Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 139–147 | Cite as

Smoking-adjusted incidence of lung cancer by occupation among Norwegian men



Objective: To use aggregated data on smoking habits and lung cancer incidence in occupations assumed to carry no lung cancer risk to control for confounding in other occupational groups. Methods: Lung cancer incidence was observed from 1971 to 1991 for 53 occupational groups and a group of economically inactive men in a national cohort study. Data on occupation and smoking habits were collected from national surveys during 1965–1980. The relationship between smoking habits and lung cancer incidence was estimated on aggregated level using data from 12 occupational groups that were initially assumed not to be exposed to occupational lung carcinogens. The estimated relationship was used to control confounding from smoking in the other groups. The results were presented as smoking-adjusted incidence ratios. Results: A significant excess risk was found for 26 groups. It was estimated that about 20% of all lung cancer among men could be related to occupation after adjusting for the effect of smoking. Conclusions: Our method provided a clearer picture of the occupational risk and could be useful in other situations where individual information on smoking habits is lacking.

bias (epidemiology) epidemiological research design lung neoplasms occupational exposure smoking 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer(1995) IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. List of IARC evaluations. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Monson RR (1996) Occupation. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF, Jr., eds. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 373-405.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dreyer L, Andersen A, Pukkala E (1997) Avoidable cancers in the Nordic countries. Occupation. APMIS Suppl 76: 68-79.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nurminen M, Karjalainen A (2001) Epidemiologic estimate of the proportion of fatalities related to occupational factors in Finland. Scand J Work Environ Health 27: 161-213.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steenland K, Beaumont J, Halperin W (1984) Methods of control for smoking in occupational cohort mortality studies. Scand J Work Environ Health 10: 143-149.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carstensen JM, Pershagen G, Eklund G (1988) Smoking-adjusted incidence of lung cancer among Swedish men in different occupations. Int J Epidemiol 17: 753-758.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beaumont JJ, Singleton JA, Doebbert G, Riedmiller KR, Brackbill RM, Kizer KW (1992) Adjustment for smoking, alcohol consumption, and socioeconomic status in the California Occupational Mortality Study. Am J Ind Med 21: 491-506.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Axelson O (2002) Alternative for estimating the burden of lung cancer from occupational exposures-some calculations based on data from Swedish men. Scand J Work Environ Health 28: 58-63.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Asp S (1984) Confounding by variable smoking habits in different occupational groups. Scand J Work Environ Health 10: 325-326.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Axelson O, Steenland K (1988) Indirect methods of assessing the effects of tobacco use in occupational studies. Am J Ind Med 13: 105-118.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flanders WD, Khoury MJ (1990) Indirect assessment of confounding: graphic description and limits on e.ect of adjusting for covariates. Epidemiology 1: 239-246.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andersen A, Barlow L, Engeland A, Kjaerheim K, Lynge E, Pukkala E (1999) Work-related cancer in the Nordic countries. Scand J Work Environ Health 25(Suppl 2): 1-116.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arbeidsdirektoratet (1965) Nordisk yrkesklassifisering. Standard for yrkesgruppering i offentlig norsk statistikk. [Nordic Classification of Occupations]. Oslo: Arbeidsdirektoratet.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kjuus H, Skjaerven R, Langard S, Lien JT, Aamodt T (1986) A case-referent study of lung cancer, occupational exposures and smoking. I. Comparison of title-based and exposure-based occupational information. Scand J Work Environ Health 12: 193-202.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    StataCorp (2001) Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Breslow NE, Day NE (1987) Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, Vol. 2. The Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC scientific publications, No. 82, p. 54.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Long JS, Freese J (2001) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation, p. 84.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morgenstern H (1998) Ecologic Study. In: Armitage P, Colton T, eds. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, Vol. 2. Chichester: John Wiley &; Sons Ltd, pp. 1255-1276.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer(1986) Tobacco Smoking. Vol. 38. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dreyer L, Winther JF, Pukkala E, Andersen A (1997) Avoidable cancers in the Nordic countries. Tobacco smoking. APMIS Suppl 76: 9-47.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ronneberg A, Lund KE, Hafstad A (1994) Lifetime smoking habits among Norwegian men and women born between 1890 and 1974. Int J Epidemiol 23: 267-276.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bhatia R, Lopipero P, Smith AH (1998) Diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer. Epidemiology 9: 84-91.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kristensen TS, Lynge E (1993) Lung cancer among butchers and slaughterhouse workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 19: 137-147.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tuchsen F, Nordholm L (1986) Respiratory cancer in Danish bakers: a 10 year cohort study. Br J Ind Med 43: 516-521.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carstensen JM, Bygren LO, Hatschek T (1990) Cancer incidence among Swedish brewery workers. Int J Cancer 45: 393-396.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jensen OM (1979) Cancer morbidity and causes of death among Danish brewery workers. Int J Cancer 23: 454-463.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Statistics Norway(1995) Historical Statistics 1994. Oslo-Kongsvinger: Statistics Norway, p. 231.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kvale G, Bjelke E, Heuch I (1986) Occupational exposure and lung cancer risk. Int J Cancer 37: 185-193.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kjuus H, Langard S, Skjaerven R (1986) A case-referent study of lung cancer, occupational exposures and smoking. III. Etiologic fraction of occupational exposures. Scand J Work Environ Health 12: 210-215.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Romundstad P, Haldorsen T, Ronneberg A (1999) Exposure to PAH and fluoride in aluminum reduction plants in Norway: historical estimation of exposure using process parameters and industrial hygiene measurements. Am J Ind Med 35: 164-174.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grimsrud TK, Berge SR, Resmann F, Norseth T, Andersen A (2000) Assessment of historical exposures in a nickel refinery in Norway. Scand J Work Environ Health 26: 338-345.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Blair A, Hoar SK, Walrath J (1985) Comparison of crude and smoking-adjusted standardized mortality ratios. J Occup Med 27: 881-884.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Siemiatycki J, Wacholder S, Dewar R, Cardis E, Greenwood C, Richardson L (1988) Degree of confounding bias related to smoking, ethnic group, and socioeconomic status in estimates of the associations between occupation and cancer. J Occup Med 30: 617-625.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Blair A, Stewart WF, Stewart PA, et al. (1995) A philosophy for dealing with hypothesized uncontrolled confounding in epidemiological investigations. Med Lav 86: 106-110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cancer Registry of NorwayInstitute of Population-based Cancer ResearchOsloNorway
  2. 2.Unit of Environmental Cancer EpidemiologyInternational Agency for Research on CancerLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations