Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Screening for Occupational Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

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 Central  PubMed  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 Central  PubMed  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 Jr AJ, 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 Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(10):1954–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

  21. 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 

  22. 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 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rueff J, Teixeirab JP, Santosa LS, Gaspara JF. Genetic effects and biotoxicity monitoring of occupational styrene exposure. Clin Chim Acta. 2009;399(1–2):8–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 

  27. American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures. 2010. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/acspc-024113.pdf. Accessed 6 Jun 2011.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rushton L, Hutchings S, Brown T. The burden of cancer at work: estimation as the first step to prevention. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65:789–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2011: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(1):8–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cancer prevention and control. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/prevention/screening.htm. Accessed 6 Jun 2011.

  33. Recommendations for adults – cancer. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/adultrec.htm#cancer. Accessed 6 Jun 2011.

  34. 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 

  35. 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 

  36. 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 

  37. 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 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 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 

  40. Screening and surveillance: a guide to OSHA standards. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3162.pdf. Accessed 23 Jun 2011.

  41. 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 

  42. 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Humphrey LL, Teutsch S, Johnson M. Lung cancer screening with sputum cytologic examination, chest radiography, and computed tomography: an update for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(9):740–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. McCunney RJ. Should we screen for occupational lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography? J Occup Environ Med. 2006;48:1328–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Clin B, Morlais F, Guittet L, et al. Performance of chest radiograph and CT scan for lung cancer screening in asbestos-exposed workers. Occup Environ Med. 2009;66(8):529–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Statement concerning the national lung screening trial. http://www.cancer.gov/images/DSMB-NLST.pdf. Accessed July 2011.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wood DE, Eapen GA, Ettinger DS, et al. Lung cancer screening. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012;10:240–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. American Lung Association. Providing guidance on lung cancer screening to patients and physicians. 2012. Available at http://www.lung.org/finding-cures/research-news/new-screening-guidelines/lung-cancer-screening.pdf. Accessed 7 Jun 2013.

  51. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, et al. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2418–2429.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jacobson FL, Austin JH, Field JK, et al. Development of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for low-dose computed tomography scans to screen for lung cancer in North America: recommendations of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Task Force for lung cancer screening and surveillance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(1):25–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Screening for lung cancer recommendation statement 2013. Available at http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf13/lungcan/lungcanfinalrs.htm. Accessed 9 April 2014.

  54. Mettler F, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008;248(1):254–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Brenner D. Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology. 2004;231(2):440–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Markowitz SB, Miller A, Miller J, et al. Ability of low-dose helical CT to distinguish between benign and malignant noncalcified lung nodules. Chest. 2007;131:1028–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Baldwin DR, Duffy SW, Wald NJ, et al. UK lung screen (UKLS) nodule management protocol: modelling of a single screen randomised controlled trial of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Thorax. 2011;66:308–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tammemagi MC, Lam SC, McWilliams AM, et al. Incremental value of pulmonary function and sputum DNA image cytometry in lung cancer risk prediction. Cancer Prev Res. 2011;4(4):552–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Tammemagi MC, Pinsky PF, Caporaso NE, et al. Lung cancer risk prediction: prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial models and validation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Vehmas T. Factors influencing the prevalence of pulmonary nodules in lung cancer screening trials: re-evaluation of a CT study. Ups J Med Sci. 2008;113(3):279–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Mazzone PJ. Lung cancer screening: an update, discussion, and look ahead. Curr Oncol Rep. 2010;12(4):226–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Pegna AL, Picozzi G. Lung cancer screening update. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2009;15(4):327–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Twombly R. Lung cancer screening debate continues despite international CT study results. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(3):190–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 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 

  65. 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 

  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. 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 

  68. 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 

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

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 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 

  71. 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 

  72. 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 

  73. 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 

  74. 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 

  75. Skin cancer facts. http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/SunandUVExposure/skin-cancer-facts. Accessed 13 Jun 2011.

