Search

Background Night shift work may acutely disrupt the circadian rhythm, with possible carcinogenic effects. Prostate cancer has few established risk factors though night shift work, a probable human carcinogen, may increase the risk. We aimed to study the association between night shift work and chlorinated degreasing agents (CDAs) as possible endocrine disrupters in relation to aggressive prostate cancer as verified malignancies. Methods We conducted a case-cohort study on 299 aggressive prostate cancer cases and 2056 randomly drawn non-cases in the Norwegian Offshore Petroleum Workers cohort (1965–98) with linkage to the Cancer Registry of Norway (1953–2019). Work history was recorded as years with day, night, and rollover (rotating) shift work, and CDA exposure was assessed with expert-made job-exposure matrices. Weighted Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for aggressive prostate cancer, adjusted for education and year of first employment, stratified by 10-year birth cohorts, and with 10, 15, and 20 years of exposure lag periods. Results Compared with day work only, an increased hazard of aggressive prostate cancer (HR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.18–2.91; P -trend = 0.046) was found in workers exposed to ≥19.5 years of rollover shift work. This persisted with longer lag periods (HR = 1.90, 95% CI 0.92–3.95; P -trend = 0.007). The exposure-hazard curve for a non-linear model increased linearly (HRs ≥1.00) for 18–26 years of rollover shift work. No association was found with CDA exposure. Conclusions Long-term exposure to rollover shift work may increase the hazard of aggressive prostate cancer in offshore petroleum workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most antihypertensives can induce dermal photosensitivity, which may increase melanoma risk. However, corroborating evidence is limited. We examined the associations between use of antihypertensives and melanoma risk.Methods: A nationwide nested case-control study was conducted using data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, the National Registry and the Norwegian Prescription Database in 2004-15. Ten controls were randomly selected for each melanoma case, matched on sex and birth year. The study included 12 048 cases and 117 895 controls. We estimated rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were adjusted for ambient ultraviolet radiation (UVR). We additionally performed active comparator analyses, and sensitivity analyses by only including new users, distinguishing between exclusive and mixed users, allowing for different latency periods, and subgroup analyses by melanoma subtype and clinical stage.Results: Compared with non-use, we observed a slightly increased melanoma risk in users of diuretics (RR 1.08, CI 1.01-1.15), calcium-channel blockers (RR 1.10, CI 1.04-1.18) and drugs affecting the renin-angiotensin system (RR 1.10, CI 1.04-1.16), but not for beta blockers (RR 0.97, CI 0.92-1.03). We found no heterogeneity of associations by melanoma subtype or clinical stage and no dose-response relationship between the cumulative defined daily doses (DDDs) and melanoma. No interaction was found between cumulative DDDs and ambient UVR.Conclusions: Weak associations, with lack of a dose-response relationship and lack of interactions with ambient UVR, in the DDD analysis in this nationwide study do not support a causal relationship between antihypertensives and melanoma risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers conducting observational studies of exposure-cancer associations must make decisions regarding the selection and censoring of study subjects with respect to their cancer history. Given available information, this may include cancers prior to start of follow-up (prevalent cases), and multiple primary cancers (MPCs) at the same or different time-points during follow-up. The choice of analytical strategy may have implications for statistical power and for potential biases. We discuss herein two approaches, the "all cancer approach" and the "first primary cancer approach". Each contains a set of criteria, primarily for, but not limited to, cohort studies of exposure-cancer associations. Both approaches exclude subjects with prevalent cancers at start of follow-up to avoid information and selection bias but differ in terms of case definition and censoring criteria. In the "all cancer approach", subjects are censored on non-eligible cancer subtypes of the cancer under study, though subjects with MPCs are not censored on other incident cancers preceding or occurring simultaneously (at time of diagnosis) with the cancer under study. To limit the influence of prior treatment regimens, the "first primary cancer approach" censors subjects upon any first primary incident cancer not under study, including any "simultaneous" MPCs, as well as non-eligible subtypes of the cancer under study. Depending on the cancer under study, these approaches may yield different estimates of the exposure-cancer association and may in this regard be utilized for sensitivity analyses. These alternative approaches are presented and discussed here as a potential resource and source of further discussion for peers in the field of cancer epidemiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]