Sensitivity analyses of exposure estimates from a quantitative job-exposure matrix (SYN-JEM) for use in community-based studies

Job-Exposure Matrix: A Useful Tool for Incorporating Workplace Exposure Data Into Population Health Research and Practice

Workplace exposures to physical, chemical, and psychosocial factors account for a large burden of chronic diseases. Obtaining useful estimates of current and past workplace exposures is challenging, particularly in large general population studies. Job-exposure matrices (JEMs) are a useful tool for exposure assessment, particularly when no individual level exposure data are available. A JEM provides a cross-tabulation of job titles (sometimes combined with industry) and estimated exposures to workers carrying out these jobs during different time periods. The major limitation of JEMs is that they do not account for individual variation in exposures within the same job. This limitation is offset by the advantages of low cost, wide applicability, lack of bias from self-reporting, and the ability to estimate exposures based on job titles when no other exposure data exist. There is growing use of JEMs in research examining the role of workplace exposures in the development of chronic diseases, and interest in their application to public health practice. This paper provides a scoping review of JEM use, some examples of JEMs, and brief guidance for the application of JEMs in epidemiological research. In conclusion, JEMs provide a useful tool for researchers and public health practitioners to estimate occupational exposures in large scale epidemiological studies relevant to many health conditions.

Asbestos Exposure in Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma included in the PRIMATE Study, Lombardy, Italy

The PRIMATE study is an Italian translational research project, which aims to identify personalized biomarkers associated with clinical characteristics of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). For this purpose, characteristics of MPM patients with different degrees of asbestos exposure will be compared to identify somatic mutations, germline polymorphism, and blood inflammatory biomarkers. In this framework, we assessed exposure to asbestos for 562 cases of MPM extracted from the Lombardy region Mesothelioma Registry (RML), for which a complete interview based on a standardized national questionnaire and histopathological specimens were available. Exposure assessment was performed: (1) through experts' evaluation (considered as the gold standard for the purpose of this study), according to the guidelines of the Italian National Mesothelioma Registry (ReNaM) and (2) using a job-exposure matrix (SYN-JEM) to obtain qualitative (ever/never) and quantitative estimates of occupational asbestos exposure (cumulative exposure expressed in fibers per mL (f/mL)). The performance of SYN-JEM was evaluated against the experts' evaluation. According to experts' evaluation, occupational asbestos exposure was recognized in 73.6% of men and 23.6% of women; furthermore, 29 men (7.8%) and 70 women (36.9%) had non-occupational exposure to asbestos. When applying SYN-JEM, 225 men (60.5%) and 25 women (13.2%) were classified as occupationally exposed, with a median cumulative exposure higher for men (1.7 f/mL-years) than for women (1.2 f/mL-years). The concordance between the two methods (Cohen’s kappa) for occupational exposure assessment was 0.46 overall (0.41 in men, and 0.07 in women). Sensitivity was higher in men (0.73) than in women (0.18), while specificity was higher in women (0.88) than in men (0.74). Overall, both methods can be used to reconstruct past occupational exposure to asbestos, each with its own advantages and limitations.

Respirable Crystalline Silica Exposure, Smoking, and Lung Cancer Subtype Risks. A Pooled Analysis of Case-Control Studies

Rationale: Millions of workers around the world are exposed to respirable crystalline silica. Although silica is a confirmed human lung carcinogen, little is known regarding the cancer risks associated with low levels of exposure and risks by cancer subtype. However, little is known regarding the disease risks associated with low levels of exposure and risks by cancer subtype.Objectives: We aimed to address current knowledge gaps in lung cancer risks associated with low levels of occupational silica exposure and the joint effects of smoking and silica exposure on lung cancer risks.Methods: Subjects from 14 case-control studies from Europe and Canada with detailed smoking and occupational histories were pooled. A quantitative job-exposure matrix was used to estimate silica exposure by occupation, time period, and geographical region. Logistic regression models were used to estimate exposure-disease associations and the joint effects of silica exposure and smoking on risk of lung cancer. Stratified analyses by smoking history and cancer subtypes were also performed.Measurements and Main Results: Our study included 16,901 cases and 20,965 control subjects. Lung cancer odds ratios ranged from 1.15 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.27) to 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.60) for groups with the lowest and highest cumulative exposure, respectively. Increasing cumulative silica exposure was associated (P trend < 0.01) with increasing lung cancer risks in nonsilicotics and in current, former, and never-smokers. Increasing exposure was also associated (P trend ≤ 0.01) with increasing risks of lung adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and small cell carcinoma. Supermultiplicative interaction of silica exposure and smoking was observed on overall lung cancer risks; superadditive effects were observed in risks of lung cancer and all three included subtypes.Conclusions: Silica exposure is associated with lung cancer at low exposure levels. An exposure-response relationship was robust and present regardless of smoking, silicosis status, and cancer subtype.

Use and Reliability of Exposure Assessment Methods in Occupational Case-Control Studies in the General Population: Past, Present, and Future

Introduction

Retrospective occupational exposure assessment has been challenging in case-control studies in the general population. We aimed to review (i) trends of different assessment methods used in the last 40 years and (ii) evidence of reliability for various assessment methods.

Methods

Two separate literature reviews were conducted. We first reviewed all general population cancer case-control studies published from 1975 to 2016 to summarize the exposure assessment approach used. For the second review, we systematically reviewed evidence of reliability for all methods observed in the first review.

Results

Among the 299 studies included in the first review, the most frequently used assessment methods were self-report/assessment (n = 143 studies), case-by-case expert assessment (n = 139), and job-exposure matrices (JEMs; n = 82). Usage trends for these methods remained relatively stable throughout the last four decades. Other approaches, such as the application of algorithms linking questionnaire responses to expert-assigned exposure estimates and modelling of exposure with historical measurement data, appeared in 21 studies that were published after 2000. The second review retrieved 34 comparison studies examining methodological reliability. Overall, we observed slightly higher median kappa agreement between exposure estimates from different expert assessors (~0.6) than between expert estimates and exposure estimates from self-reports (~0.5) or JEMs (~0.4). However, reported reliability measures were highly variable for different methods and agents. Limited evidence also indicates newer methods, such as assessment using algorithms and measurement-calibrated quantitative JEMs, may be as reliable as traditional methods.

Conclusion

The majority of current research assesses exposures in the population with similar methods as studies did decades ago. Though there is evidence for the development of newer approaches, more concerted effort is needed to better adopt exposure assessment methods with more transparency, reliability, and efficiency.

Peritoneal mesothelioma and asbestos exposure: a population-based case-control study in Lombardy, Italy

OBJECTIVES

Asbestos is the main risk factor for peritoneal mesothelioma (PeM). However, due to its rarity, PeM has rarely been investigated in community-based studies. We examined the association between asbestos exposure and PeM risk in a general population in Lombardy, Italy.

METHODS

From the regional mesothelioma registry, we selected PeM cases diagnosed in 2000-2015. Population controls (matched by area, gender and age) came from two case-control studies in Lombardy on lung cancer (2002-2004) and pleural mesothelioma (2014). Assessment of exposure to asbestos was performed through a quantitative job-exposure matrix (SYN-JEM) and expert evaluation based on a standardised questionnaire. We calculated period-specific and gender-specific OR and 90% CI using conditional logistic regression adjusted for age, province of residence and education.

RESULTS

We selected 68 cases and 2116 controls (2000-2007) and 159 cases and 205 controls (2008-2015). The ORs for ever asbestos exposure (expert-based, 2008-2015 only) were 5.78 (90% CI 3.03 to 11.0) in men and 8.00 (2.56 to 25.0) in women; the ORs for definite occupational exposure were 12.3 (5.62 to 26.7) in men and 14.3 (3.16 to 65.0) in women. The ORs for ever versus never occupational asbestos exposure based on SYN-JEM (both periods) were 2.05 (90% CI 1.39 to 3.01) in men and 1.62 (0.79 to 3.27) in women. In men, clear positive associations were found for duration, cumulative exposure (OR 1.33 (1.19 to 1.48) per fibres/mL-years) and latency.

CONCLUSIONS

Using two different methods of exposure assessment we provided evidence of a clear association between asbestos exposure and PeM risk in the general population.

The Role of Occupational and Environmental Exposures in the Pathogenesis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Narrative Literature Review

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic interstitial lung disease characterised by a progressive and irreversible decline in lung function, which is associated with poor long-term survival. The pathogenesis of IPF is incompletely understood. An accumulating body of evidence, obtained over the past three decades, suggests that occupational and environmental exposures may play a role in the development of IPF. This narrative literature review aims to summarise current understanding and the areas of ongoing research into the role of occupational and environmental exposures in the pathogenesis of IPF.

Occupational risk factors for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Southern Europe: a case-control study

Background

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive fibrosing interstitial pneumonia of unknown cause associated with the histopathologic and/or radiologic pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP). Occupational risk factors have been proposed to be associated with UIP. The aim of this case-control study is to evaluate the relationship between UIP pattern and occupational exposure in Southern Europe.

Methods

Sixty nine cases with a UIP radiological pattern at CT-scan were selected from a clinical database of the University Hospital of Perugia, Umbria, between January 2010 and December 2013. Controls (n = 277) not reporting doctor diagnosed pulmonary fibrosis, were ascertained casually among general population from the same catching area of cases. Data were collected by a questionnaire used previously in a similar study. Logistic regression models, adjusted for gender, age and smoking, were performed to evaluate the association between UIP and occupational exposure.

