You are here

Prostate cancer surveillance by occupation and industry: the Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC)

TitleProstate cancer surveillance by occupation and industry: the Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC)
Year of Publication2018
AuthorsSritharan, J., MacLeod J., Harris S., Cole D. C., M. Harris A., Tjepkema M., Peters P. A., and Demers P. A.
JournalCancer Medicine
VolumeePub ahead of print
Pages1 - 11
Keywordscohort, industry, occupation, prostate cancer, surveillance

As there are no well-established modifiable risk factors for prostate cancer, further evidence is needed on possible factors such as occupation. Our study uses one of the largest Canadian worker cohorts to examine occupation, industry, and prostate cancer and to assess patterns of prostate cancer rates. The Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC) was established by linking the 1991 Canadian Census Cohort to the Canadian Cancer Database (1969–2010), Canadian Mortality Database (1991–2011), and Tax Summary Files (1981–2011). A total of 37,695 prostate cancer cases were identified in men aged 25–74 based on age at diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazards ratios and 95% confidence intervals. In men aged 25–74 years, elevated risks were observed in the following occupations: senior management (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04–1.20); office and administration (HR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.11–1.27); finance services (HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.04–1.14); education (HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00–1.11); agriculture and farm management (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06–1.17); farm work (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.01–1.21); construction managers (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01–1.14); firefighting (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01–1.36); and police work (HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09–1.36). Decreased risks were observed across other construction and transportation occupations. Results by industry were consistent with occupation results. Associations were identified for white-collar, agriculture, protective services, construction, and transportation occupations. These findings emphasize the need for further study of job-related exposures and the potential influence of nonoccupational factors such as screening practices.

Document URL