  76. Silva JH, de Sa’ BC, de A’vila ALR, et al. Atypical mole syndrome and dysplastic nevi: identification of populations at risk for developing melanoma – review article. Clinics. 2011;66(3):493–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Kasparian NA, McLoone JK, Meiser B. Skin cancer-related prevention and screening behaviors: a review of the literature. J Behav Med. 2009;32(5):406–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Osborne JE. Skin cancer screening and surveillance. Br J Dermatol. 2002;146(5):745–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Lin JS, Eder M, Weinmann S. Behavioral counseling to prevent skin cancer: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(3):190–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 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 

  81. Goldberg MS, Doucette JT, Lim HW, et al. Risk factors for presumptive melanoma in skin cancer screening: American Academy of Dermatology National Melanoma/Skin Cancer Screening Program experience 2001–2005. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57(1):60–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Markovic SN, Erickson LA, Rao RD, et al. Malignant melanoma in the 21st century, part 1: epidemiology, risk factors, screening, prevention, and diagnosis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(3):364–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Wolff T, Tai E, Miller T. Screening for skin cancer: an update of the evidence for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(3):194–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Swetter SM, Waddell BL, Vazquez MD, Khosravi VS. Increased effectiveness of targeted skin cancer screening in the Veterans Affairs population of Northern California. Prev Med. 2003;36(2):164–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Schmitt J, Seidler A, Diegpen TL, Bauer A. Occupational ultraviolet light exposure increases the risk for the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164(2):291–307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. 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 

  87. McDevitt MA, Condon M, Stamberg J, Karpa JE, McDiarmid M. Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) in bone marrow and peripheral blood of leukemia patients: implications for occupational surveillance. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2007;629(1):24–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Zhang LP, Lan Q, Guo W, et al. Chromosome-Wide Aneuploidy Study (CWAS) in workers exposed to an established leukemogen, benzene. Carcinogenesis. 2011;32(4):605–12.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Zhang LP, Tang X, Rothman N, et al. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde, hematotoxicity, and leukemia-specific chromosome changes in cultured myeloid progenitor cells. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(1):80–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Park EK, Sandrini A, Yates DH, et al. Soluble mesothelin-related protein in an asbestos-exposed population – the dust diseases board cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;178(8):832–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. van Meerbeeck JP, Hillerdal G. Screening for mesothelioma – more harm than good? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;178(8):781–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Pass HI, Carobone M. Current status of screening for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;21:97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  93. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer topic page. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspscerv.htm. Accessed 6 May 2013.

  94. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer topic page. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspscolo.htm. Accessed 6 May 2013.

  95. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer topic page. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm. Accessed 6 May 2013.

  96. Driscoll T, Nelson DI, Steenland K, et al. The global burden of disease due to occupational carcinogens. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48:419–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Stevens RG, Hansen J, Costa G, et al. Considerations of circadian impact for defining ‘shift work’ in cancer studies: IARC Working Group Report. Occup Environ Med. 2011;68:154–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Clin B, Morlais F, Launoy G, et al. Cancer incidence within a cohort occupationally exposed to asbestos: a study of dose response relationships. Occup Environ Med. 2011;68:832–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Smith RA, Brooks D, Cokkinides V, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2013: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines, current issues in cancer screening, and new guidance on cervical cancer screening and lung cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(2):87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. 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 

  101. Moline JM, Herbert R, Levin S, et al. WTC medical monitoring and treatment program: comprehensive health care response in aftermath of disaster. Mt Sinai J Med. 2008;75(2):67–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Moline JM, Herbert R, Crowley L, et al. Multiple myeloma in World Trade Center responders: a case series. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(8):896–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Trout DB, Schulte PA. Medical surveillance, exposure registries, and epidemiologic research for workers exposed to nanomaterials. Toxicology. 2010;269(2–3):128–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. 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 

  105. Fischman M, Storey E, McCunney RJ, Kosnett M. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health nanomaterials and worker health conference – medical surveillance session summary report. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53(6 Suppl):S35–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Schulte PA, Trout DB. Nanomaterials and worker health: medical surveillance, exposure registries, and epidemiologic research. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53(6 Suppl):S3–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Nasterlack M. Role of medical surveillance in risk management. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53(6 Suppl):S18–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Eileen Storey, Lynne Pinkerton, and Ellen Galloway for assistance in creating this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, R-12, Cincinnati, OH, 45226, USA

    Douglas B. Trout MD, MHS

  2. Education and Information Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Paul A. Schulte PhD

  3. Surveillance Branch, Division of Respiratory Disease Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Simone L. Tramma MD, MS

Authors
  1. Douglas B. Trout MD, MHS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul A. Schulte PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simone L. Tramma MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas B. Trout MD, MHS .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Helsinki University Central Hospital and Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland

    Sisko Anttila

  2. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA

    Paolo Boffetta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Trout, D.B., Schulte, P.A., Tramma, S.L. (2014). Screening for Occupational Cancer. In: Anttila, S., Boffetta, P. (eds) Occupational Cancers. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2825-0_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2825-0_32

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-2824-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-2825-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation