
  • Our picks

    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 3 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
    • Welcome to hadit!  

          There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not.  Try reading this:

      https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/

         However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.  

         When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait!  Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?"  Not once.  Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.  

          However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.  

      That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot.  There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.  

      Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.  

          Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344

       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use