Comparison of exposure assessment methods for occupational carcinogens in a multi-centre lung cancer case–control study

• Published in: Occupational and environmental medicine (London, England) England), 2011-02, Vol.68 (2), p.148-153
• Main Authors: Peters, Susan, Vermeulen, Roel, Cassidy, Adrian, Mannetje, Andrea 't, van Tongeren, Martie, Boffetta, Paolo, Straif, Kurt, Kromhout, Hans
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Asbestos; Asbestos - toxicity; Assessments; Biological and medical sciences; cancer; Carcinogenesis, carcinogens and anticarcinogens; Carcinogens; Carcinogens - toxicity; Case control studies; Case studies; Chemical agents; Epidemiologic Methods; epidemiology; Estimates; Estimation methods; Europe - epidemiology; Exposure; Exposure assessment; Exposure misclassification; Female; Heterogeneity; Humans; Job titles; Lung cancer; Lung neoplasms; Lung Neoplasms - chemically induced; Lung Neoplasms - epidemiology; Male; Medical research; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; multi-centre study; Occupational; Occupational Diseases - chemically induced; Occupational Diseases - epidemiology; Occupational Exposure - adverse effects; Occupational Exposure - analysis; Occupational Exposure - statistics & numerical data; Pneumology; Population studies; Questionnaires; Research universities; Risk; Silica; Silicon dioxide; Silicon Dioxide - toxicity; Tumors; Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum; Vehicle Emissions - toxicity
• ISSN: 1351-0711; 1470-7926
• DOI: 10.1136/oem.2010.055608

ObjectivesRetrospective exposure assessment remains a problematic aspect of population-based case–control studies. Different methods have been developed, including case-by-case expert assessment and job–exposure matrices (JEM). The present analyses compare exposure prevalence and risk estimates derived by different exposure assessment methods.MethodsIn the context of a case–control study conducted in seven European countries, exposure was estimated for asbestos, diesel motor emissions (DME) and crystalline silica, using three different assessment methods. First, experts assigned exposures to all reported jobs on a case-by-case basis. Second, a population-specific JEM (PSJEM) was developed using the expert assessments of controls only, and re-applied to all study subjects. Third, an independent general population JEM (GPJEM) was created by occupational exposure experts not involved in the original study, and applied to study subjects. Results from these methods were compared.ResultsThere was poor to fair agreement in assigned exposure between expert assessment and the GPJEM (kappas: asbestos 0.17; DME 0.48; silica 0.38). Exposure prevalence was significantly heterogeneous (p