Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Screening for Occupational Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Occupational Cancers

Abstract

Many known and potential human carcinogens are related to workplace exposures. Primary prevention is the optimal prevention strategy for occupational cancer control through activities intended to eliminate harmful exposure(s) in the workplace. Secondary prevention provided by medical screening remains an important component of sound occupational health practice in many instances. One of the aims of secondary prevention is to reduce morbidity and mortality through detection of illness at an early stage when treatment may succeed in altering progression of disease. Medical screening data, ideally collected in a standardized manner, aggregated, and evaluated over time, can also be evaluated as a part of a surveillance program and play an important role in primary prevention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Boffetta P. Epidemiology of environmental and occupational cancer. Oncogene. 2004;23:6392–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Landrigan PJ. The prevention of occupational cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 1996;46:67–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siemiatycki J, Richardson L, Straif K, et al. Listing occupational carcinogens. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112(15):1447–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Cone JE, Rosenberg J. Medical surveillance and biomonitoring for occupational cancer endpoints. Occup Med. 1990;5(3):563–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ward E. Cancer. In: Levy BS, Wegman DH, Baron SL, Sokas RK, editors. Occupational and environmental health: recognizing and preventing disease and injury. 6th ed. Oxford: University Press; 2011. p. 366–97.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bode AM, Dong Z. Cancer prevention research – then and now. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(7):508–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Gochfeld M. Medical surveillance and screening in the workplace: complementary preventive strategies. Environ Res. 1992;59:67–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Silverstein MA. Medical screening, surveillance, and the prevention of occupational disease. J Occup Med. 1990;32(10):1032–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Baker E, Matte T. Occupational health surveillance. In: Rosenstock L, Cullen MR, Brodkin CA, Redlich CA, editors. Textbook of clinical occupational and environmental medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders Company; 2005. p. 76–82.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Halperin WE, Ratcliffe J, Frazier TM, Wilson L, Becker SP, Schulte PA. Medical screening in the workplace: proposed principles. J Occup Med. 1986;28(8):547–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Millar JD. Screening and monitoring: tools for prevention. J Occup Med. 1986;28(8):544–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Matte TD, Fine L, Meinhardt TJ, Baker EL. Guidelines for medical screening in the workplace. Occup Med. 1990;5(3):439–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Atkinson AJ Jr, Colburn WA, DeGruttola VG, et al. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:89–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schulte PA. Opportunities for the development and use of biomarkers. Toxicol Lett. 1995;77:25–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. National Research Council Committee on Biological Markers. Biological markers in environmental health research. Environ Health Perspect. 1987;74:3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schulte PA. Problems in notification and screening of workers at high-risk of disease. J Occup Environ Med. 1986;28(10):951–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schulte PA. The use of biomarkers in surveillance, medical screening, and intervention. Mutat Res Fundam Mol Mech Mutagen. 2005;592(1–2):155–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gallo V, Khan A, Gonzales C, et al. Validation of biomarkers for the study of environmental carcinogens: a review. Biomarkers. 2008;13(5):505–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vineis P, Perera F. Molecular epidemiology and biomarkers in etiologic cancer research: the new in light of the old. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2007;16(10):1954–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10022):945–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Schorge JO. What is new in prevention of ovarian cancer? Obstet Gynecol. 2016;4:795–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:100–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Swenberg JA, Fryar-Tita E, Jeong YC. Biomarkers in toxicology and risk assessment: informing critical dose-response relationships. Chem Res Toxicol. 2008;21(1):253–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gyorffy E, Anna L, Kovács K, Rudnai P, Schoket B. Correlation between biomarkers of human exposure to genotoxins with focus on carcinogen-DNA adducts. Mutagenesis. 2008;23(1):1–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lai Y, Yu R, Hartwell HJ, et al. Measurement of endogenous versus exogenous formaldehyde–induced DNA–protein crosslinks in animal tissues by stable isotope labeling and ultrasensitive mass spectrometry. Cancer Res. 2016;76(9):2652–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kirschner MB, Pulford E, Hoda MA, et al. Fibulin-3 levels in malignant pleural mesothelioma are associated with prognosis but not diagnosis. Br J Cancer. 2015;113:963–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Napolitano A, Antoine DJ, Pellegrini L, et al. HMGB1 and its hyperacetylated isoform are sensitive and specific serum biomarkers to detect asbestos exposure and to identify mesothelioma patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(12):3087–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Valverde M, Rojas E. Environmental and occupational biomonitoring using the comet assay. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2009;681:93–109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Chang CM, Edwards SH, Arab A, et al. Biomarkers of tobacco exposure: summary of an FDA-sponsored public workshop. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2016;26(3):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Christiani D, Mehta A, Yu CL. Genetic susceptibility to occupational exposures. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65:430–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):793–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Brandt-Rauf P, Borak J, Deubner DC. Genetic screening in the workplace. J Occup Environ Med. 2015;57(3):e17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. National Toxicology Program. Report on carcinogens. 12th ed. Research Triangle Park: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rushton L, Hutchings S, Fortunato L, et al. Occupational cancer burden in Great Britain. Br J Cancer. 2012;107:S3–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Straif K. The burden of occupational cancer. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65(12):787–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Viera AJ. Predisease: when does it make sense? Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33:122–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cancer Prevention and Control. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/prevention/screening.htm. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.

