Comparison of cancer incidence and mortality in the Norwegian Fire Departments Cohort, 1960–2018. Issue 11 (19th May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Marjerrison, Niki; Jakobsen, Jarle; Demers, Paul A; Grimsrud, Tom K; Hansen, Johnni; Martinsen, Jan Ivar; Nordby, Karl-Christian; Veierød, Marit B; Kjærheim, Kristina
• Is Part Of: Occupational and environmental medicine. Volume 79:Issue 11(2022)
• Page Start: 736
• Page End: 743
• Publication Date: 2022-05-19
• Subjects: firefighters -- occupational health -- epidemiology; Medicine, Industrial -- Periodicals; Environmental health -- Periodicals; 616.980305
• DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2022-108331
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1351-0711

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Elevated risk of cancer at several sites has been reported among firefighters, although with mixed findings. The purpose of this study was to calculate standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) for cancer and compare them to assess whether use of the different measures could be a source of inconsistencies in findings. Methods: The Norwegian Fire Departments Cohort, comprising 4295 male employees who worked at 15 fire departments across Norway, was linked to health outcome registries for the period 1960–2018. SIRs and SMRs were derived using national reference rates. Results: Overall, we observed elevated incidence of colon cancer (SIR, 95% CI 1.27, 1.01 to 1.58), mesothelioma (2.59, 1.12 to 5.11), prostate cancer (1.18, 1.03 to 1.34) and all sites combined (1.15, 1.08 to 1.23). Smaller, non-significant elevations were found for mortality of colon cancer (SMR, 95% CI 1.20, 0.84 to 1.67) and mesothelioma (1.66, 0.34 to 4.86), while SMR for prostate cancer was at unity. Potential errors were observed in some of the mortality data, notably for mesothelioma cases. Among those who died of cancer, 3.7% (n=14) did not have a prior diagnosis of malignancy at the same site group. Conclusions: Assessment of incidence or mortality did not greatly influence the interpretation of results. The most prominent differences in SIR and SMR appeared to be due to inconsistencies between sites of cancer diagnosis and cause of death. The difference in SIR and SMR for prostate cancer suggested a detection bias from differential screening practices.