Results

Farmers, veterinarians and gardeners (OR = 2.73, 95%CI = 1.47–5.10), metallurgical and steel industry workers (OR = 4.80, 95%CI = 1.50–15.33) were occupations associated with UIP. Metal dust and fumes and organic dust were risk factors for UIP. Increasing the length of occupational exposure in jobs at risk of pulmonary fibrosis, increased the risk of having UIP.

Conclusions

This case control study confirm partially the results from previous similar studies. Some discrepancies could be explained by the different geographical origins of the population under study, reflecting also different occupational exposures.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12890-018-0644-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Exposure-Response Analyses of Asbestos and Lung Cancer Subtypes in a Pooled Analysis of Case-Control Studies

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding risk and the shape of the exposure-response curve at low asbestos exposure levels. We estimated the exposure-response for occupational asbestos exposure and assessed the joint effect of asbestos exposure and smoking by sex and lung cancer subtype in general population studies.

METHODS

We pooled 14 case-control studies conducted in 1985-2010 in Europe and Canada, including 17,705 lung cancer cases and 21,813 controls with detailed information on tobacco habits and lifetime occupations. We developed a quantitative job-exposure-matrix to estimate job-, time period-, and region-specific exposure levels. Fiber-years (ff/ml-years) were calculated for each subject by linking the matrix with individual occupational histories. We fit unconditional logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and trends.

RESULTS

The fully adjusted OR for ever-exposure to asbestos was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.18, 1.31) in men and 1.12 (95% CI, 0.95, 1.31) in women. In men, increasing lung cancer risk was observed with increasing exposure in all smoking categories and for all three major lung cancer subtypes. In women, lung cancer risk for all subtypes was increased in current smokers (ORs ~two-fold). The joint effect of asbestos exposure and smoking did not deviate from multiplicativity among men, and was more than additive among women.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results in men showed an excess risk of lung cancer and its subtypes at low cumulative exposure levels, with a steeper exposure-response slope in this exposure range than at higher, previously studied levels. (See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B161.).

SYN-JEM: A Quantitative Job-Exposure Matrix for Five Lung Carcinogens

OBJECTIVE

The use of measurement data in occupational exposure assessment allows more quantitative analyses of possible exposure-response relations. We describe a quantitative exposure assessment approach for five lung carcinogens (i.e. asbestos, chromium-VI, nickel, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (by its proxy benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)) and respirable crystalline silica). A quantitative job-exposure matrix (JEM) was developed based on statistical modeling of large quantities of personal measurements.

METHODS

Empirical linear models were developed using personal occupational exposure measurements (n = 102306) from Europe and Canada, as well as auxiliary information like job (industry), year of sampling, region, an a priori exposure rating of each job (none, low, and high exposed), sampling and analytical methods, and sampling duration. The model outcomes were used to create a JEM with a quantitative estimate of the level of exposure by job, year, and region.

RESULTS

Decreasing time trends were observed for all agents between the 1970s and 2009, ranging from -1.2% per year for personal BaP and nickel exposures to -10.7% for asbestos (in the time period before an asbestos ban was implemented). Regional differences in exposure concentrations (adjusted for measured jobs, years of measurement, and sampling method and duration) varied by agent, ranging from a factor 3.3 for chromium-VI up to a factor 10.5 for asbestos.

CONCLUSION

We estimated time-, job-, and region-specific exposure levels for four (asbestos, chromium-VI, nickel, and RCS) out of five considered lung carcinogens. Through statistical modeling of large amounts of personal occupational exposure measurement data we were able to derive a quantitative JEM to be used in community-based studies.

A review of job-exposure matrix methodology for application to workers exposed to radiation from internally deposited plutonium or other radioactive materials

Any potential health effects of radiation emitted from radionuclides deposited in the bodies of workers exposed to radioactive materials can be directly investigated through epidemiological studies. However, estimates of radionuclide exposure and consequent tissue-specific doses, particularly for early workers for whom monitoring was relatively crude but exposures tended to be highest, can be uncertain, limiting the accuracy of risk estimates. We review the use of job-exposure matrices (JEMs) in peer-reviewed epidemiological and exposure assessment studies of nuclear industry workers exposed to radioactive materials as a method for addressing gaps in exposure data, and discuss methodology and comparability between studies. We identified nine studies of nuclear worker cohorts in France, Russia, the USA and the UK that had incorporated JEMs in their exposure assessments. All these JEMs were study or cohort-specific, and although broadly comparable methodologies were used in their construction, this is insufficient to enable the transfer of any one JEM to another study. Moreover there was often inadequate detail on whether, or how, JEMs were validated. JEMs have become more detailed and more quantitative, and this trend may eventually enable better comparison across, and the pooling of, studies. We conclude that JEMs have been shown to be a valuable exposure assessment methodology for imputation of missing exposure data for nuclear worker cohorts with data not missing at random. The next step forward for direct comparison or pooled analysis of complete cohorts would be the use of transparent and transferable methods.