{Reference Type}: Meta-Analysis
{Title}: An umbrella review of the evidence associating occupational carcinogens and cancer risk at 19 anatomical sites.
{Author}: Xiong X;Zhang S;Liao X;Du J;Zheng W;Hu S;Wei Q;Yang L;
{Journal}: Environ Pollut
{Volume}: 345
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Mar 15
{Factor}: 9.988
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.envpol.2024.123531
{Abstract}: Occupational exposure to carcinogens of increasing cancer risk have been extensively suggested. A robust assessment of these evidence is needed to guide public policy and health care. We aimed to classify the strength of evidence for associations of 13 occupational carcinogens (OCs) and risk of cancers. We searched PubMed and Web of Science up to November 2022 to identify potentially relevant studies. We graded the evidence into convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant according to a standardized classification based on: random-effects p value, number of cancer cases, 95% confidence interval of largest study, heterogeneity between studies, 95% prediction interval, small study effect, excess significance bias and sensitivity analyses with credibility ceilings. The quality of meta-analysis was evaluated by AMSTAR 2. Forty-eight articles yielded 79 meta-analyses were included in current umbrella review. Evidence of associations were convincing (class I) or highly suggeastive (class II) for asbestos exposure and increasing risk of lung cancer among smokers (RR = 8.79, 95%CI: 5.81-13.25 for cohort studies and OR = 8.68, 95%CI: 5.68-13.24 for case-control studies), asbestos exposure and increasing risk of mesothelioma (RR = 4.61, 95%CI: 2.57-8.26), and formaldehyde exposure and increasing risk of sinonasal cancer (RR = 1.68, 95%CI: 1.38-2.05). Fifteen associations were supported by suggestive evidence (class III). In summary, the current umbrella review found strong associations between: asbestos exposure and increasing risk of lung cancer among smokers; asbestos exposure and increasing risk of mesothelioma; and formaldehyde exposure and higher risk of sinonasal cancer. Other associations might be genuine, but substantial uncertainty remains.