Relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and mesothelioma risk: A systematic review of the scientific literature and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ionizing radiation and mesothelioma have been examined among personnel employed in nuclear power plant and patients treated by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). The association is still controversial; the purpose of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence published in the literature regarding the relationship between ionizing radiation and incidence of mesothelioma and, if possible, estimating strongness of the association by meta-analysis of extracted data. METHODS: Articles included in the systematic review were retrieved by searching among the three main scientific databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. The literature search was conducted in June 2021. A meta-analysis of random effects was conducted, stratified by exposure (EBRT, occupational exposure). The heterogeneity of the summary relative risks (RRs) was assessed using I2  statistics. Publication bias was evaluated graphically through the funnel plot. FINDINGS: The exposure to ionizing radiation could be a risk factor for mesothelioma: both for exposure to high doses for short periods (EBRT) (RR of 3.34 [95% confidence interval, CI 1.24-8.99]) and for exposure to low doses for a prolonged duration (exposure working) (RR of 3.57 [95% CI 2.16-5.89]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the low number of mesotheliomas in the general population, the steadily increased risk among individuals exposed to radiation is still worth considering.

Interaction between occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and tobacco smoking in determining lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While an association between exposure to diesel exhaust (DE) and risk of lung cancer has been reported in several studies, its interaction with tobacco smoking in determining lung cancer risk is not well characterized. This study aims at performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of results of epidemiology studies on this. METHODS: Studies included in the systematic review were identified from PubMed, Scopus, and Embase, without limitation of year of publication or language. Two reviewers independently reviewed the studies and abstracted relevant data from selected studies, applied a customized quality assessment tool and calculated the relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the interaction between DE exposure and tobacco smoking on a multiplicative scale. Next, a random-effects meta-analysis of the interaction RR was conducted. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis, of which two were cohort and five case-control studies. Results on the interaction were heterogeneous (I2 = 45.6%). The summary RR for interaction was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.42-1.46). There was no indication of publication bias. There was no increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking workers exposed to DE. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggested a less-than-multiplicative effect between DE exposure and tobacco smoking in determining lung cancer risk, but the hypothesis of multiplicative interaction cannot be rejected. The small number of relevant studies and the high heterogeneity among them prevent from definite conclusions.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of recent high-quality studies on exposure to particulate matter and risk of lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several aspects of the association between exposure to air pollution and risk of lung cancer remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed at performing a meta-analysis of high-quality cohort studies on exposure to particulate matter (PM) 10 and PM2.5 and risk of lung cancer. METHODS: We identified cohort studies published since 2004, that reported risk estimates of lung cancer for exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 adjusted for tobacco smoking and socioeconomic status, and conducted a meta-analysis based on random-effects models, including stratification by outcome, sex, country, tobacco smoking, and age. RESULTS: Results on PM2.5 exposure were available from 15 studies; the summary relative risk (RR) for an increase of 10 µg/m3 was 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09, 1.23). The corresponding RR for PM10 exposure was 1.23 (95 CI 1.05, 1.40; seven studies). A higher risk was suggested in studies based on lung cancer mortality and in studies conducted in East Asia, while no difference was shown according to sex, smoking status or age. There was no suggestion of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis supported the hypothesis of an association between exposure to PM2.5 or PM10 and risk of lung cancer, and provided evidence that the magnitude of the risk might be higher than previously estimated, and might be modified by outcome and geographic region.