  40. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/BrowseRec/Search?s=cancer+screening. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.

  41. Smith RA, Mettlin CJ. Cancer detection. In: Lenhard Jr RE, Osteen RT, Gansler T, editors. Clinical oncology. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2001. p. 75–122.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Levin B, Prorok PC. Principles of screening. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF, editors. Cancer epidemiology and prevention. Oxford: University Press; 2006. p. 1310–7.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Smith RA, Mettlin CJ, Davis KJ, Eyre H. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2000;50:34–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Stojanovica J, Milovanovica S, Pastorinoa R, Iavicolic I, Boccia S. Occupational exposures and genetic susceptibility to urinary tract cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2018;27(5):468–76. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000364.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Schulte PA. Some implications of genetic biomarkers in occupational epidemiology and practice. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2004;30(1):71–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Samuels SW. Medical surveillance-biological, social, and ethical parameters. J Occup Environ Med. 1986;28(8):572–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Samuels SW. The Selikoff agenda and the human genome project: ethics and social issues. In: Samuels SW, Upton AC, editors. Genes, cancer, and ethics in the work environment. Beverly Farms: OEM Press; 1998. p. 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Screening and surveillance: a guide to OSHA standards. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3162.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.

  49. Herbert R, Szeinuk J. Integrating clinical care with prevention of occupational illness and injury. In: Rosenstock L, Cullen MR, Brodkin CA, Redlich CA, editors. Textbook of clinical occupational and environmental medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders Company; 2005. p. 1263–74.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA’s final rule to protect workers from exposure to respirable crystalline silica. https://www.osha.gov/silica/. Accessed 1 May 2017.

  51. Rutstein D, Mullan RJ, Frazier TM, et al. Sentinel health events (occupational): a basis for physician recognition and public health surveillance. Am J Public Health. 1983;73:1054–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Schulte PA, Ehrenberg RL, Singal M. Investigation of occupational cancer clusters: theory and practice. Am J Public Health. 1987;77(1):52–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Moyer VA, on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:330–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Wender R, Fontham ETH, Barrera E Jr, et al. American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:106–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Lung cancer: screening. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/lung-cancer-screening. Accessed 4 May 2017.

  57. Patz EF Jr, Greco E, Gatsonis C, Pinsky P, Kramer BS, Aberle DR. Lung cancer incidence and mortality in National Lung Screening Trial participants who underwent low-dose CT prevalence screening: a retrospective cohort analysis of a randomised, multicentre, diagnostic screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:590–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Wolff H, Vehmas T, Oksa P, Rantanen J, Vainio H. Asbestos, asbestosis, and cancer: the Helsinki criteria for diagnosis and attribution 2014: recommendations. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2015;41(1):5–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Markowitz SB, Levin SM, Miller A, Morabia A. Asbestos, asbestosis, smoking, and lung cancer: new findings from the North American insulator cohort. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(1):90–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Vehmas T, Sauni R, Miller AB, Straif K, Malila N, Smith RA. Screening for asbestos related lung cancer. In: Oksa P, Wolff H, Vehmas T, Pallasaho P, Frilander H, editors. Asbestos, asbestosis, and cancer—Helsinki criteria for diagnosis and attribution 2014. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2014. http://www.ilo.org/safework/cis/WCMS_337080/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm.

  61. Huber A, Landau J, Ebner L, et al. Performance of ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction in lung cancer screening: limiting radiation exposure to the equivalent of conventional chest X-ray imaging. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(10):3643–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Weissman D. Role of chest computed tomography in prevention of occupational respiratory disease: review of recent literature. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;36:433–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Ruder AM, Carreon T, Ward EM, Schulte PA, Halperin W. Bladder cancer. In: Rosenstock L, Cullen MR, Brodkin CA, Redlich CA, editors. Textbook of clinical occupational and environmental medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders Company; 2005. p. 757–66.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Schulte PA. Screening for bladder cancer in high-risk groups – delineation of the problem. J Occup Environ Med. 1990;32(9):789–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Weiderpass E, Vainio H. The need for further preventive measures for occupational bladder cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(9):1291–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Marsh GM, Leviton LC, Talbott EO, et al. Drake chemical workers health registry study – notification and medical surveillance of a group of workers at high-risk of developing bladder cancer. Am J Ind Med. 1991;19(3):291–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Cumberbatch MG, Windsor-Shellard B, Catto JWF. The contemporary landscape of occupational bladder cancer within the United Kingdom: a meta-analysis fo risks over the last 80 years. BJU Int. 2017;119:100–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Vickers AJ, Bennette C, Kibel AS, et al. Who should be included in a clinical trial of screening for bladder cancer? Cancer. 2013;119:143–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. Sensitivity and specificity of commonly available bladder tumor markers versus cytology: results of a comprehensive literature review and meta-analyses. Urology. 2003;61(1):109–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Chen HI, Liou SH, Loh CH, et al. Bladder cancer screening and monitoring of 4,4′-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) exposure among workers in Taiwan. Urology. 2005;66(2):305–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Schmitz-Dräger BJ, Droller M, Lokeshwar VB, et al. Molecular markers for bladder cancer screening, early diagnosis, and surveillance: the WHO/ICUD consensus. Urol Int. 2015;94:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1159/000369357.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Shariat SF, Karam JA, Lotan Y, Karakiewizc PI. Critical evaluation of urinary markers for bladder cancer detection and monitoring. Rev Urol. 2008;10(2):120–35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Fradet Y. Screening for bladder cancer: the best opportunity to reduce mortality. Can Urol Assoc J. 2009;3(6 Suppl 4):S180–3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Katz MH, Steinberg GD. Editorial comment – bladder cancer screening in a high risk asymptomatic population using a point of care urine based protein tumor marker. J Urol. 2009;182(1):58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Pesch B, Taeger D, Johnen G, et al. Screening for bladder cancer with urinary tumor markers in chemical workers with exposure to aromatic amines. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014;87:715–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Larre S, Catto JWF, Cookson MS, et al. Screening for bladder cancer: rationale, limitations, whom to target, and perspectives. Eur Urol. 2013;63:1049–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.12.062.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Carreon T, Ruder AM, Schulte PA, et al. NAT2 slow acetylation and bladder cancer in workers exposed to benzidine. Int J Cancer. 2006;118(1):161–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Wang YH, Yeh SD, Shen KH, et al. A significantly joint effect between arsenic and occupational exposures and risk genotypes/diplotypes of CYP2E1, GSTO1 and GSTO2 on risk of urothelial carcinoma. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2009;241(1):111–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Lotan Y, Elias K, Svatek RS, et al. Bladder cancer screening in a high risk asymptomatic population using a point of care urine based protein tumor marker. J Urol. 2009;182(1):52–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Taiwo OA, Slade MD, Cantley LF, et al. Bladder cancer screening in aluminum smelter workers. J Occup Environ Med. 2015;57(4):421–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Chou R, Dana T. Screening adults for bladder cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(7):461–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. American Cancer Society. Key statistics for basal and squamous cell skin cancers. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/basal-and-squamous-cell-skin-cancer/about/key-statistics.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2017.

  83. John SM, Trakatelli M, Gehring R, et al. Consensus report: recognizing non-melanoma skin cancer, including actinic keratosis, as an occupational disease – a call to action. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(Suppl 3):38–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Shellenberger RA, Kakaraparthi S, Tawagi K. Melanoma screening: thinking beyond the guidelines. Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92(5):693–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Tripp MK, Watson M, Balk SJ, Swetter SM, Gershenwald JE. State of the science on prevention and screening to reduce melanoma incidence and mortality: the time is now. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:460–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Terushkin V, Halpern AC. Melanoma early detection. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2009;23:481–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Cohen DE, Bassiri S, Forrester BG, Nethercott J. Skin cancers. In: Rosenstock L, Cullen MR, Brodkin CA, Redlich CA, editors. Textbook of clinical occupational and environmental medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders Company; 2005. p. 811–24.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Trautmann F, Meier F, Seidler A, Schmitt J. Effects of the German skin cancer screening programme on melanoma incidence and indicators of disease severity. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:912–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Stang A, Garbe C, Autier P, Jockel KH. The many unanswered questions related to the German skin cancer screening programme. Eur J Cancer. 2016;64:83–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Wernli KJ, Henrikson NB, Morrison CC, et al. Screening for skin cancer in adults updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;316(4):436–47. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.5415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Hue L, Makhloufi S, Sall N’Diaye P, et al. Real-time mobile teledermoscopy for skin cancer screening targeting an agricultural population: an experiment on 289 patients in France. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30:20–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Landow SM, Oh DH, Weinstock MA. Teledermatology within the Veterans Health Administration, 2002–2014. Telemed J E Health. 2015;21:769–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Kipen HM, Wartenberg D. Lymphohematopoietic malignancies. In: Rosenstock L, Cullen MR, Brodkin CA, Redlich CA, editors. Textbook of clinical occupational and environmental medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders Company; 2005. p. 744–56.

    Google Scholar 

  94. McHale CM, Smith MT, Zhang L. Application of toxicogenomic profiling to evaluate effects of benzene and formaldehyde: from yeast to human. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1310:74–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Gao A, Yang J, Yang G, Niu P, Tian N. Differential gene expression profiling analysis in workers occupationally exposed to benzene. Sci Total Environ. 2014;472:872–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Creaney J, Robinson BWS. Malignant mesothelioma biomarkers – from discovery to use in clinical practise for diagnosis, monitoring, screening and treatment. Chest. 2017;152(1):143–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.12.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Hirohashi T, Igarashi K, Abe M, Maeda M, Hino O. Retorspective analysis of large-scale research screening of construction workers for the early diagnosis of mesothelioma. Mol Clin Oncol. 2014;2:26–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Breysse PN, Weaver V, Cadorette M, et al. Development of a medical examination program for former workers at a Department of Energy National Laboratory. Am J Ind Med. 2002;42(5):443–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Dasaro CR, Holden WL, Berman KD, et al. Cohort profile: world trade center health program general responder cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(2):e9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Moir W, Zeig-Owens R, Daniels RD, et al. Post-9/11 cancer incidence in world trade center-exposed New York City firefighters as compared to a pooled cohort of firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago, and Philadelphia (9/11/2001–2009). 2016. Am J Ind Med; 59:722–730.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Boffetta P, Zeig-Owens R, Wallenstein S, et al. Cancer in world trade center responders: findings from multiple cohorts and options for future study. Am J Ind Med. 2016;59:96–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Schulte PA, Roth G, Hodson LL, et al. Taking stock of the occupational safety and health challenges of nanotechnology: 2000–2015. J Nanopart Res. 2016;18:159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3459-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Nasterlack M, Zober A, Oberlinner C. Considerations on occupational medical surveillance in employees handling nanoparticles. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008;81(6):721–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Murashov V, Howard J. Risks to health care workers from nano-enabled medical products. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2015;12(6):D75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2015.1006641.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2013-145. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Douglas B. Trout

  2. Respiratory Health Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, WV, USA

    David N. Weissman

Authors
  1. Douglas B. Trout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David N. Weissman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas B. Trout .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    Sisko Anttila

  2. Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Paolo Boffetta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Trout, D.B., Weissman, D.N. (2020). Screening for Occupational Cancer. In: Anttila, S., Boffetta, P. (eds) Occupational Cancers. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30766-0_35

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30766-0_35

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30765-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30766-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation